HOW GENUINE IS THE "RAPTURE" DOCTRINE?

[3 Resurrections]

Rev being prophetic riddle (Nu 12:8) subject to more than one interpretation, I understand the 1000 years of Rev 20 to be figurative of the church age, where the first resurrection (v.5) is from eternal death to eternal life in the new birth.

Then you are understanding this incorrectly, because it was a literal (not figurative) thousand years of Satan's deception being bound, ending with Satan's release on earth for a "short time" at Christ's resurrection-day ascension in AD 33.

You are also incorrectly understanding when the "FIRST resurrection" event took place in history. It does not take place multiplied billions of times every time a believer is brought to faith in Christ in the new birth process. That would be the meaning of the spiritual resurrection to eternal life of the soul - not the physical bodily resurrection events (PLURAL), of which God has already staged two of these events and is waiting with "long patience" until He carries out the final third bodily resurrection harvest of the saints in our future at the final judgment.

NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16) presents only one resurrection, occurring at the one second coming, with the one rapture and the one final judgment of the sheep and goats; i.e., all mankind.
And, Jesus having said that he would come soon, the NT writers believed that this one second coming would occur in their lifetime, that it was "about to be."
That was not the case, for no final judgment of all mankind with the second coming, resurrection, and rapture occurred in their lifetime.

Jesus did not lie or mislead his Apostles. They were taught by Christ and believed that He was returning at His second coming within their own lifetime's generation, and they were correct when they taught this in the NT writings. Just because you can't believe this doesn't mean that Christ lied about His second coming in that first century, or that the Apostles were mistaken.

These things are only a riddle if you make them into one. The Holy Spirit was sent to tell the Apostles "things to come". He did not fail in that mission. And Revelation is more than just prophecy - it too is Apostolic teaching which was understood by its original audience that God showed it to, and can be understood by us as well.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

HOW GENUINE IS THE "RAPTURE" DOCTRINE?​

Which "Theological version" would you like????

 

[Eleanor]

Then you are understanding this incorrectly, because it was a literal (not figurative) thousand years of Satan's deception being bound, ending with Satan's release on earth for a "short time" at Christ's resurrection-day ascension in AD 33.

The only authority regarding the meaning of the word of God is NT apostolic teaching (Lk 10:16),
which your, as well as my, personal interpretation of prophetic riddles does not enjoy.
However, my interpretation of Rev 20:5 is in agreement with NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16), while yours is not.

 

[EarlyActs]

Don't expect the same thing now because the material was written when the end was expected shortly. There are very different situations now. The final day of judgement seems to take place very quickly, and believers are quickly with the Lord in the NHNE.

 

[3 Resurrections]

However, my interpretation of Rev 20:5 is in agreement with NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16), while yours is not.

I am quoting John himself from Revelation as well as Christ and the Apostles from the gospels and the epistles. How much more authoritative do you expect?

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Rev is prophecy, and I don't take my understanding of Christian doctrine from prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8).
I take it only from NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16).

Branch and sheaf are the same word in Hebrew: amir (Isa 17:9, Zech 12:6).

Rev being prophetic riddle (Nu 12:8) subject to more than one interpretation, I understand the 1000 years of Rev 20 to be figurative of the church age, where the first resurrection (v.5) is from eternal death to eternal life in the new birth.

NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16) presents only one resurrection, occurring at the one second coming, with the one rapture and the one final judgment of the sheep and goats; i.e., all mankind.
And, Jesus having said that he would come soon, the NT writers believed that this one second coming would occur in their lifetime, that it was "about to be."
That was not the case, for no final judgment of all mankind with the second coming, resurrection, and rapture occurred in their lifetime.

Let's Dive Into ThisTopic A Little Deeper​

By delving into the “Rapture” doctrine and its biblical authenticity, I think it wise that we identify the doctrine’s composition, for I do not wish to misrepresent. Let’s begin with the term “rapture.”

1) “Rapture” is not found in any of our oldest Greek manuscripts. It has its origin in the Latin word “rapere,” which means to “take away,” “snatch out,” or “to seize.” We must not call “rapture” a biblical term for there is no Greek word that translates it.

2) The idea is that Jesus will suddenly appear in the air to snatch away from the earth and take to heaven all living saints, as well as the resurrected bodies of those believers who have died.

3) If you are on the roof of your house, or riding horseback, or in your car on a busy highway, or in bed with your spouse, you will be “snatched” or “caught up”—disappear all of a sudden. Your unregenerate friends and relatives will be amazed at your sudden disappearance. Cars will crash without drivers; planes will fall without pilots.

4) At the “Rapture,” Jesus “snatches up the church” only. But at “The Revelation,” when He is revealed once again, He will “return with the church” and bring an end to the “Tribulation” and “Armageddon.” A thousand-year earthly reign will then commence.

Does this sound like something you’ve never heard before? If yes, it is because you’ve never read it before—at least not in the scriptures. The scriptures used to support the “Rapture” are 1st Thessalonians 4:13-17, where Paul deals with the Lord’s return. Revelation, chapters 4-5, are supposed to capture the heavenly scene, and the 7-year “Tribulation” period, which follows the “snatching up,” is described in Revelation, chapters 4-19—or so allege the “Rapture” defenders.

Now read me carefully. If 1st Thessalonians 4:13-17 do not teach the “Rapture” creed, the entire core of the screenplay collapses. We agree that when Jesus returns, He will bring with him “those who have fallen asleep” (v.14). Furthermore, we concur that when He makes His second advent, He will “snatch up” those of us still living “to meet the Lord in the air” (v.17). It is agreed further that those of us still living will not precede or go ahead of those who have died (v.15). We will be caught up together with departed saints, after they have been resurrected from their paradise abode. These saints will accompany Jesus (“God will bring with Jesus,” v.14) as He gathers to Himself those who are still alive.

This is where the agreement ends. Our premillennial advocates have Jesus descending twice, once to “rapture” saints and once more when He returns with them to put an end to the “Tribulation” and “Armageddon,” followed by a thousand-year earthly government. In this matter, they select a few highly symbolic passages from the Book of Revelation, tie them in with the Thessalonian verses, and the “Rapture stage” is ready to perform. Nowhere in the Thessalonian verses is it remotely implied that Jesus will descend twice more. Please keep that idea in mind as we examine this dramatic creed. For if, as stated earlier, these verses fail to advance the “Rapture” doctrine, it falls by the wayside.​

 

[Josheb]

As I wrote above in post #32, the Revelation 20 literal thousand years began back in 968 / 967 BC with the foundation stone of Solomon's temple being laid down. Scripture makes a great to-do about the specific dates for foundation stones being laid down; Solomon's, then Zerubbabel's, then Christ as the "chief cornerstone" of the spiritual temple not made with hands. Jesus in His finished sacrifice for us in being made "the head of the corner" (which "stone" was rejected by the "builders") was the final fulfillment of the symbolism provided by those former physical foundation stones of a physical temple system which had God's backing for that literal thousand years leading up to Christ's resurrection.

Satan's deception of the nations was bound at that point of Solomon's temple foundation stone being laid down, and continued to be bound by the increasing ministry of the major and minor prophets in those years to follow. Even when sent into exile for their disobedience, Israel in its exiled punishment still brought the fame of the God of Israel into all those far-flung nations of the world. Two pagan kings - Nebuchadnezzar and Darius - both made world-wide proclamations praising the God of heaven for His actions towards men and nations.

Daniel's influence in the courts of pagan kings was a very public testimony to the nations concerning the God of Israel.

A converted, healed Naaman became a fervent witness for God in the king's Syrian court, due to a single comment by a nameless Jewish maidservant recommending that her master make a trip to see the prophet of God in Samaria.

Cyrus the Persian also knew very well that his victory over Babylon was due to God's plan for him, even before Cyrus was born. The decree Cyrus published lauding the God of Israel went out to all the nations of the world also, in authorization of the nation's return to their homeland.

Likewise, King Ahasuerus sent out a decree in support of the Jews defending themselves, which caused many in the land to become Jews. Mordecai, Esther's uncle who became established in power at the side of the king, also had the means to spread the knowledge of the God of the Jews to those high in the government of the kingdom.

There is a pattern here presented in scripture of the increasing knowledge of the God of Israel among the pagan nations of the world, beginning with the fame of Solomon's temple being built. When ignorance of the God of Israel among those nations was being dispelled, this limited Satan's deception of the nations which had kept them in that state of ignorance before then. Christ's ministry of casting out devils in His days was proof that Satan, the "strong man", had already "FIRST" been bound much earlier, because Christ and the disciples were "spoiling his goods" by casting out devils.

So....

Filling in blanks haphazardly because the answers aren't stated or aren't known is not rational. I can do math. I can subtract 1000 from Calvary and come up with Solomon. That begs the question; it does not answer the question. I can list all the events occurring around the time of Solomon, but that proves nothing other than an eisegetic assumption exists to justify the list.

It's also grossly contradictory because the temple of stone built by human hands is not evidence of satan's binding; it's evidence of his influence obstructing the gospel (the very thing Rev. 20 tells us he was bound from doing). The temple of stone was an abomination. Every stone in it was an act of disobedience - of sin!

Exodus 20:25
And if you make an altar of stone for Me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your chisel on it, you will profane it.

Deuteronomy 27:5-6
Moreover, you shall build there an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of stones; you shall not wield an iron tool on them. You shall build the altar of the LORD your God of uncut stones, and you shall offer on it burnt offerings to the LORD your God...

1 Kings 6:7
The house, while it was being built, was built of stone finished at the quarry, and neither hammer, nor axe, nor any iron tool was heard in the house while it was being built.

Haggai 2:11-15
Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Ask now the priests for a ruling: If a man carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and touches bread with this fold, or cooked food, wine, oil, or any other food, will it become holy?" And the priests answered, "No." Then Haggai said, "If one who is unclean from a corpse touches any of these, will the latter become unclean?" And the priests answered, "It will become unclean." Then Haggai said, 'So is this people. And so is this nation before Me,' declares the LORD, 'and so is every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean. But now, do consider from this day onward: before one stone was placed on another in the temple of the LORD...

The shaped the rocks! Solomon was correct in not using (manmade) tools, but he was incorrect to hew the stones at all. God needs nothing from man. He made the rocks of the earth. His altars were to be made from His rocks, not rocks taken from him and shaped as if to improve them. To do so was an implicit act elevating the creature over the Creator. Every stone in the temple's altar, if not the whole temple, was worthless, an act of disregard for God and His standards.

AND.....

It was built be a monarch God never wanted in the first place. God rejected Israel's request for a king (1 Sam. 8) and explicitly told them He took the request as a rejection of Him! God acquiesced and gave them the desires of their flesh (Rom. 1:24). God was Israel's King. God never wanted Israel to have an earthly king. Every single earthly monarch was an act of disobedience. Had any of the earthly monarchs ever truly returned Israel to God they would have abdicated their throne! That earthly king (the offspring of a murderous adulterous relationship) built a temple in which was housed an altar where every stone was another compiling act of disobedience.

Acts 7:47-50
But it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool." "What kind of house will you build for me?" says the Lord, or "What is the place of my rest?" "Did not my hand make all these things?"

Stephen was quoted from 2 Sam. 7.

Revelation 20:1-3
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

Anyone can do math. Finding an actual statement in scripture marking the binding of satan during Solomon's building of the temple is quite another and, given the evidence of scripture to the contrary I do not see it can be concluded satan was bound so he could not deceive the nations any longer. In point of fact, Israel was very, very, very deceived by the time Jesus showed up. The Messiah stood right in front of them commanding the elements of creation and they missed him, beat him to an inch of his life and then torturously killed him.

But....

If there exists something else in scripture marking the beginning of the millennium 1000 years prior to John's writing, then I am all eyes and ears.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It's also grossly contradictory because the temple of stone built by human hands is not evidence of satan's binding; it's evidence of his influence obstructing the gospel (the very thing Rev. 20 tells us he was bound from doing). The temple of stone was an abomination. Every stone in it was an act of disobedience - of sin!

Ahh, you are one of those who believe that God had nothing to do with the building of the physical temples. That is not true. God actually reproved the Israelites for delaying the building of His temple in the post-exilic return. He actually said "I will take pleasure in it" in Haggai 1:8. From the day that those in Jerusalem renewed their efforts to rebuild that stone temple, God said "I will bless you". (Haggai 2:19). God decreed that Zerubbabel's hands would not only lay that foundation stone in the temple (with the seven eyes in that stone), but Zerubbabel's hands would also finish it (Zechariah 4:9). This man was chosen as a signet by God as "My servant" to accomplish God's purposes in building that temple. (Haggai 2:23).

God also promised to give "peace of soul for a possession to everyone that builds to raise up this temple." (Haggai 2:9 LXX). Does all that sound like an abomination to you? God gave Ezekiel the floor plans of that very temple which Zerubbabel built (Ezekiel 40-44), along with restrictions for which family (Zadok) was to serve as the high priests in it. And the elders builded and finished that temple, "according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." (Ezra 6:14).

As for Solomon's temple, King David gave Solomon the plans for that temple. King David had been given those plans for the temple construction by the Spirit (1 Chronicles 28:11-12). When that temple of Solomon was dedicated, God showed His approval of it by His glory cloud filling it to such an extent that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of that cloud's presence. Does that sound like God considered that temple an "abomination" at the time?

It was only after Christ as "the chief cornerstone" became the fulfillment of what that physical temple type had represented beforehand that the physical temple and its priesthood became outdated and set aside in favor of the "more glorious" New Covenant spiritual temple not made with hands.

In point of fact, Israel was very, very, very deceived by the time Jesus showed up. The Messiah stood right in front of them commanding the elements of creation and they missed him, beat him to an inch of his life and then torturously killed him.

The single nation of Israel not recognizing their Messiah was not the many nations over which Satan's deception was being bound in that literal millennium period until AD 33. God prophesied through Isaiah that though Israel would be numbered as the sand of the sea, yet only a remnant would be saved. Christ "came unto His own, and His own received Him not", as a general rule. But does that require that Satan had been the one to deceive them? They were perfectly capable of deceiving themselves with the deceit that is prominent in the human heart above all other things (Jeremiah 17:9).

That millennium period was prophesied by King David in a couple of places. Namely Psalms 72 in the LXX which spoke of the aging King David's son Solomon "bringing low the false accuser" which was Satan, the "accuser of the brethren". Solomon's reign exacted tribute from many surrounding nations, all of which heard about the God of Israel in the process. Even all those thousand wives and concubines resulted in the name of the God of Israel being taken back to the nations those ambassadors had come from. The purpose of the millennium prevailed in spite of Solomon's hedonism and fall from faithfulness.

Another is King David's pronouncement in Psalms 102:13 at the close of his reign that "the set time" to favor Zion had come for those who took pleasure in her stones. God was going to appear in His glory when He built up Zion, which literally took place with God's glory cloud in the temple at Solomon's dedication ceremony. This was going to result in "So the heathen shall fear the name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth thy glory." That was the nations of Solomon's time beginning to hear about the glory of the God of Israel.

That "set time" was a specific time appointed by God for that particular season - which was the beginning of the millennium when Satan's deception of the nations at large was going to be bound - in 968 967 BC with that foundation stone being laid down at Solomon's temple.

 

[Josheb]

Ahh, you are one of those who believe that God had nothing to do with the building of the physical temples.

Can you keep the posts about the posts?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Josheb, I am responding to your own comments about the physical temples. I'd be happy to take that discussion to another post if you want to introduce one with that theme.

 

[EarlyActs]

Let's Dive Into ThisTopic A Little Deeper​

By delving into the “Rapture” doctrine and its biblical authenticity, I think it wise that we identify the doctrine’s composition, for I do not wish to misrepresent. Let’s begin with the term “rapture.”

1) “Rapture” is not found in any of our oldest Greek manuscripts. It has its origin in the Latin word “rapere,” which means to “take away,” “snatch out,” or “to seize.” We must not call “rapture” a biblical term for there is no Greek word that translates it.

2) The idea is that Jesus will suddenly appear in the air to snatch away from the earth and take to heaven all living saints, as well as the resurrected bodies of those believers who have died.

3) If you are on the roof of your house, or riding horseback, or in your car on a busy highway, or in bed with your spouse, you will be “snatched” or “caught up”—disappear all of a sudden. Your unregenerate friends and relatives will be amazed at your sudden disappearance. Cars will crash without drivers; planes will fall without pilots.

4) At the “Rapture,” Jesus “snatches up the church” only. But at “The Revelation,” when He is revealed once again, He will “return with the church” and bring an end to the “Tribulation” and “Armageddon.” A thousand-year earthly reign will then commence.

Does this sound like something you’ve never heard before? If yes, it is because you’ve never read it before—at least not in the scriptures. The scriptures used to support the “Rapture” are 1st Thessalonians 4:13-17, where Paul deals with the Lord’s return. Revelation, chapters 4-5, are supposed to capture the heavenly scene, and the 7-year “Tribulation” period, which follows the “snatching up,” is described in Revelation, chapters 4-19—or so allege the “Rapture” defenders.

Now read me carefully. If 1st Thessalonians 4:13-17 do not teach the “Rapture” creed, the entire core of the screenplay collapses. We agree that when Jesus returns, He will bring with him “those who have fallen asleep” (v.14). Furthermore, we concur that when He makes His second advent, He will “snatch up” those of us still living “to meet the Lord in the air” (v.17). It is agreed further that those of us still living will not precede or go ahead of those who have died (v.15). We will be caught up together with departed saints, after they have been resurrected from their paradise abode. These saints will accompany Jesus (“God will bring with Jesus,” v.14) as He gathers to Himself those who are still alive.

This is where the agreement ends. Our premillennial advocates have Jesus descending twice, once to “rapture” saints and once more when He returns with them to put an end to the “Tribulation” and “Armageddon,” followed by a thousand-year earthly government. In this matter, they select a few highly symbolic passages from the Book of Revelation, tie them in with the Thessalonian verses, and the “Rapture stage” is ready to perform. Nowhere in the Thessalonian verses is it remotely implied that Jesus will descend twice more. Please keep that idea in mind as we examine this dramatic creed. For if, as stated earlier, these verses fail to advance the “Rapture” doctrine, it falls by the wayside.​

I think you are close. Another, shorter, way to say all this is that the total time it takes to end the world and judge it and move on to the NHNE is extremely short. There are normal-language passages on the last day that know nothing of elaborate schemes and time frames of events on earth. I find that this has to do with confusing Mt 24A and B, B beginning at v29, "after these things" and going on around the world. (The things in A are mostly Judean or related to its destiny).

 

[Josheb]

Ahh, you are one of those............

Can you keep the posts about the posts?

Josheb, I am responding to your own comments about the physical temples.

Can you keep the posts about the posts?

I'd be happy to take that discussion to another post if you want to introduce one with that theme.

I am not interested in having any conversation with any poster who has difficulty keeping the posts about the posts, especially when "You're one of those..." is thought salient. Just let me know: Can you keep the posts about the posts?


I'll reply to the rest of Post 48 when I have an answer to that question.

 

[Eleanor]

I am quoting John himself from Revelation as well as Christ and the Apostles from the gospels and the epistles. How much more authoritative do you expect?

Revelation is prophetic riddle, subject to more than one interpretation, the best interpretation being the one that agrees with NT apostolic teaching, authoritative to the church (Lk 10:16).

Gospels and epistles are didactics, not subject to more than one interpretation.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I am not interested in having any conversation with any poster who has difficulty keeping the posts about the posts, especially when "You're one of those..." is thought salient. Just let me know: Can you keep the posts about the posts?

Apologies if you considered my comment to be offensive, which was not my intent. One of the members here from another forum we both used to share elsewhere also believes as you do about the physical temples not being a commendable thing. I was voicing my recognition of your points sounding similar to what he used to post on this subject (and is presumably still of the same opinion). I don't disrespect this other member for his views - he's quite knowledgeable and is willing to think outside the box - a trait I really appreciate about him (which traits I believe you share also). I just find scripture to say otherwise on this temple issue, that's all.

 

[Josheb]

Apologies if you considered my comment to be offensive, which was not my intent. One of the members here from another forum we both used to share elsewhere also believes as you do about the physical temples not being a commendable thing. I was voicing my recognition of your points sounding similar to what he used to post on this subject (and is presumably still of the same opinion). I don't disrespect this other member for his views - he's quite knowledgeable and is willing to think outside the box - a trait I really appreciate about him (which traits I believe you share also). I just find scripture to say otherwise on this temple issue, that's all.

Last chance: Can you keep the posts about the posts and not the posters?










For the record: One person cannot "apologize" for what another does or does not do. Person A expressed regret for what Person A did or did not due that was wrong. That was a politician's apology, not a confession of wrongdoing, expression of regret, and pledge to do better, make amends, and not repeat the error.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Last chance: Can you keep the posts about the posts and not the posters?

Josheb, I responded to three of your own questions. I suppose I should have ignored those questions that drifted off topic of the rapture, but I prefer conversation compared to ignoring a person's direct questions. Otherwise I can get accused of deflecting, which has happened before. With giving an answer or not giving an answer, one can still get in trouble either way. In one question, you asked about the "great day". In another you asked about the disposition of Satan, and in another you asked when I thought the millennium began. I answered them all. You offered criticism of my answers and yourself introduced the topic of the physical temples being constructed. And you yourself acknowledged that we were both going off topic on these points, but that you would respond with just a couple more posts. Which you did. Which I didn't mind limiting it to that.

If you noticed the time of day I was posting my apology to you, it was at 2:00 in the morning after an exhausting day in the workroom trying to finish a complicated deadline for delivery today. I can't always word things in the best way at 2:00 in the morning. If you believed that to be a "political" apology, all I can say is those were not my motives.

As Buff has posted, part of the "rapture" doctrine is their placement of the millennium on the timeline after the rapture, Tribulation, and Armageddon in that order. The conversation then must include a discussion of when that millennium actually took place, which was definitely not linked together with the second coming at all but with the "First resurrection" back in AD 33, just before the AD 70 rapture.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Josheb, I responded to three of your own questions. I suppose I should have ignored those questions that drifted off topic of the rapture, but I prefer conversation compared to ignoring a person's direct questions. Otherwise I can get accused of deflecting, which has happened before. With giving an answer or not giving an answer, one can still get in trouble either way. In one question, you asked about the "great day". In another you asked about the disposition of Satan, and in another you asked when I thought the millennium began. I answered them all. You offered criticism of my answers and yourself introduced the topic of the physical temples being constructed. And you yourself acknowledged that we were both going off topic on these points, but that you would respond with just a couple more posts. Which you did. Which I didn't mind limiting it to that.

If you noticed the time of day I was posting my apology to you, it was at 2:00 in the morning after an exhausting day in the workroom trying to finish a complicated deadline for delivery today. I can't always word things in the best way at 2:00 in the morning. If you believed that to be a "political" apology, all I can say is those were not my motives.

As Buff has posted, part of the "rapture" doctrine is their placement of the millennium on the timeline after the rapture, Tribulation, and Armageddon in that order. The conversation then must include a discussion of when that millennium actually took place, which was definitely not linked together with the second coming at all but with the "First resurrection" back in AD 33, just before the AD 70 rapture.

I don't think you have much to worry about that guy, he wants to make a mountain out of a molehill where it comes to supposed ad hominems.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

The event was explained to the Thess in a period when the expectation was that the world would end right after the destruction of Jerusalem. The evil person of Dan 8&9 was identified as part of that conflagration. Even in the details of that event, we learn that there was a postponement of the seige in 69 and many believers left Jerusalem as Romans were more relaxed.

The question then becomes: given the above, what would necessarily follow through or remain the same for the future? Most of the circumstances would be different.

I think what remains the same is the protection of the believers from the wrath of God as described in 2 Th 1-2. 'We are not appointed for wrath.' But to be clear, the events he describes there are very quick in duration. Other than the years of the revolt and destruction of Jerusalem, I do not seem much time taken up by the day of God's wrath. (This also solves many 'judicial' contradictions--an unconscious blurring of dying on earth--in world wide plagues or cataclysms-- with the doctrine of eternal damnation).

I do think that since the world has moved along, and nasty doctrines of a one-world government crop up, that there could be a 'harrassment of the saints' before the day of wrath, which may be mentioned in how the 'very long reign of Christ' ends in Rev 20. But again, the mere voice or word of God brings all opposition to an end, and quickly.

Here's a couple additional views on the "Rapture." Nowhere in scripture does it speak of Jesus making two personal advents, following His ascension into heaven two-thousand years ago, as I alluded to earlier. Nor do they speak of saints ascending into heaven twice. Saints have been reigning with Jesus since He was “Exalted [enthroned] to the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33-35). He now sits on “David’s throne” (Acts 2:30) in heaven as King over God’s new nation or kingdom, the community of the saints.

Jesus’ throne in heaven typifies David’s reignship over old Israel. David reigned as king over old Israel; Jesus now reigns as King over new Israel, the family of believers. The saints at Colosse had been “rescued from the dominion [kingdom] of darkness” and transferred “into the kingdom of the Son He loves” (Colossians 1:13).

As there can be no body without a head, or a kingdom without a king, we conclude that since the believers at Colosse were citizens of God’s kingdom, Jesus must have been their King! If He is now King, and He is, why in logic’s name would He surrender his superior kingship in heaven to return to earth to become King of an inferior kingdom during an alleged thousand-year earthly reign?​

 

[TMSO]

The “Rapture” Doctrine​

One of the most crushing arguments against the modern-day “Rapture” doctrine is 1st Corinthians 15. Of the 58 verses contained in this chapter, 85 percent of them deal with the resurrection. Yet, in all of these verses, not once does Paul allude to Jesus descending twice more. Listen to verse 23. “But each in his own turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes [referring to one advent], those who belong to him. Then the end will come.”

It might interest you to know that “will come” is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts. Literally, the verse reads, “Then the end.” End of what? End of time and tangible matter as we know them today. When that occurs, Jesus “hands over the kingdom [reign] to God the Father after he has destroyed all [earthly] dominion, authority, and power. For he must [now] reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (verses 24 & 25).

Our “Rapture” enthusiasts say that Jesus will suddenly appear in the air to snatch away from the earth and take to heaven all living saints, as well as the resurrected bodies of those believers who have died. At the “Rapture,” Jesus “snatches up the church” only. But at “The Revelation,” when He is revealed once again, He will “return with the church”and bring an end to the “Tribulation” and “Armageddon.” A thousand-year earthly reign will then commence, as per the doctrine. Consequently, we have two future advents. It makes little difference whether Jesus’ feet will touch the earth during His first advent (“Rapture”). The fact is, there are two advents scheduled. The scriptures speak of only one.

If Jesus is to descend twice more, as our “Rapture” brothers claim, please tell me why Paul failed to communicate that fact when he wrote at length about the resurrection? He alludes to one advent (verse 23), not two. He had every opportunity to say something about a second advent. He is completely silent on the subject! You see, if the scriptures fail to teach that Jesus will descend twice more, the contemporary “Rapture” doctrine falls short of evidence. And when a doctrine falls short of evidence, it is most likely of man and not of God. The “Rapture” doctrine falls short of evidence. It simply ain’t there!

Jesus is now reigning over new Israel, the redeemed society. The new Israel was not meant to be earthly and external, as earthly kingdoms are, and her King was to reign in the hearts of His subjects, not from a throne constructed from earthly stones and materialistic hardware. Jesus states it far more exquisitely, “The kingdom [reign] of God does not come visibly, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom [reign] of God is within you” (Luke 17:20-21). Jesus reigns from His throne in heaven and in the hearts of His subjects, not in earthly Jerusalem at a future date. For then people would be able to say, “Here it is,” or “There it is.” And Jesus says this will not be the case!​

Jesus does not descend for the rapture. Also, the word used for the end in Matthew 24 by the disciples speaks of the "complete" end. That is, the end of everything. They understood that everything will come to an end, and there would be a final judgement. Notice Jesus answer when the disciples asked Jesus if He would now return the kingdom to Israel. He didn't say, I'm not. He said it wasn't for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. So not a no, but an indirect someday.

 

[Eleanor]

Jesus does not descend for the rapture.

Jesus appears on the clouds, the dead are resurrected, and the saints rise to go out to welcome the Lord and descend with him back to earth (1 Th 4:16-17). It is called the parousia (2 Th 2:8, 1 Tim 64, 2 Tim 4:1, 8, Tit 2:13), and we see it illustrated in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, where they went out to meet him and accompanied him back into the city.

Also, the word used for the end in Matthew 24 by the disciples speaks of the "complete" end. That is, the end of everything. They understood that everything will come to an end, and there would be a final judgement. Notice Jesus answer when the disciples asked Jesus if He would now return the kingdom to Israel. He didn't say, I'm not. He said it wasn't for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. So not a no, but an indirect someday.

There is no affirmation of anything but times and seasons in Jesus' response. Returning the kingdom to Israel is being read into his words.