Does the Bible speak of a secret rapture?

[Jacquelyn Stanley]

Does the Bible speak of a secret rapture in Revelation 4:1?
After these things I looked and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this."

[Marsha Lynn]

Does the Bible speak of a secret rapture in Revelation 4:1?
After these things I looked and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this."

I don't see how you could ever start with this verse and get to a secret Rapture. It seems that you would need to start with the idea of a secret Rapture and then lay some pretty heavy symbolism on the verse.

As far as I can see, the revelator is simply being invited to the revelation "of things to come". I'm not sure why we would need the verse to be anything more than that.

Marsha

[John Kennedy]

On CRI (www.cresourcei.org) there's an excellent article entitled "The Rapture - Truth or Speculation" that you might find interesting.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Does the Bible speak of a secret rapture in Revelation 4:1?
After these things I looked and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this."

No. Revelation 4:1 does not speak of a secret rapture.

There is talk of a "rapture" in 1 Thes. 4:17, but it isn't really a secret... (Unless, by secret we mean that the timing will come as surprise.)

1 Thes. 4:17: "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up (raptured) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

There is also a passage in Matthew that is often misconstrued as meaning the Christians are all "raptured" as in taken up to heaven but ...

Matthew 24:37-41
37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

However, in this passage, the comparison is based on Noah. In the Noah story the "righteous" were saved and the sinners were taken away. Vs. 40 & 41 indicate that at the second coming it will happen again. The sinners will be taken (taken away to destruction like the flood took the sinners, as opposed to taken to heaven) while the righteous will be left (as in saved like Noah was left).

Wilson

[David Cash]

I was raised in the Pretribulation (secret) Rapture, Postmillenial Second Coming view that seems to have dominated evangelical eschatology for a good chunk of the 20th century.

Today, I'm less sure of what to believe with regard to the Second Coming. Without looking up references to prove my points tonight, I will say that I am sure that Jesus is coming again; that His return is going to come as a surprise to the earth; that He is going to raise the dead and transform the living; that these risen/changed believers will be caught up in the air with Him; and that He will judge the world. I'm having a hard time finding that this raising/catching up (rapture) is secret. I also am less sure that Scripture calls for a seven year tribulation than I used to be. In other words, beyond the few basic statements above, it's getting harder for me to get excited about much of what has been taught regarding Bible prophecy.

David Cash

[Joanne Vergin]

O.K. so I have a question. Where does the Nazarene church stand on this doctrine? My pstor thinks that the "rapture" will happen after the Trib. I don't get to worked up about it cuz I am a pan-tribulationist. It will pan out however God wants it too. But I am still curious about the current feeling in the church at large.

[Hans Deventer]

O.K. so I have a question. Where does the Nazarene church stand on this doctrine?.

Joanne, this was one of the hot topics when the church was formed. Our ancestors had the great wisdom to leave everyone room for his/her interpretation of the Scriptures, since this is a non-essential.

[Bob Carabbio]

A well-trained theologian skilled in the art of spinning Biblical data can produce almost anything you want, and "prove it" to at least HIS satisfaction. That's why there are so many versions of the absolute truth. In fact even the "rapture" itself (secret or otherwise) is not a universal belief in the church - "Left Behind" not withstanding.

Eschatology, as a whole is really about as useless as used cattle fodder - except for ONE truth - He's coming back for us, and there WILL BE a Judgement for the lost, and a judgement of reward for the Christians. The rest (including what happens afterwards) is all rank speculation.

Personally I'm a "pan-tribber" - I ABSOLUTELY believe it'll all "pan out" in the end.

[Randy Wise]

No. Revelation 4:1 does not speak of a secret rapture.

There is talk of a "rapture" in 1 Thes. 4:17, but it isn't really a secret... (Unless, by secret we mean that the timing will come as surprise.)

1 Thes. 4:17: "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up (raptured) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

There is also a passage in Matthew that is often misconstrued as meaning the Christians are all "raptured" as in taken up to heaven but ...

Matthew 24:37-41
37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

However, in this passage, the comparison is based on Noah. In the Noah story the "righteous" were saved and the sinners were taken away. Vs. 40 & 41 indicate that at the second coming it will happen again. The sinners will be taken (taken away to destruction like the flood took the sinners, as opposed to taken to heaven) while the righteous will be left (as in saved like Noah was left).

Wilson

But in the days of noah the people that left on the arc were saved and the people that stayed were destroyed.

Randy

[Dennis Bratcher]

But in the days of noah the people that left on the arc were saved and the people that stayed were destroyed.

Randy

Except in Matt 24:39 the word "taken" (in Greek, "take up;" the NRSV "swept away" obscures the verb) is used of those who perished in the flood, not those in the ark. That suggests in context that those "taken" in the following examples in verses 40-41 (using the same Greek word) are likewise those who perish. (see The Rapture: Truth or Speculation? (http://www.crivoice.org/rapture.html)" and several related articles there.)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Randy Wise]

Except in Matt 24:39 the word "taken" (in Greek, "take up;" the NRSV "swept away" obscures the verb) is used of those who perished in the flood, not those in the ark. That suggests in context that those "taken" in the following examples in verses 40-41 (using the same Greek word) are likewise those who perish. (see The Rapture: Truth or Speculation? (http://www.crivoice.org/rapture.html)" and several related articles there.)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

HI Dennis, how will the Lord gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other on the last day? What happens to those not taken?
Randy

[Dennis Bratcher]

HI Dennis, how will the Lord gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other on the last day? What happens to those not taken?
Randy

You are assuming that this is a literal and physical description that can be parsed into a timetable or a description of the mechanics of the "End Times". Yet, similar poetic language is used in the Old Testament to speak of God bringing the people back to the land after the exile (Ezek 37), or to speak metaphorically about accountability to God (Isa 13:5). In other words, it is well established poetic language to speak of “everyone” and “everywhere” without saying anything about the specifics of a rapture.

In Revelation the heavenly city comes down to earth. God’s “elect” do not need to go anywhere (except to meet God as he comes to earth, which is what the 1 Thessalonians passage says). Those taken away are those who do not participate in the future Kingdom of God because they have not participated in the present Kingdom.

How will God gather his people? Nowhere does the Bible say how, any more than the Bible tells us how God created the earth, how God orchestrated the return from exile, how a child can be born of a virgin, or exactly how Jesus saves from sin (in spite of our insistence on certain atonement theories). It is enough to say that Jesus will return (or that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” 2 Cor 5:19).

This is the belief in the Second Coming, a belief that is never explained in Scripture in terms of the details of how. That is why the C of N has never taken an official position on the Rapture or millennial theories, yet has made the Second Coming an Article of Faith.

As to what happens to those taken, Scripture is equally clear about the general idea yet never addresses the details. They will suffer “eternal punishment.” Whether that fits what some people want to believe as the teaching of Scripture regarding how and the nature of “suffer eternally” is an entirely different issue.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Randy Wise]

You are assuming that this is a literal and physical description that can be parsed into a timetable or a description of the mechanics of the "End Times". Yet, similar poetic language is used in the Old Testament to speak of God bringing the people back to the land after the exile (Ezek 37), or to speak metaphorically about accountability to God (Isa 13:5). In other words, it is well established poetic language to speak of “everyone” and “everywhere” without saying anything about the specifics of a rapture.

In Revelation the heavenly city comes down to earth. God’s “elect” do not need to go anywhere (except to meet God as he comes to earth, which is what the 1 Thessalonians passage says). Those taken away are those who do not participate in the future Kingdom of God because they have not participated in the present Kingdom.

How will God gather his people? Nowhere does the Bible say how, any more than the Bible tells us how God created the earth, how God orchestrated the return from exile, how a child can be born of a virgin, or exactly how Jesus saves from sin (in spite of our insistence on certain atonement theories). It is enough to say that Jesus will return (or that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” 2 Cor 5:19).

This is the belief in the Second Coming, a belief that is never explained in Scripture in terms of the details of how. That is why the C of N has never taken an official position on the Rapture or millennial theories, yet has made the Second Coming an Article of Faith.

As to what happens to those taken, Scripture is equally clear about the general idea yet never addresses the details. They will suffer “eternal punishment.” Whether that fits what some people want to believe as the teaching of Scripture regarding how and the nature of “suffer eternally” is an entirely different issue.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Hi Dennis, are you stating that 1 thess doesn't speak of a gathering in the air of those left alive when the Lord returns? Are you teaching that when the Lord returns all those who are not the Lords elect will vanish and the only people left on earth at that time will be christians?
Randy

[Randy Wise]

Let me state clearly I don't believe or teach in any gathering of the saints in the air with the Lord other than the 2nd coming. Nor do I believe or teach that those taken are the lost, but those that belong to the Lord when He returns to fight against the nations gathered around Jerusalem. The dead in Christ rise 1st than those left alive are caught up into the air to meet the Lord. The 1st resurrection as the Lord taught takes place on the last day. On this day the door will be shut.
Randy

[Dennis Bratcher]

Hi Dennis, are you stating that 1 thess doesn't speak of a gathering in the air of those left alive when the Lord returns? Are you teaching that when the Lord returns all those who are not the Lords elect will vanish and the only people left on earth at that time will be christians?
Randy

I am not "teaching" anything here. I am simply pointing out what the Bible does and does not say about this topic. As I have already pointed out, most of the ideas associated with the secret rapture are not to be found in Scripture. First Thessalonians 4:17 simply says that those who “believe” will meet Jesus in the air at his second coming as he brings with him those who have already died. The issue in 1 Thessalonians is the fate of those who have died before the Second Coming, which is what Paul is addressing in this passage. Anything else that we may want to force the passage to say is pure speculation.

This passage says nothing about anyone else beyond those who “believe” and cannot be forced to do so, in spite of the Carter Family’s song that talks about all those who will be absent! There is no “gathering” in the air, only a meeting with Jesus as he “descends” to earth (v. 16). And the details of what that "meeting" entails beyond the obvious sense of "greet" are totally absent. And we should note that the passage does not tell us that we will meet Moses, David, and our loved ones in the air; it is the Lord who is to be met! In 1 Thessalonians, there is no “home beyond the sky,” since Jesus is descending to earth (as in Revelation).

(Perhaps our theology of “meeting” has been more influenced by the sentimentality of the Carter Family’s song than it has been by Scripture. The second verse of that song is an amazing jumble of biblical images that purport to be about this “meeting in the air” (Dressed in raiment none but ransomed ones can wear; All who have the wedding garments will be present; At the meeting in the air), but which in Scripture talk about the Second Coming in a range of other metaphors. Even in the song, it is obvious that the images are metaphorical about the Second Coming, not an attempt to describe the physical event in literal detail!)

The bottom line of the entire Thessalonians’ passage is very simple: “. . . we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words” (vv. 17-18). Perhaps we ought to listen to what Paul intends in the passage instead of trying to work it into a physical scenario providing all the details that we wish we knew.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Judy Hamilton]

Interesting thread Jacquelyn
I have enjoyed the responses

[Randy Wise]

Except in Matt 24:39 the word "taken" (in Greek, "take up;" the NRSV "swept away" obscures the verb) is used of those who perished in the flood, not those in the ark. That suggests in context that those "taken" in the following examples in verses 40-41 (using the same Greek word) are likewise those who perish. (see The Rapture: Truth or Speculation? (http://www.crivoice.org/rapture.html)" and several related articles there.)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Hi Dennis, I have taken time to examine what you believe regarding who is taken and who is left behind and your foundation is based on above "suggests". I believe that their will be a 1000 reign period in Christ after He returns and after that time satan will be let loose to deceive the nations once more. This suggests to me there are many non christians left in the world and those left behind are the lost while those caught up into the air as Paul wrote are indeed what Jesus taught about. I think we can both agree there is no secret rapture prior to the 2nd comming.

Grace and peace to you as well

Randy

[Martijn van Beveren]

As interesting as this issue may be, I am truely concerned that a lot of people tend to focus on this whole "rapture story".:eek: The moment we go on interpreting these parts of the bible in a doom/heaven/end of day cenario WE claim to be the GOOD guys going and the OTHERS BAD staying behind and have all the trouble. This is a popular way of thinking, but in my opinion so UN-nazarene.:fun17
I wonder if this is the way of a God who has made us(all), loves us, send His Son and gives us Grace. We should be focussing on the here and now. Not on the there and then. God want our love and He wants us to be busy(love/compassion) with our neighbour/friend/ppl in need.
Be aware that if people get fired up by the rapture story and they will proclaim it as truth, people outside the church won't see the love and grace, they will hear the fear and death in this story. They are the ones who will be condemned. The catholics did it with Hell in history, now we're doing it with rapture. I'ts just not right!

Marty:fav03

[Dennis Bratcher]

Hi Dennis, I have taken time to examine what you believe regarding who is taken and who is left behind and your foundation is based on above "suggests". I believe that their will be a 1000 reign period in Christ after He returns and after that time satan will be let loose to deceive the nations once more. This suggests to me there are many non christians left in the world and those left behind are the lost while those caught up into the air as Paul wrote are indeed what Jesus taught about. I think we can both agree there is no secret rapture prior to the 2nd comming.

Grace and peace to you as well

Randy

Actually the "foundation" is based on the biblical text and the meaning of "taken." It is quite plain in what it says.

I understand your position. It is the classic pretribulation-premillennial position that a lot of people believe (and make movies about), so you are not alone (even though the C of N has not taken a position on this topic). The only difference in what you say is to avoid the idea of a secret rapture.

However, the idea of the Second Coming is directly tied to the revelation of Jesus as Lord, which in biblical terms then results in the accountability of all people to God (sometimes called "the last judgment"). Besides other issues, a major problem with the pre-trib pre-mil position is that it requires a third coming of Jesus that ushers in the final judgment of those left behind. And yet there is no hint of a third coming in Scripture.

The bottom line for me is that the issue is basically irrelevant beyond affirming the Second Coming since we do not know whether any of the positions are true. The Bible never tells us the details anyway (even though I think we do need to take the Bible seriously for what it says and does not say in talking about such issues). An interesting topic of conversation, but finally irrelevant.

Thanks for the dialog.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Randy Wise]

Actually the "foundation" is based on the biblical text and the meaning of "taken." It is quite plain in what it says.

I understand your position. It is the classic pretribulation-premillennial position that a lot of people believe (and make movies about), so you are not alone (even though the C of N has not taken a position on this topic). The only difference in what you say is to avoid the idea of a secret rapture.

However, the idea of the Second Coming is directly tied to the revelation of Jesus as Lord, which in biblical terms then results in the accountability of all people to God (sometimes called "the last judgment"). Besides other issues, a major problem with the pre-trib pre-mil position is that it requires a third coming of Jesus that ushers in the final judgment of those left behind. And yet there is no hint of a third coming in Scripture.

The bottom line for me is that the issue is basically irrelevant beyond affirming the Second Coming since we do not know whether any of the positions are true. The Bible never tells us the details anyway (even though I think we do need to take the Bible seriously for what it says and does not say in talking about such issues). An interesting topic of conversation, but finally irrelevant.

Thanks for the dialog.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

=>However, the idea of the Second Coming is directly tied to the revelation of Jesus as Lord, which in biblical terms then results in the accountability of all people to God (sometimes called "the last judgment"). Besides other issues, a major problem with the pre-trib pre-mil position is that it requires a third coming of Jesus that ushers in the final judgment of those left behind. And yet there is no hint of a third coming in Scripture.

I believe those Christians left alive when the Lord returns are caught up in the air to be changed as mortal flesh and blood can't inherit the eternal kingdom promised by God to those that love Him. I don't see any teaching about going back to heaven for a 3rd coming. Zech 14 seems to suggest the same day. Healing will be provided to the nations. Then the 1000 year period begins.

Randy

[Martijn van Beveren]

Actually the "foundation" is based on the biblical text and the meaning of "taken." It is quite plain in what it says.

I understand your position. It is the classic pretribulation-premillennial position that a lot of people believe (and make movies about), so you are not alone (even though the C of N has not taken a position on this topic). The only difference in what you say is to avoid the idea of a secret rapture.

However, the idea of the Second Coming is directly tied to the revelation of Jesus as Lord, which in biblical terms then results in the accountability of all people to God (sometimes called "the last judgment"). Besides other issues, a major problem with the pre-trib pre-mil position is that it requires a third coming of Jesus that ushers in the final judgment of those left behind. And yet there is no hint of a third coming in Scripture.

The bottom line for me is that the issue is basically irrelevant beyond affirming the Second Coming since we do not know whether any of the positions are true. The Bible never tells us the details anyway (even though I think we do need to take the Bible seriously for what it says and does not say in talking about such issues). An interesting topic of conversation, but finally irrelevant.

Dennis B.

Well Dennis, since I'm reading all this anyway, I might as well say something about it.:basic02 The first thing I am questioning is, how we get from an original passage in scripture to a rapture story. In my oppinion, we are reading something about 2000 years old. We were not there when it was written. We are also not really familiar with all the conflicts, way of living, way of how people thought and what interpretation was behind this. If we just handle scripture as a TRUE word of God where EVERY word is written by Him then I would probably come to the great rapture story myself too. But since there is a danger in taking scripture out of its original story and context and translate it word by word and drawing conclusions from it. I'm figuring that it's better to let it rest or at least review the wider perspective with different outcomes, than the moviescript:fun18 rapture cenario presented by a lot of conservative evangelical movements.
Just to hook onto this thought of this movement, does the term "Holy-Bible" come from them? Is the bible Holy? and if so, does that make it non negotianable to discuss about it?:fav12

marty

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis: "However, the idea of the Second Coming is directly tied to the revelation of Jesus as Lord, which in biblical terms then results in the accountability of all people to God (sometimes called "the last judgment"). Besides other issues, a major problem with the pre-trib pre-mil position is that it requires a third coming of Jesus that ushers in the final judgment of those left behind. And yet there is no hint of a third coming in Scripture."

I believe those Christians left alive when the Lord returns are caught up in the air to be changed as mortal flesh and blood can't inherit the eternal kingdom promised by God to those that love Him. I don't see any teaching about going back to heaven for a 3rd coming. Zech 14 seems to suggest the same day. Healing will be provided to the nations. Then the 1000 year period begins.

Randy

First, Zechariah 14 is not about the second coming of Jesus since he had not yet come a first time when Zechariah was written. It is highly metaphorical and symbolic apocalyptic language that can only be applied to the idea of a second coming by assuming it to be that. In context, it is about the occupation of the land by Persians or Greeks and the impending conflict that would create (which unfolded in the Maccabean Wars in 165 BC). There is clearly messianic expectation in Zechariah, but not in any timetable of future events.

The problem with the above view is: what happens to the people left behind after the 1,000 years? Does earth become hell? That is a problem since all the passages that address the Second Coming say that Jesus will return to earth. Is there a final judgment after the 1,000 years? Yet, that (however it is conceived) is always part of the Second Coming in Scripture. Is the Second Coming to last for a 1,000 years? Then it is not an event at all but an epoch, which is not how Scripture describes the Second Coming. The most common solution is to say that Jesus will come back in judgment on those left behind at the end of 1,000 years. But that is what entails a Third Coming, which challenges the whole idea of the Second Coming in Scripture.

The whole scenario of a two-tiered rapture (in either pre-mil scenario, but especially in the pre-trib pre-mil view) simply cannot be sustained by any close examination of Scripture, unless it is assumed from the beginning and then read back into Scripture. The only way that one can get this is to pick and choose among a range of verses in the Bible without regard to their own context, and then try to piece them together into some scenario (as people like Jack van Impe are quite skilled at doing). Yet, that scenario is most often from the imagination of the one building it (<i>Left Behind</i> is fiction) and has little relationship to Scripture beyond isolated verses.

Once again, Scripture does not tell us any of this and so we simply do not know. The hundreds of scenarios constructed by various people over the past 2,000 years have all been wrong. Maybe that ought to tell us something. Maybe the injunction of Jesus that “no person knows” applies to more than just the exact time of the Second Coming. In fact, that may be the whole point of that passage in Matthew 24.

For me, it is still irrelevant. Since we do not and cannot know, we probably should focus on the “be ready” by living as the people of God in the present (which is the idea in Matthew 24 as well), in that aspect of the Kingdom that has already come. That is why, in the final analysis, I have no interest in “End Times” speculation, beyond dealing with Scripture faithfully.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Well Dennis, since I'm reading all this anyway, I might as well say something about it.:basic02 The first thing I am questioning is, how we get from an original passage in scripture to a rapture story. In my oppinion, we are reading something about 2000 years old. We were not there when it was written. We are also not really familiar with all the conflicts, way of living, way of how people thought and what interpretation was behind this. If we just handle scripture as a TRUE word of God where EVERY word is written by Him then I would probably come to the great rapture story myself too. But since there is a danger in taking scripture out of its original story and context and translate it word by word and drawing conclusions from it. I'm figuring that it's better to let it rest or at least review the wider perspective with different outcomes, than the moviescript:fun18 rapture cenario presented by a lot of conservative evangelical movements.

Just to hook onto this thought of this movement, does the term "Holy-Bible" come from them? Is the bible Holy? and if so, does that make it non negotianable to discuss about it?:fav12

marty

I think you are essentially correct here. I do not think the idea of a rapture comes from Scripture at all. It is the product of the intersection of two primary factors. First, it arose from a specific historical context (USA in the 1840s) that generated great uncertainty about the future (within 20 years the USA would erupt in Civil War). That was combined with a lack of good biblical interpretation, seen in a lack of understanding about certain kinds of biblical writings (especially apocalyptic literature), a failure to interpret biblical passages in their context, and a penchant for taking certain parts of the Bible as literal descriptions of historical events in the future while ignoring other parts of the Bible that did not fit with certain ideas. That produced the millenarian, adventist, and dispensational movements that became preoccupied with end times. Unfortunately those influences became part of the thinking of the Southern evangelical churches and remain with us today in many evangelical churches.

I would only add one minor qualification to your comments. I believe that the entire Bible is true. It is not true on the level of words, but in terms of its message, as the Manual statement of the C of N makes clear. It was not written by God but by human beings as God helped them understand the things of God (inspiration). That means it is human literature at the same time that it is word of God. That only means that we have to read it and understand it on both levels, starting with the human literature aspect, and not take every word literally as some absolute truth directly from God.

The issue is not whether or not the Bible is true in its entirety, but whether the correct way of reading it is to take parts of it as only literal in order to produce something that the Bible as a whole does not tell us while ignoring other parts that say something different.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Well Dennis, since I'm reading all this anyway, I might as well say something about it.:basic02 The first thing I am questioning is, how we get from an original passage in scripture to a rapture story. In my oppinion, we are reading something about 2000 years old. We were not there when it was written. We are also not really familiar with all the conflicts, way of living, way of how people thought and what interpretation was behind this. If we just handle scripture as a TRUE word of God where EVERY word is written by Him then I would probably come to the great rapture story myself too. But since there is a danger in taking scripture out of its original story and context and translate it word by word and drawing conclusions from it. I'm figuring that it's better to let it rest or at least review the wider perspective with different outcomes, than the moviescript:fun18 rapture cenario presented by a lot of conservative evangelical movements.

Just to hook onto this thought of this movement, does the term "Holy-Bible" come from them? Is the bible Holy? and if so, does that make it non negotianable to discuss about it?:fav12

marty

I think you are essentially correct here. I do not think the idea of a rapture comes from Scripture at all. It is the product of the intersection of two primary factors. First, it arose from a specific historical context (USA in the 1840s) that generated great uncertainty about the future (within 20 years the USA would erupt in Civil War). That was combined with a lack of good biblical interpretation, seen in a lack of understanding about certain kinds of biblical writings (especially apocalyptic literature), a failure to interpret biblical passages in their context, and a penchant for taking certain parts of the Bible as literal descriptions of historical events in the future while ignoring other parts of the Bible that did not fit with certain ideas. That produced the millenarian, adventist, and dispensational movements that became preoccupied with end times. Unfortunately those influences became part of the thinking of the Southern evangelical churches and remain with us today in many evangelical churches.

I would only add one minor qualification to your comments. I believe that the entire Bible is true. It is not true on the level of words, but in terms of its message, as the Manual statement of the C of N makes clear. It was not written by God but by human beings as God helped them understand the things of God (inspiration). That means it is human literature at the same time that it is word of God. That only means that we have to read it and understand it on both levels, starting with the human literature aspect, and not take every word literally as some absolute truth directly from God.

The issue is not whether or not the Bible is true in its entirety, but whether the correct way of reading it is to take parts of it as only literal in order to produce something that the Bible as a whole does not tell us while ignoring other parts that say something different.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Martijn van Beveren]

I think you are essentially correct here. I do not think the idea of a rapture comes from Scripture at all. It is the product of the intersection of two primary factors. First, it arose from a specific historical context (USA in the 1840s) that generated great uncertainty about the future (within 20 years the USA would erupt in Civil War). That was combined with a lack of good biblical interpretation, seen in a lack of understanding about certain kinds of biblical writings (especially apocalyptic literature), a failure to interpret biblical passages in their context, and a penchant for taking certain parts of the Bible as literal descriptions of historical events in the future while ignoring other parts of the Bible that did not fit with certain ideas. That produced the millenarian, adventist, and dispensational movements that became preoccupied with end times. Unfortunately those influences became part of the thinking of the Southern evangelical churches and remain with us today in many evangelical churches.


Yup, I agree with you there, and yesterday I saw a documentary about this movement and how it's infecting politics up to the whitehouse ("the ash of evil") on a international scale. Very facinating, but very scary. And no, I don't think politics are the subject here :)


I would only add one minor qualification to your comments. I believe that the entire Bible is true. It is not true on the level of words, but in terms of its message, as the Manual statement of the C of N makes clear. It was not written by God but by human beings as God helped them understand the things of God (inspiration). That means it is human literature at the same time that it is word of God. That only means that we have to read it and understand it on both levels, starting with the human literature aspect, and not take every word literally as some absolute truth directly from God.


I definitely agree with this statement ;) Phew, I still agree with the church here LOL. :fav18



The issue is not whether or not the Bible is true in its entirety, but whether the correct way of reading it is to take parts of it as only literal in order to produce something that the Bible as a whole does not tell us while ignoring other parts that say something different.


Yup, and that's what troubles me in this thread. The conclusion on rapture is just one way of interpreting things. And it's not a way I tend to see it as a good answer for this part of storytelling.
There are two thoughts at this moment that I'm aware of which make more sense to me:

1. It's a poetic statement on how people mess up and will keep messing up and that we face the consequences of our own doing.

2. It's a sort of covered up rebellion statement to tell people about the bad things of the roman empire and things that are going on and to keep the good stuff going on. A sort of undercover story where the some of the real names are not used but covered up. Also around the time that this was written, these thoughts on heaven and hell, and so on were very popular in that time. And it is just something for that era of time and not written for us.

This one also might be sort of relevant:

3. maybe even just a sort of inspiring SF/fantasy-novel of some sort, written for the public...

Anybody else got an idea on one of these or has even another thesis?

Marty

[David Cash]

I don't believe that the Nazarene statement on the inspiration of Scripture demands that we deny Biblical innerancy. It provides some room for people that can't quite handle the idea that Scripture in the original autographs is inspired word-for-word, but it doesn't exclude those of us who do believe in what is called verbal innerancy.

In considering the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4, we must also consider 1 Corinthians 15. The idea of resurrection of the dead is very clear in both places. The fact that Thessalonians calls for the believers both living and newly resurrected to be caught up to meet the Lord in the air is unavoidable. We can argue whether or not they are bound for Heaven or to join Christ in overcoming evil and judging the world on location, but there is no room to be true to Scripture and deny that we will be caught up in the air.

I have heard some pretribulationists suggest that the one passage in Matthew describes evil people being taken away rather than saints raptured, but I've never been comfortable with it.

The problem we have with Bible prophecy isn't that the Bible is unknowable or unreliable, it's just that it doesn't spell out some details of the end times in the easily understood manner we would like. People do speak beyond the Scriptures often with regard to the end of the world, but that fact doesn't mean that Scripture is unreliable or that it is unknowable, only that some parts are hard to understand.

David Cash

[Dennis Bratcher]

The problem we have with Bible prophecy isn't that the Bible is unknowable or unreliable, it's just that it doesn't spell out some details of the end times in the easily understood manner we would like. People do speak beyond the Scriptures often with regard to the end of the world, but that fact doesn't mean that Scripture is unreliable or that it is unknowable, only that some parts are hard to understand.

David Cash

That is basically what I have been saying. I would only add that there are some things that are unknowable from Scripture. It is not a matter of proper understanding; it is that those things are never addressed in Scripture in the way we want them to be, and are therefore unknowable from Scripture.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Randy Wise]

First, Zechariah 14 is not about the second coming of Jesus since he had not yet come a first time when Zechariah was written. It is highly metaphorical and symbolic apocalyptic language that can only be applied to the idea of a second coming by assuming it to be that. In context, it is about the occupation of the land by Persians or Greeks and the impending conflict that would create (which unfolded in the Maccabean Wars in 165 BC). There is clearly messianic expectation in Zechariah, but not in any timetable of future events.

The problem with the above view is: what happens to the people left behind after the 1,000 years? Does earth become hell? That is a problem since all the passages that address the Second Coming say that Jesus will return to earth. Is there a final judgment after the 1,000 years? Yet, that (however it is conceived) is always part of the Second Coming in Scripture. Is the Second Coming to last for a 1,000 years? Then it is not an event at all but an epoch, which is not how Scripture describes the Second Coming. The most common solution is to say that Jesus will come back in judgment on those left behind at the end of 1,000 years. But that is what entails a Third Coming, which challenges the whole idea of the Second Coming in Scripture.

The whole scenario of a two-tiered rapture (in either pre-mil scenario, but especially in the pre-trib pre-mil view) simply cannot be sustained by any close examination of Scripture, unless it is assumed from the beginning and then read back into Scripture. The only way that one can get this is to pick and choose among a range of verses in the Bible without regard to their own context, and then try to piece them together into some scenario (as people like Jack van Impe are quite skilled at doing). Yet, that scenario is most often from the imagination of the one building it (<i>Left Behind</i> is fiction) and has little relationship to Scripture beyond isolated verses.

Once again, Scripture does not tell us any of this and so we simply do not know. The hundreds of scenarios constructed by various people over the past 2,000 years have all been wrong. Maybe that ought to tell us something. Maybe the injunction of Jesus that “no person knows” applies to more than just the exact time of the Second Coming. In fact, that may be the whole point of that passage in Matthew 24.

For me, it is still irrelevant. Since we do not and cannot know, we probably should focus on the “be ready” by living as the people of God in the present (which is the idea in Matthew 24 as well), in that aspect of the Kingdom that has already come. That is why, in the final analysis, I have no interest in “End Times” speculation, beyond dealing with Scripture faithfully.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Hi Dennis, rev 20 defines the start and end of the 1000 period and that is scripture. Zech 14 talks about the Lords feet touching the mount of Olives and that mountain being split in two. Has that happened?

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Hi Dennis, rev 20 defines the start and end of the 1000 period and that is scripture.

I probably missed something in the discussion but I don't recall anyone denying that?

I presume you're also waiting to see a beast like this come out of the sea?

"And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name." (Rev 13:1)

For "that is Scripture".

Or might the discussion rather be, how to read apocalyptic Scripture?

I know I should now better (sigh), but for the life of me, I don't understand such a remark.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I presume you're also waiting to see a beast like this come out of the sea?

"And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name." (Rev 13:1)

For "that is Scripture".

Hans,

To understand Revelations you have to have the ability to discern what is figurative and what is literal.

Take for example:

Revelation 20:7-9 (New International Version)
"When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them."

It might seem complicated but it's really quite easy. Let me show you:

"thousand years" literal

"four corners" figurative

"battle" literal

"number ... sand on the seashore" figurative

"marched" literal

"breadth of the earth" figurative

"fire came down" literal

"devoured them" figurative (devour - "to eat up greedily")

How do know which is which? You intuit it based on what fits your system best. ;)

(I admit to being uncertain if God's people live in a "camp" or a "city.")

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

To understand Revelations you have to have the ability to discern what is figurative and what is literal.

[...]

How do know which is which? You intuit it based on what fits your system best. ;)

Thanks Wilson, I understand I still have a long way to go in hermeneutics. :basic03

[Randy Wise]

I probably missed something in the discussion but I don't recall anyone denying that?

I presume you're also waiting to see a beast like this come out of the sea?

"And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name." (Rev 13:1)

For "that is Scripture".

Or might the discussion rather be, how to read apocalyptic Scripture?

I know I should now better (sigh), but for the life of me, I don't understand such a remark.

Hi Hans, Glad to help as God has provided the understanding

When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. 7Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. 9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
12"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."
15Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. 18The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

[Randy Wise]

Hans,

To understand Revelations you have to have the ability to discern what is figurative and what is literal.

Take for example:

Revelation 20:7-9 (New International Version)
"When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them."

It might seem complicated but it's really quite easy. Let me show you:

"thousand years" literal

"four corners" figurative

"battle" literal

"number ... sand on the seashore" figurative

"marched" literal

"breadth of the earth" figurative

"fire came down" literal

"devoured them" figurative (devour - "to eat up greedily")

How do know which is which? You intuit it based on what fits your system best. ;)

(I admit to being uncertain if God's people live in a "camp" or a "city.")

Wilson

How did you read this?But fire came down from heaven and devoured them."

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Hi Hans, Glad to help as God has provided the understanding

Let's put the question differently. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Considering the strange images in apocalyptic literature, how do you decide what to take literal and what not? You gave a nice example of an image that even Revelation itself indicates is not to be taken literal. When is language poetic and when is it descriptive?

Perhaps the illustration of the four living creatures is better?

Rev 4 "In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. 7The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. 8Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings."

Or of our Lord Himself:

Rev 1:16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword.

Oh yes, and I would like to read your comments on Wilson's post regarding what to take literal and what not, rather than a question. That would help indeed.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

How did you read this?But fire came down from heaven and devoured them."


My point is that the kind of question you are now asking is not a valid question. My point is that with apocoyptic literature you can't try to analyze individual phrases but must look at the overall image (message) being conveyed.

So to sort of answer your question, "fire came down from heaven and devoured them" is part of an image used to "reveal" the truth that those opposing God and God's people will give it their best shot, but God and his people will prevail by the power of God.

Wilson

[Dennis Bratcher]

A statement of belief:

Article XVIII—THE BLESSED HOPE

We believe that, according to the Word of God, the next great event in the fulfillment of prophecy will be the coming of the Lord in the air to receive to Himself into heaven both His own who are alive and remain unto His coming, and also all who have fallen asleep in Jesus, and that this event is the blessed hope set before us in the Scripture, and for this we should be constantly looking (John 14:1–3; 1 Cor. 15:51–52; Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 4:13–18; Titus 2:11–14).

Article XIX—THE TRIBULATION

We believe that the translation of the church will be followed by the fulfillment of Israel’s seventieth week (Dan. 9:27; Rev. 6:1–19:21) during which the church, the body of Christ, will be in heaven. The whole period of Israel’s seventieth week will be a time of judgment on the whole earth, at the end of which the times of the Gentiles will be brought to a close. The latter half of this period will be the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jer. 30:7), which our Lord called the great tribulation (Matt. 24:15–21). We believe that universal righteousness will not be realized previous to the second coming of Christ, but that the world is day by day ripening for judgment and that the age will end with a fearful apostasy.

Article XX—THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

We believe that the period of great tribulation in the earth will be climaxed by the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth as He went, in person on the clouds of heaven, and with power and great glory to introduce the millennial age, to bind Satan and place him in the abyss, to lift the curse which now rests upon the whole creation, to restore Israel to her own land and to give her the realization of God’s covenant promises, and to bring the whole world to the knowledge of God (Deut. 30:1–10; Isa. 11:9; Ezek. 37:21–28; Matt. 24:15–25:46; Acts 15:16–17; Rom. 8:19–23; 11:25–27; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; Rev. 20:1–3).

This is from The Articles of Faith of Dallas Theological Seminary, one of the flagship schools of the Southern Baptist convention. Compare this with the Articles of Faith of the Church of the Nazarene:

XV. Second Coming of Christ

19. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will come again; that we who are alive at His coming shall not precede them that are asleep in Christ Jesus; but that, if we are abiding in Him, we shall be caught up with the risen saints to meet the Lord in the air, so that we shall ever be with the Lord.

(Matthew 25:31-46; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 9:26-28; 2 Peter 3:3-15; Revelation 1:7-8; 22:7-20)

I think I'll stick with the latter, since by its silence on all those other matters it recognizes the silence of Scripture on those details. Anthing else is speculation, and I simply don't think speculation ought to be matter of belief. Opinons, perhaps, or curiosity, but not belief.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Randy Wise]

My point is that the kind of question you are now asking is not a valid question. My point is that with apocoyptic literature you can't try to analyze individual phrases but must look at the overall image (message) being conveyed.

So to sort of answer your question, "fire came down from heaven and devoured them" is part of an image used to "reveal" the truth that those opposing God and God's people will give it their best shot, but God and his people will prevail by the power of God.

Wilson

Ezekiel 38 would suggest to me, beside the fact the scripture in Rev 20 states, "fire came down out of heaven, that you are in error.

Randy

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Ezekiel 38 would suggest to me, beside the fact the scripture in Rev 20 states, "fire came down out of heaven, that you are in error.

Note Ezekiel 38:4:

"I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords"

Are you suggesting that there will be an actual army on actual horseback carrying actual shields and actual swords? Are you suggesting that God is going to put actual hooks into the jaws of a real person named, Gog, and lead him out?

If not, then by what criteria do you suggest verse 4 is speaking figuratively while you apparently take the "burning sulfur" of verse 22 to be literal?

Wilson

[Randy Wise]

Note Ezekiel 38:4:

"I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords"

Are you suggesting that there will be an actual army on actual horseback carrying actual shields and actual swords? Are you suggesting that God is going to put actual hooks into the jaws of a real person named, Gog, and lead him out?

If not, then by what criteria do you suggest verse 4 is speaking figuratively while you apparently take the "burning sulfur" of verse 22 to be literal?

Wilson

Common sense -besides the answer was already given in Rev 20 - Ezek 38 only strengthens that statement not weakens.

Randy

[Randy Wise]

A statement of belief:
Article XVIII—THE BLESSED HOPE

We believe that, according to the Word of God, the next great event in the fulfillment of prophecy will be the coming of the Lord in the air to receive to Himself into heaven both His own who are alive and remain unto His coming, and also all who have fallen asleep in Jesus, and that this event is the blessed hope set before us in the Scripture, and for this we should be constantly looking (John 14:1–3; 1 Cor. 15:51–52; Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 4:13–18; Titus 2:11–14).

Article XIX—THE TRIBULATION

We believe that the translation of the church will be followed by the fulfillment of Israel’s seventieth week (Dan. 9:27; Rev. 6:1–19:21) during which the church, the body of Christ, will be in heaven. The whole period of Israel’s seventieth week will be a time of judgment on the whole earth, at the end of which the times of the Gentiles will be brought to a close. The latter half of this period will be the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jer. 30:7), which our Lord called the great tribulation (Matt. 24:15–21). We believe that universal righteousness will not be realized previous to the second coming of Christ, but that the world is day by day ripening for judgment and that the age will end with a fearful apostasy.

Article XX—THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

We believe that the period of great tribulation in the earth will be climaxed by the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth as He went, in person on the clouds of heaven, and with power and great glory to introduce the millennial age, to bind Satan and place him in the abyss, to lift the curse which now rests upon the whole creation, to restore Israel to her own land and to give her the realization of God’s covenant promises, and to bring the whole world to the knowledge of God (Deut. 30:1–10; Isa. 11:9; Ezek. 37:21–28; Matt. 24:15–25:46; Acts 15:16–17; Rom. 8:19–23; 11:25–27; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; Rev. 20:1–3). This is from The Articles of Faith of Dallas Theological Seminary, one of the flagship schools of the Southern Baptist convention. Compare this with the Articles of Faith of the Church of the Nazarene:
XV. Second Coming of Christ

19. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will come again; that we who are alive at His coming shall not precede them that are asleep in Christ Jesus; but that, if we are abiding in Him, we shall be caught up with the risen saints to meet the Lord in the air, so that we shall ever be with the Lord.

(Matthew 25:31-46; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 9:26-28; 2 Peter 3:3-15; Revelation 1:7-8; 22:7-20)I think I'll stick with the latter, since by its silence on all those other matters it recognizes the silence of Scripture on those details. Anthing else is speculation, and I simply don't think speculation ought to be matter of belief. Opinons, perhaps, or curiosity, but not belief.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

It was about who was left and who was taken in Matt not the articles of faith, but I see in XIX it is stated the body of Christ is in heaven during the great tribulation. Is this then all believers in your mind?

Randy

[Randy Wise]

Let's put the question differently. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Considering the strange images in apocalyptic literature, how do you decide what to take literal and what not? You gave a nice example of an image that even Revelation itself indicates is not to be taken literal. When is language poetic and when is it descriptive?

Perhaps the illustration of the four living creatures is better?

Rev 4 "In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. 7The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. 8Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings."

Or of our Lord Himself:

Rev 1:16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword.

Oh yes, and I would like to read your comments on Wilson's post regarding what to take literal and what not, rather than a question. That would help indeed.

How I would view literal vs metaphor common sense and a close review of the many passages of scripture that speak of the time of the end as God gave details about the time of the end that are throughout scripture and I have found those details to be consistent. As above in Rev 1:16 God explained the seven stars and the sword doesn't need explaining. Ezek 1 shows the creatures as well and in Isaiah seraphs are shown with six wings. I believe the description wasn't a metaphor in regard to the creatures, but even the metaphors represent a message. Now if you want to start backing up your arguments with scripture rather than again looking at me please feel free to do so. When debating that Jesus is the Christ with those in Judiaism I tell those in debate you need to look at the testimony not me. So I tell you as well in regard to the time of the end.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

When debating that Jesus is the Christ with those in Judiaism I tell those in debate you need to look at the testimony not me. So I tell you as well in regard to the time of the end.

In other words, if you're too dumb to understand, don't ask me but read the Scriptures, they are self explanatory for anyone with common sense.

Message understood.

[Dennis Bratcher]

It was about who was left and who was taken in Matt not the articles of faith, but I see in XIX it is stated the body of Christ is in heaven during the great tribulation. Is this then all believers in your mind?

Randy


I think you illustrated my point much better than I did. The C of N Article of Faith says absolutely nothing about the tribulation, or even about a rapture or a millennial reign of Christ on earth (note that it only restates 1 Thessalonians about "meeting" Jesus, not the whole scenario of a rapture/translation and a later Second Coming). Yet, when you read it from your perspective you see the tribulation because that’s what you believe. That is the same thing that you are doing with Scripture.

I posted the Articles of Faith because what you said you believe earlier is almost identical with the dispensational position of Dallas Theological Seminary in the Southern Baptist tradition. You are arguing for that position as the only way to read Scripture, while I am simply pointing out that most of that is not at all what Scripture says if you look at the individual passages in context. And it is certainly not what the C of N in the Articles of Faith says is something important enough to believe.

I think we’ve probably exhausted this topic, so I think I’ll move on to something else. Thanks for the conversation.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

It was about who was left and who was taken in Matt not the articles of faith, but I see in XIX it is stated the body of Christ is in heaven during the great tribulation. Is this then all believers in your mind?

Randy

The article you cite here in your question is not ours but the Dallas articles Dennis was suggesting you compare with ours....

Wilson

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Common sense -besides the answer was already given in Rev 20 - Ezek 38 only strengthens that statement not weakens.

Randy

By common sense you mean of course, your own common sense. In effect, that is to say you simply pick and choose based on what makes sense to you.

That sort of eliminates any basis for further discussion on the topic....

Wilson

[Randy Wise]

In other words, if you're too dumb to understand, don't ask me but read the Scriptures, they are self explanatory for anyone with common sense.

Message understood.


Not the message at all considering your english skills I would consider you bright.

Randy