The Revelation of the Rapture Theory

We see statements on bumper stickers like, "In case of the rapture this car will have no driver." Ironically, with all the emphasis on the word "rapture" it is never found in the Bible. It is another doctrine that man has created. This false premillennial idea of "the rapture" states that there will be a secret catching away of the saved into the air where they will be with Christ for 7 years. During these seven years there is to be a "great tribulation" period here on the earth. Great suffering is to be inflicted on the people. But after 7 years Jesus is to again appear to bring the tribulation period to a close. Talk about a fairy tale! This is some stretch of the imagination! This is all false as it in no way lines up with any of the most basic investigation of scripture. Let us briefly see what the Bible says will happen when Christ comes back and perhaps we can see once and for all how unrealistic this doctrine truly is.

We read in 1 Corinthians 15:52 when the Lord comes back it will be "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye..the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." Then in John 5:28-29 Jesus says, "For the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life and those who have done evil to the resurrection of damnation." There is only going to be one resurrection not the three that the "rapture" theory requires.

So when the Lord comes, what is going to happen to this earth? If we look at 2 Peter 3:10-12 we can see as Peter says, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat." The people advocating a "rapture" are not going to be able to come back to the earth for their 1000 year reign, because the earth will be burned up at the Lord's appearing. Simple logic would dictate that this passage alone defies the very idea that there is going to be an event such as the rapture. The rapture is another false doctrine of man.

There are some variations to the false doctrine of premillennialism but most theories run like this: that Jesus intended to set up an earthly kingdom, but the Jews did not allow Him to do so by defeating His purpose. Can you imagine anyone being able to defeat the purpose of God where God would have to change His plans and try it all over again at some future date? According to this theory God apparently did not know this was going to happen. This is absurd (see Isaiah 53). This theory says that instead Jesus set up the church as a substitute and plans to return to earth at a later time, fight the war of Armageddon, and set up his earthly kingdom in Jerusalem and rule for 1000 years on David's throne. Many denominations are filled with this theory and teach it as fact. Let's see what the Bible says.

When asked about His kingdom Jesus said in John 18:16, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world My servants would fight so that I would not be delivered to the Jews." Jesus never intended to have an earthly kingdom. The Lord is now reigning over His spiritual kingdom, the church, and we are now in it if we have, as Paul said, "But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart that form" (Greek: tupos; pattern) "of teaching to which you were committed" (Romans 6:17). What was this "form" Paul refers to? He spells it out clearly in verses 3-6 of the same chapter. Paul says when we are buried in the watery grave of baptism we are buried into His death and raised as He was to walk in newness of life. At that point we are transformed into the kingdom of Christ as we are added to His church. Colossians 1:13 says that God "has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son." We are now in His kingdom. Remember 2 Peter 3:10 tells us, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat: both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up." We can only conclude from this passage that there is not even going to be an earth here to have a thousand year reign on.

The church of our Lord was not an accident, but was established according to the eternal purpose of God (Ephesians 3:10-11). 1 Corinthians 15:24 tells us how things will end after the order of the resurrection, "Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father." When Jesus comes again He will not come to establish a kingdom, but to deliver His kingdom, the church, up to God.

Friends, we are living in the so called tribulation period described in the Revelation to John where Satan has been loosed upon the earth (Rev. 20:7-10 remember this is symbolic language not to be taken literally). May we avoid the doctrines of men and allow God to speak directly to us through His Word so that we know our lives are in line with His will and our salvation is assured because we have trusted in Him and not in man. We need to think for ourselves and not let so called "scholars" think for us. God bless, have a great week, and keep working in the Word.

In His Service,
Jim Lynch, Evangelist
Miles City Church of Christ
234-3775
http://www.milescitychurch.community.officelive.com

I agree with you right up to the last paragraph, and then I became confused.

Friends, we are living in the so called tribulation period described in the Revelation to John where Satan has been loosed upon the earth (Rev. 20:7-10 remember this is symbolic language not to be taken literally). May we avoid the doctrines of men and allow God to speak directly to us through His Word so that we know our lives are in line with His will and our salvation is assured because we have trusted in Him and not in man. We need to think for ourselves and not let so called "scholars" think for us. God bless, have a great week, and keep working in the Word.

Do you hold a preterist (full/partial) postmillennial view or do you hold an amillennial view? It seems non-sequetar to say:

Friends, we are living in the so called tribulation period described in the Revelation to John where Satan has been loosed upon the earth (Rev. 20:7-10

and then in the next sentence say

remember this is symbolic language not to be taken literally). May we avoid the doctrines of men

How do you KNOW that we are now living in the "tribulation" described in John? When do you believe the book of Revelation was written? There is significant evidence (both internal in the Bible and external i.e. historcal ) that the Book of Revelation was written between November of 67 AD and April of 68 AD. So what is described is could easily be the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I would commend to your reading a Book by Dr. Kenneth Gentry entitled "Before Jerusalem Fell" subtitle dating the Book of Revelation. If you don't get the date Revelation was written right, everything else will be wrong.

I have a lot more I want to say about this, but I have a client expecting a report today...

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (1/20/2010)]

"Do you hold a preterist (full/partial) postmillennial view or do you hold an amillennial view?"

Neither: the biblical view is the best way to go.


"How do you KNOW that we are now living in the "tribulation" described in John?

Uh...look around you?? Does not our modern day tribulation (and I use that term loosly) fit well within the context of Jesus' teaching in the latter part of Matt. 24 which ironically seems to fit well withing the context of Rev. 20:6ff?

"When do you believe the book of Revelation was written? There is significant evidence (both internal in the Bible and external i.e. historcal ) that the Book of Revelation was written between November of 67 AD and April of 68 AD. So what is described is could easily be the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I would commend to your reading a Book by Dr. Kenneth Gentry entitled "Before Jerusalem Fell" subtitle dating the Book of Revelation. If you don't get the date Revelation was written right, everything else will be wrong."

Yes the dating is very important to understanding where the book of Revelation fits in the historical records.

Revelation was writen during a time of persecution when Christians were being tortured, threatened, and killed by the Roman government. Scholars generally are devided on the possibilities of: A.D 54-68 under Nero; A.D. 75-78 under Vespasian or A.D. 81-96 under Domitian.

A.D. 81-96, under Domitian seems to be the actual time period from both internal and external evidence. In Revelation the persecution of Christians has spread beyond the area of Rome. Nero's persecution was centered in Rome. By the time of Domitian the persecution of Christians had spread throughout the whole Roman empire, and certainly anyone would agree that Revelation depicts a world wide persecution.

A case can be made for the dating of A.D. 75-78 based on an analysis of chapter 17:9-11 which involves a reconstruction of the Ceasar emperors. However, the preponderance of evidence, both internal and external point to a later Domitian date.

Another reason to accept the later date is that the church in Ephesus as late as Paul's writing in A.D. 62-63 was still being commended for there love (Eph. 1:15). Yet, by A.D. 96 they had time to backslide to the point of leaving their "first love" (Rev. 2:4).
Therefore, A.D. 81-96 would be the more logical date.

Now back to 20:6: There is a blessing upon those who participate in the first resurrection (those living and reigning with Christ for a 1000 yrs.). The Second Death (eternal separation from God and condemnation to the lake of fire and brimstone) has no power over those who live and reign with Christ for 1000 yrs. Rev. 20 is the only place in the Bible a 1000 yr reign is mentioned. So all the information on the subject is here and no where else.

Vs 7-8 At the end of the 1000 years (which is only a symbol of a designated time period with no way to comprehend its length) Satan will be loosed out of his prison and shall go forth to decieve the nations in the four corners of the earth, God and Magog, to gather them together to the war. There are innumerable enemies of God's people.

Gog and Magog: Again we must apply these images as symbols with spiritual fulfillment. Gog and Magog are the enemies of God's people. The figure is drawn from the Old Testament:

1) They were the enemies of God in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 38:2).
2) The complete and utter defeat of Gog and Magog is symbolized in the fact that it takes seven months (210 days) to bury the dead (Ezekiel 39:1-6; 11-16).

20:9 Gog and Magog gather for the war; they compass the camp of the saints and the beloved city (spiritual thinking here not Jerusalem). Again, fire comes down out of heaven and devours them. It's over!! Victory in Jesus!! God wins, Christ wins, God's people win, and Satan loses...

Then in 20:10 The harlot is fallen first (18:2); next the Sea Beast and the Earth Beast (false prophets), Rev. 19:20 and now Satan is cast into the fire.

vs. 12-13 Then we see the great white throne of judgment where the books are opened and the wicked are judged out of the things written there. Only the wicked are being judged here. No Christian are in this group (see John 5:24; 1 John 3:14).

vs. 14-15 Remember, these verses apply to Rome.

Chapter 21 we then see the state of the righteous: NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH; THE BRIDE IS THE CHURCH.

The discription John give here as he concludes the book of Revelation is not that of a future event that will take place many 1000s of years later. He is revealing to the seven churches of Asia their importance, value, and relationship to Jesus Christ.

This is not a picture of Heaven. How this passage of scripture has been misunderstood, misused and abused is beyond me. IT IS A PICTURE OF THE CHURCH as God describes it in our terms so we can fully appreciate it. Keep in mind that people in John's day thought of the church as weak, poor, insignifacant, worthless.

Perhaps that will tell you exactly what my view is: Revelation is a history book and the church age was introduced in 20:6ff.

In His Service, Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (1/20/2010)]

While this is all wonderful inside-baseball kind of stuff, the problem remains that no one outside of the Church (and not a few within in it) cares. At all.

I'm not saying it to be rude or anything, it's just that, for most people, theological questions of this nature are meaningless, particularly when there are so many pressing concerns within this world to deal with.

To draw an admittedly extreme example: what does a Haitian, who just had his meager earthly possessions reduced to rubble, care about the dating of the book of Revelations?

I haven't a clue what either Jim L. or Richard are talking about, but I enjoy watching the way they so knowledgeably toss out the "Big Bible Words" at each other! Forget the cat fights of old threads..let's see a good ole bible thumpin', poisonous snake shakin' duke out of the lambs of God!

Personally, I appreciate the postings of Mr. Lynch....and the responses of Mr. Bonine - gives my old head something to think on OTHER than the day to day details of this old world.

I am confused. In my bible John 18:16 says, "Peter had to stay outside the gate. Then the disciple who knew the high priest spoke to the woman watching watching at the gate, and she let Peter in."

It must be a typo. Should be John 18:36.

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (1/20/2010)]

Stefanie; Wendy's correction is right...it is John 18:36; sorry for the type O; thank you Wendy.

RA, thanks for the flowers...getting folks to think about something other than the day to day garbage we see in the world is exactly my goal.

Bridgier, Talk about evasive action!! I have studied for 25 years and make it my goal to not go outside scripture untill I have come to my own conclusions as to what God's Word has to say on any given subject. Thanks for the referrence though. I layed out my case, quite simply in fact, based on my own studies and have taken that position for 15 years now and every time I have ever shared it with others most dodge the subject all together and no one has ever refuted me on it...wonder why? Possibly because oyu can't refute logical application of scripture?

You are correct that there are many more urgent and pressing issues in the lives of people and most do not even care about such subject matter. However, on a personal note, when I can open God's Word and allow Him to enlighten me to a higher level of understanding it builds more confidence in who He is and strenthens my faith in His plan.

At this point I have come to the conclusion that nothing in this world can shake the foundation of the Lord's Church and the plans he has for mankind. I base this confidence on my understanding of some of these subjects that others do not care to study and I believe with all my mind, body, and soul that if others would take the time to understand God's Word better it would change the world in a positive way.

All the "fixing" in the world will never give us what we truly need...the world needs the truth of Jesus and it can only be found in His Word. Furthermore, if we want to know God we must know Jesus and the only way to know Jesus is through The Word...

"Lifting Up Jesus" John 12:36...thats what it's all about.

Have a great day and God bless, Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (1/21/2010)]

I think Debbie Harry will reveal it all in this clip.

Verse of the day:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Galatians 6:7-8

AJS

Apparently, the Almighty is thin-skinned.

I layed out my case, quite simply in fact, based on my own studies and have taken that position for 15 years now and every time I have ever shared it with others most dodge the subject all together and no one has ever refuted me on it...wonder why? Possibly because oyu can't refute logical application of scripture?

Oh, you are not going to get off that easy. I'll be back with an attempted refutation shortly. I don't have the time right (maybe this weekend) now to give this subject the effort it deserves.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (1/22/2010)]

Looking forward to your response...

Have a great week end, Jim

First Phalations 19:46;

"Then, yea verily didst they wander through the quagmire that is the incurable net and blathered they, until they were sore of tongue and weary of pointed finger only to rest on a willow bough until the sacred Unicorn came home to roost. Then on the second fortnight, of the third triumvirate, on a Tuesday, at 3:27PM did they sacrifice the the anointed Unicorn, which they called Delores and placed it's bits in little pots so those that believed could be sanctified and rise up from the evil doers on the wings of flying lizards and roller skate among their own kind for ever and ever in a land called Las Vegas.

HA! I defy you to argue the logic of that or this, for that matter.

All that poi and pineapple is getting to you, Mr. Bolton.

Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic foods.
He believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes.
Long hair, beard and sandals and a funky bunch of friends.
Reckon they'd just nail him up if He come down again.

'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on.
Who they can feel better than at anytime they please.
Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on.
If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me.

Egg Head's cussin' Red Neck's cussin' hippies for their hair.
Others laugh at straights who laugh at freaks who laugh at squares.
Some folks hate the whites who hate the blacks who hate the clan.
Most of us hate anything that we don't understand.

'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on.
Who they can feel better than at anytime they please.
Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on.
If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me.

Can we just sit back and "listen" to these two men have a discussion without all the background chatter that doesn't enhance the conversation?

Chatter is good...

John 3:17

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Yea verily. Let he that is without limbs cast the first bone.

Gunnar, you done brought the funk. Here come de judge, here come de judge, here come de judge.

[This message has been edited by Tucker Bolton (1/23/2010)]

A wise person once told me that if we reflect on our own sins we would not have time to reflect on another!

I can totally understand the frustration with the Thee and Thou, etc. That drove me crazy when I first started reading the Bible - turned me off of it for many years actually. There are some really good versions out there now, particularly the NIV version and my new favorite, the NLT version which use the "plain 'ol everyday english" we use today without changing the meaning. Would encourage anyone who is interested in avoiding the Thee and Thou merry-go-round (no offense to the KJV readers here, there's definitely merit in the KJV version too) to start with either one of the versions above. The new testament is a great place to start too - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, also James is a super place to start. The Christian Book store and also Wal Mart carry both versions. Still a few months of winter left, and plenty of time to start a "Good Book"

Can't we discuss something relevant, like how the world is DEFINITELY going to end in 2012?

I'm not going to worry about that until late 2011.

There are some really good versions out there now, particularly the NIV version and my new favorite, the NLT version which use the "plain 'ol everyday english" we use today without changing the meaning.

If you believe that translations never change the meaning you need to do some comparisons yourself. Compare any two passages from the King James and NIV and you'll see subtle but sometime vital differences. Theologians argue about translation all the time. If you find a translation that you like and it encourages you to worship then terrific, but don't think that what you are reading is the exact meaning of the original verses. In many cases, it's not.

The point I was trying to make, was, if the old-style grammar of the KJV turns you off, there are some others out there that don't compromise the overall meaning of the message. There is always nit-picking in the bible, regardless of which version you read. If one version differs from another, further study into the original intent / language is always wise. It is up to each individual to read and study, and the truth will be revealed to them through the Holy Spirit. My sole intent was to encourage people to study God's Word because there are much easier-reading versions out there.

Just a Wii bit off the current subject, but does make for lively discussion while we await Mr. Bonine's reply...

Stefanie and Wendy...you both have very relevant views on the textual study of the Scripture...

There are many easy-to-read versions of the Bible available and one would "think" it would be very easy for man to be in agreement when it comes to the basic doctrine of Christ. However, the inability, or should I say unwillingness, of many to dig deep into the "study" of scripture through their own research perhaps is the greatest hinderance of all. I have found that many of the modern translations have errors or wording that could be better clarified.

This is exactly why I encourage my students to not seek outside opinions, or take my word for it when it comes to the context and meaning of the Bible untill they have studied it and come to their own conclusions. I use the original Greek text rather than relying on modern translations for the very reason Wendy spoke of...to many theorist' with their own spin on it.

You folks have a great week and keep warm, Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (1/25/2010)]

You're right on the money, Jim. King James, himself found several books confusing and contrary to the good of the people. He just had them deleted. I am so grateful that he was looking out for us.

(Sarcasm Alert) Thank God the Holy Scripture had never been altered, borrowed from other sources, re-written, translated, plagiarized or otherwise tampered with before the King James version came along.

I realize that this is a simple explanation but the point is intact.

Unfortunately Tucker, King James was not the first attempt to "improve" the original text of the Holy Writ...making it more understandable to the modern thinker is not the problem...the problem is with those who would add their own interpretation to the meaning which has always been around from the time it was completed in the 1st century in the Koine Greek.

This video clip sums up my feeling regarding the "Rapture Theory" fairly succinctly:

Hhhuummmm.....considering all the discussion as to which translation is correct....it brings to mind a previous discussion on MilesCity.com about the pros and cons of studying the old language of Latin. Maybe we should ALL learn the Greek tongue, not the modern Greek of today, but the Greek from the time of the Early Church that the New Testament was written in....and the Hebrew that the Old Testament was written in....then, we could ALL agree on the text of the Bible, and the meanings contained therein??

Love that video, Brian...Hilarious!!!

Bravo RA, you said it better than I ever could have...the very basic fundamentals of understanding "any" ancient text require that first principle to be applied.

One must first consider the message of the writer and the audience, in the original contect, before ever considering making an application to the modern era. A large part of that understanding comes from learning to appreciate the original languages they were writen in.

Have a great day, Jim

BTW: cute video...but a bit over the top for me...

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (1/26/2010)]

Maybe we should ALL learn the Greek tongue, not the modern Greek of today, but the Greek from the time of the Early Church that the New Testament was written in....and the Hebrew that the Old Testament was written in....then, we could ALL agree on the text of the Bible, and the meanings contained therein??

RA, if two people negotiating a contract written in plain English can't agree on what the language means how would we ever agree on the text of the Bible, even if we did know ancient Greek? The subtlety of language precludes a black and white view of the world.

Jim -

You're discussing the concept of the Book of Revelation and the concept of Rapture and it's the video that you consider to be over the top?

Wow.

Okay, Jim here goes. I believe you would agree that eschatology is a difficult subject. Normally, I would defend my perspective and pour forth copious amounts of supporting information. But since it is a new year, and I am resolved to engage in better and more fruitful communication methods with others, I am going to attempt to part with that "tradition".

My original "issue" was with the comments made about the tribulation. I get irritated every time there is a natural disaster and the spiritual lone-rangers all surface to try and attempt to tie the current event to some Biblical time-line. They usually proceed to use the disaster event to motivate people to respond out of fear and engage in some form of "decisionism". I believe that as Christians, our responsibility is to simply sow the Word through law and Gospel proclamation and then allow the Holy Spirit to use that Word to bring people to Christ. With regard to eschatology, Jesus tells us that we should be on guard so that we are not deceived.

So after thinking about all of this for several days I have a question: In what context are you using the word "tribulation"?

In Matt 24:4-8 Jesus says: "4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains."

If you meant "tribulation" in the context of the birthing process of the second coming of Christ, and as we get closer to the second advent, the contractions will get stronger and more frequent, I don't have a problem with what you originally stated.

If you are using the word "tribulation" to refer to a particular dispensation of time (chronos) I guess that would potentially be problematic for me. The history of the world from the time Jesus spoke the above passage to this very day has been filled with tribulation.

And perhaps there are other contexts for the concept of "tribulation".

A second question: how do you see the events in Revelation 12 as compared to Revelation 20. Are these different events, or one event described from a different point of view?

Hhhuummmm.....considering all the discussion as to which translation is correct....it brings to mind a previous discussion on MilesCity.com about the pros and cons of studying the old language of Latin. Maybe we should ALL learn the Greek tongue, not the modern Greek of today, but the Greek from the time of the Early Church that the New Testament was written in....and the Hebrew that the Old Testament was written in....then, we could ALL agree on the text of the Bible, and the meanings contained therein??

Probably not. During Jesus time there was a group who didn't believe in the resurrection of the body... which is why they were called "sad-you-sees".

Wendy:

RA, if two people negotiating a contract written in plain English can't agree on what the language means how would we ever agree on the text of the Bible, even if we did know ancient Greek? The subtlety of language precludes a black and white view of the world.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the ancient Koine Greek (also called: Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Patristic, Common, Biblical or New Testament Greek) language is VERY specific. I am currently enjoying reading and studying the Bible utilizing http://interlinearbible.org/ and comparing my NKJ Bible at home.

Richard:

I thank you for your insight on the 'Sad-you-sees'!!! TOUCHE'

RA - Septuagint or Masoratic?

Several years ago in Canada there was a million dollar lawsuit over the misplacement of a single comma. Maybe ancient Greek is different but I doubt it.

Bridger:

It is my understanding that the Koine Greek was the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible and of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures.

*The source of this information is, History of the Greek Language by Nikolaos P. Andriotis.

"Jim - You're discussing the concept of the Book of Revelation and the concept of Rapture and it's the video that you consider to be over the top? Wow."

Brian, My discussion of this topic is in no way to be taken that I endorse the "rapture" theory. I do not believe the theory holds up in light of textual criticism. Thus my willigness to have this discussion.

As for my comment on the video being over the top? That is just my way of saying, personally, I do not use humor of this nature in making my case when engaging others in a topic such as this. We all arrived at our conclusions based on some type of learning and often it is a very personal position. If I do not agree with your particular position then it would not benefit either of us for me to make a gesture that would cause you to think I felt less of you or your opinion. I would rather stick to the facts and logic so that perhaps we would think deeply about our conclusions and be open minded enough to accept the truth once discovered.

Also, do tell as to why this subject would be considered "over the top" when it is one of the most widespread false doctrines in our modern theology, with a few variations, among the denominational world?

Have a great day, Jim

Jim wrote:

I would rather stick to the facts and logic so that perhaps we would think deeply about our conclusions and be open minded enough to accept the truth once discovered.

I can see the point you're trying to make, but I continue to have difficulty when words like "facts" and "logic" are used to support any interpretation of the Bible. And if facts and logic are taken out of the equation, the only positive that's really left is humor.

Nitpicking which parts of the bible are to be taken seriously really is an exercise in futility unless one discards it entirely.

Of course, I don't have the advantage that a widely-accepted presupposition of truth provides theists. Bother.

RA - which version of the OT (LXX or Masoratic) is used by most English language translations?

"I believe you would agree that eschatology is a difficult subject."

Yes, totally...

"Normally, I would defend my perspective and pour forth copious amounts of supporting information."

If I am wrong on something please feel free to point it out...However, I know what you are saying. As I told Brian, in not so many words, method means everything at times.

"My original "issue" was with the comments made about the tribulation. I get irritated every time there is a natural disaster and the spiritual lone-rangers all surface to try and attempt to tie the current event to some Biblical time-line. They usually proceed to use the disaster event to motivate people to respond out of fear and engage in some form of "decisionism"."

Please in no way think that I am one of those "nuts" who sieze upon the misfortunes of others and try to make it a biblical fact or revelation of judgment. I would think you know me well enough by now to also know that I am far removed from that line of thinking. Bad things happen to good people and that is life...it has nothing to do with theology but everything to do with life in a imperfect world dominated by the laws of nature. The only validity I give to that type of thinking is when one talks about the escalation of events. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that, but still it has nothing to do with any "judgment" event from God.

"I believe that as Christians, our responsibility is to simply sow the Word through law and Gospel proclamation and then allow the Holy Spirit to use that Word to bring people to Christ."

You and I agree totally on this. Perhaps others should try this as well. However, there is always room and obligation to teach the truth and refute false doctrine when given the opportunity. Paul commanded us to "reprove, rebuke and exhort..." through the preaching of the Word.

"With regard to eschatology, Jesus tells us that we should be on guard so that we are not deceived."

Not only with eschatology, but we must be on guard that we are not deceived on even the most basic fundamentals of the Word of God. God is not the author of confusion and yet we have much confusion on the basic understanding of Worship, Baptism, Faith, Works...etc. Therefore, we as Christians are obligated to teach the truth of the Word and allow the Word alone to be our guide into all truth.

"So after thinking about all of this for several days I have a question: In what context are you using the word "tribulation"?"

I use the word "tribulation" in the most generic sence as a way to discripe the turmoil we see in the world today and how it will progress as the day of His coming approaches. It in no way is to be taken as an acceptance that there will be a time or period in the future of tribulation as many would believe. There has always been tribulation since the fall of man.

"A second question: how do you see the events in Revelation 12 as compared to Revelation 20. Are these different events, or one event described from a different point of view?"

I am of the position, and could be subject to correction, that Rev. 20:1-6 is a conclusion of the events taking place in Ch 12.

Chapter 12 being symbolic of the battle between Christ and Satan leading up to his being bound and cast down. Even his attempt to go after the woman was thwarted by God when she was given wings (power) to alude him.

Therefore, not being able to defeat God's plan, now he is consigned to roaming the earth seeking whom he may devour for a period of time set by God alone (1000 yrs.). This is where the Church is then introduced and we see the sombolism of the activity of the saints reigning with Christ in the kingdom and the overcoming of the faithful who endure. Peace has been brought to the heart of man through Christ and nothing satan can do will be able to destroy the Church because Jesus has overcome the power that death once held over mankind.

This has nothing to do with the physical would in which we live but everything to do with the spiritual kingdom of Christ and His Church as they battle against Satan for the period of time set forth by God...and BTW even Christ said He did not know the time of the end so how can any man claim to have that knowledge?

Revelation is not so much chronilogical in nature as it is symbolic. As we see it revealed to the seven churches and the promise that He would come to them quickly and then He does in Chapter 22 when His church is revealed coming down out of heaven and then we see a more perfect way revealed.

As the Hebrew writer used this same type of termonology to convince the Hebrews of a more literal perfect sacrifice, a litteral more perfect way, and more litteral perfect priesthood...etc.

Anyway, now that I have gone on for days and most are now sleeping through the addendum...Have a great day...

In His service, Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (1/28/2010)]

"I can see the point you're trying to make, but I continue to have difficulty when words like "facts" and "logic" are used to support any interpretation of the Bible. And if facts and logic are taken out of the equation, the only positive that's really left is humor."

I agree totally on your point of logic and facts. However, facts cannot be removed from the equasion because we cannot change facts once they become such. Logic, however, is subjective. But we must conclude, because God is not the author of confution, that His Word and the meaning of it should have the same for everyone who reads it. Why is that not so? Because we often choose to make His Word say what we want it to, often based on our own pre-concieved notions, rather than letting His Word interpret itself and allow God to reveal it to us.

"Nitpicking which parts of the bible are to be taken seriously really is an exercise in futility unless one discards it entirely."

I do not believe any part of God's Word is to be taken lightly..."All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).


"Of course, I don't have the advantage that a widely-accepted presupposition of truth provides theists. Bother."

Neither do I...being in the minority sometimes is a lonely place to travel...

Gave a good day my friend, Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (1/28/2010)]

Bridger:

There are very, very few translations of the LXX as such. There is the old translation in the Bagster parallel LXX/English edition (done by Brenton), and one by Thompson (interestingly, the secretary to the Continental Congress!), but both are over 200 years old.

Sorry, wasn't clear: which text (the LXX or the Masoratic) is used as the basis for most modern OT translations?

The Masoratic text would be the answer. The LXX is the Greek translation of the OT and is not used to translate most major modern versions.

Have a great week-end, Jim

wow,way to confused

Armaments, chapter two, verses nine through twenty-one:
"And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats...And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.' And so thus dids't rapture ensue." AMEN

Couldn't resist...pops into my head whenever scripture is quoted. Sorry...do carry-on.

So... while the Kione greek may be authoritative for the new testament, I doubt it corresponds word for word with the hebrew text from whence come most english translations of the Old testament - and thus enters the ambiguity and imprecision of which Wendy spoke.

"So... while the Kione greek may be authoritative for the new testament, I doubt it corresponds word for word with the hebrew text from whence come most english translations of the Old testament - and thus enters the ambiguity and imprecision of which Wendy spoke."

Wherein is there any ambiguity?? The fact is precisely that we no longer live under the Law (i.e. Old Testament). As Paul said, the Old Tastament is our "schoolmaster" and we are now under the Law of Christ since He done away with the old law by fulfilling it through His death on the cross.

The Old Testament would have never brought, will not bring, salvation to man because it was never meant to; even if we understood every jot and tittle. So in reality, the accuracy of the New Testament, which is the topic at hand, is undesputed because of the Koine Greek and this is where we find our guide for this dispensation.

Therefore, all we need to produce faith (Romans 10:17), guide us to repentance (Acts 17:30; 2 Cor. 7:9-10), lead us to confession of The Christ (Romans 10:9-10), teach us how to wash away our sins (Acts 10:48; 22:16), and encourages us to walk in faithfulness (Rev. 2:10) is found in the text of the New Testament.

While the Text of the OT may not have as clear a history as to the textual critics the Hebrew & Aramaic languages and the overall critique of the Pentateuch has stood the test of all critics to date and can be accepted faithfully as authoratative when looking at the history of God's people. Thus, we are now living in the era in which the faithfull in history looked forward to; By faith...(in God's promise, i.e. in the coming of the Christ)...they obeyed and it was counted unto them as righteousness.

Therefore, even if we did not have the text of the Old Testament man would still have enough within the New Testament and be obligated to obey the Gospel of Christ and live faithfully until death or suffer the consequences of spiritual death and torment.

Just to expand and give a clear view of the reality of how important the NT is over the OT in light of Salvation...

In His Service, Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (2/1/2010)]

Therefore, even if we did not have the text of the Old Testament man would still have enough within the New Testament and be obligated to obey the Gospel of Christ and live faithfully until death or suffer the consequences of spiritual death and torment.

Without the OT, we would have little knowledge of sin and the need for or promise of a Savior. We know that Jesus is who claimed to be because He fulfills the every one of the prophecies concerning the Messiah the OT. It make no sense for him to establish a New Covenant if we don't understand what the old covenant was and why it was deficient.

Well said; ("even if..." being the key thought in my last post)

But we do have the OT to point us to Christ just as it did in the past. But now we look to the NT for our salvation "in Christ"...

Wherein lies the confusion, even if some cannot agree on some of the details of the text the overall spirit and principle is still there to this day.

I still do not believe the OT is an absolute to knowing Christ (although I am glad we do have it) and knowing the need for salvation through Him. We have enough knowledge and referrence to the OT in the New to bring us to that knowledge.

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (2/2/2010)]

As Paul said, the Old Tastament is our "schoolmaster"

Paul did NOT say this. He said the LAW was our schoolmaster. (Gal 3:24)
To say that the Old Testament = Law is to be in error. It leads you to say things like:

The Old Testament would have never brought, will not bring, salvation to man because it was never meant to; even if we understood every jot and tittle.

Such statements are misleading in that they convey the notion that prior to the New Testament there was no salvation.


The Old Testament is as much God's Word as the New Testament. It is both Law and Gospel and did bring about salvation.

Genesis 3:15 is a proclamation of the Gospel. It is the promise that God would send a Savior. So strongly did Eve believe in this promise that when she gave birth to Cain, she made the claim "I have begotten a man, the Lord" (Gen 4:1) (Translated properly from the Hebrew*)

It was believing in the promise, that God will send a Savior, which was salvific (sp?) for the Old Testament hearers. It is equally salvific for us who believe that God has fulfilled that promise, and has sent us a Savior.






* The word ??? (et) can be used in two ways. It either functions as a preposition or as a marker of the direct object. Using it as a preposition we would have a literal translation resulting as follows: "I have acquired a man, [with] [by] LORD." Using it as a marker of a direct object would result in a literal translation of the text that would read. "I have acquired a man the LORD." Most of the modern translations and commentators prefer the propositional approach and in doing so, have also imported the idea to this text "with the help of" Some have even gone so far as using the translation "from" the LORD. As a general rule this interpretation is done with little explanation. For this specific rendering of the word "from" to be valid we would expect the Hebrew word ???, (min) in the text, which it is clearly not.

Russell - I think the word your looking for is "soteriological"

Regarding your journey through the maze of Hebrew grammar and syntax - I understand there's no ambiguity in the original Kione greek.

I think the ambiguity is in me, trying to use the English language to describe what the text is conveying.



[This message has been edited by Russell Bonine (2/3/2010)]

I know I'll regret this but here goes. I have always struggled with the Christian notion that salvation is only available through belief in Jesus Christ as the Saviour. Are you saying, Russell, that the the Old Testament is still an instrument through which one can reach salvation?

I have always struggled with the Christian notion that salvation is only available through belief in Jesus Christ as the Saviour.

me too, and then pair that with a tome translated many times (some to the likes of its editor.) i have just decided to try and be the best person possible. if i end up in the 'fiery pits of hell' for my humanist actions so be it, your game clearly isn't for everyone to play.

Are you saying, Russell, that the the Old Testament is still an instrument through which one can reach salvation?

Wendy,

Let me first say, what I was trying to point out was the position that Jim takes regarding the Old Testament with His comment:

The Old Testament would have never brought, will not bring, salvation to man because it was never meant to; even if we understood every jot and tittle.

leads one to conclude that prior to the New Testament there was no salvation.


Now if you are asking about the OT in terms of a standalone or apart from the New Testament then I would answer, no longer. It is however the foundation in which we come to know the promise of God and His plan of salvation and how that plan has played out in history. That is to say, despite the fact that God was reviled by His creation He continued to stand behind the promise. It also raises the question, "did God fulfill His promise?"

It is in the New Testament where we see how God has fulfilled that promise in the person of Jesus Christ.

We even see this played out within scripture:

The magi (Matt 2) who came to visit the Christ child are likely to have come from Babylon. This of course is where the children of Israel had been taken to when King Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem. Those who were taken captive were allowed to prosper in the land of Babylon. Many of the Israelites stayed in Babylon even after they were allowed to return to Jerusalem. This is how the magi would have come into contact with the writings that we have in the Old Testament. In coming to understand that the promise was fulfilled in Jesus, the magi worshiped the Christ child.

Another example is the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27ff). He was reading a scroll of the prophet Isaiah when Phillip caught up to him. It was finally in Phillip speaking to him the fulfillment of this prophecy in the person of Jesus that brought about understanding and baptism into Christ.

I hope that answers your question!

I have always struggled with the Christian notion that salvation is only available through belief in Jesus Christ as the Saviour.


me too, and then pair that with a tome translated many times (some to the likes of its editor.) i have just decided to try and be the best person possible. if i end up in the 'fiery pits of hell' for my humanist actions so be it, your game clearly isn't for everyone to play.

"There are not a thousand, not even four but only two essentially different religions: the religion of the Law which is the endeavor to reconcile God through man's own works and the religion of the Gospel, that is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, belief wrought through the Gospel by the Holy Spirit that we have a gracious God through the reconciliation already affected by Christ, and not because of our own works"
- Francis Pieper

Sorry to take so long to reply to you last post Richard...been a rather odd week...


"As Paul said, the Old Tastament is our "schoolmaster""

"Paul did NOT say this. He said the LAW was our schoolmaster. (Gal 3:24)To say that the Old Testament = Law is to be in error. It leads you to say things like:"

I stand corrected and thankfully so...it was incorrect for me to lump the entire OT as "the Law". However we do not live by the OT in this time as we now have a new covenant (testament) instituted by the death of the Christ (testator).

I firmly stand by this statement though:
"The Old Testament would have never brought, will not bring, salvation to man because it was never meant to; even if we understood every jot and tittle."

...Because the Law and the writings of the Old Testament never saved anyone past or present. What it did do was to provide the knowledge of God and His promise in which those who understood then believed (had faith) in and this caused them to act in obedience which was counted unto them as righteousness according to the Hewbrew writer in chapter 11. In every case the Hebrew writer gives us...the person had faith...and action was the result...

It wasn't until the blood of Christ was shed, which is where their faith was based, that salvation was offerd to man. Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through Me." That includes those in the OT times as well as those who would come after. No one will have any hope of eternal life unless we go through Christ and obey His commands. Even the OT says that without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin. For those who say we are to follow the OT, where do they offer their sacrifices, burn their incense, make their grain offerings...etc...etc. If Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice offered once for all time then why do I need the conformity to the old covenant?


"Such statements are misleading in that they convey the notion that prior to the New Testament there was no salvation."

Misleading from what??...False doctrine??...as i said, salvation did not become available to man before the shedding of the blood of Christ. The promise was available but not salvation. That harmonizes perfectly with your exposition on Gen. 3:15 as well. The Seed of the woman would be the ultimate sacrifice and He would defeat death. But until that point sin had not yet been defeated.


"The Old Testament is as much God's Word as the New Testament. It is both Law and Gospel and did bring about salvation."

I whole heartedly agree that the OT is just as much God's Word as the NT is. However, the purpose of the OT was not the same as the NT. The OT was to point that generation to Christ so that by faith in Him they could obtain salvation. It was never intended to save anyone and did not save anyone.

However, even once they saw the promise of Christ their salvation was conditioned upon their willingness to act upon that faith by patiently showing their obedience while patiently waiting for the promise. Even then, some never saw the promise before their death.

The New covenant is the only Law in which we now live by, contrary to what some may believe, and the OT is for our learning not for our salvation.

Also, when you really think about it...even in the NT times we must obey Christ and be faithful untill death before we obtain salvation according to Rev. 2:10. The promise of salvation comes only to the faithfull when they have endured to the end. as Paul said its a race we run in order to obtain the prize. Therefore, the concept of "being saved" when one believes, as many people are taught, is a false doctrine in more than one way because one cannot be saved untill he/she stands before God in the judgment and is found faithfull to Christ. Once saved always saved is the biggest lie the devil has ever told.

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (2/4/2010)]

"It was finally in Phillip speaking to him the fulfillment of this prophecy in the person of Jesus that brought about understanding and baptism into Christ."

Is this concepts not a contradiction of other discussions we have had?? Are you now saying that baptism is a result of one who see's it neccessary to be Baptized into Christ after one is preached unto him Jesus? If Phillip preached unto him Jesus why did he desire to be baptized?? can we not infer that the preaching of the Gospel would include baptism as part of the obedience required by Jesus as He spoke of in Mark 16:16ff??

"I have always struggled with the Christian notion that salvation is only available through belief in Jesus Christ as the Saviour."

John 14:6...means "everyone" must go through Christ...not Budda, not Joseph Smith, not the Pope, etc., etc,. Jesus Himself said that there would be few who would find the narrow gate to eternal life and that many would say Lord Lord but would be rejected because they did not obey His will.

Matthew 7:21-23 says; "Not everyone who says to Me,'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'"

I understand the practice of lawlessness to be one that does not conform their life in obedience to the commands of Christ. 1 John 3:4 gives a splendid definition of what lawlessness is..."Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."

Notice that Jesus defined the prerequisite as one who "practices" lawlessness. One who is making every effort to do His will and relying on His continued cleansing, 1 John 1:7, is not "practicing" lawlessness.


[This message has been edited by James Lynch (2/4/2010)]

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (2/5/2010)]

Someone really needs to study the Word instead of letting a particular group influence one's understanding.

I studied Blondie back in the early 1980s for quite some time...and believe me, I acquired some understanding.

and now every time Gunnar makes a Dagwood sandwich it... it... well the darn thing just "disappears".

Wrong Blondie, Richard.

I sort of knew that.