HOW GENUINE IS THE "RAPTURE" DOCTRINE?

[TMSO]

Jesus is in heaven in Revelation 20. That means those resurrected in chapter 20 go to heaven if they are seated with him because that is where he is seated in that chapter. Just take out your Bible and read chapter 20 for yourself.

Nowhere in Revelation 20 does it explicitly state that Jesus is in heaven. It doesn't even implicitly state that He is in heaven. Revelation 19 implicitly states that Jesus is on earth. How else is He going to personally kill the armies on earth as it says Jesus does at the end of the chapter. "19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh." I mean, it seems very clear where this is taking place.

Then you will realize how much modern futurism as twisted and perverted God's word. It teaches things no Christian has ever believed and while there is a lot of diversity between the various eschatologies, only the Dispensational forms of end-times views abuse Revelation 20 to say he is physically on earth during the 1000 years. According to them all of Christianity has all always been wrong and only they are correct.

Could you please make an argument? Perhaps show how futurism has twisted and perverted God's word, instead of resorting to fallacy again? Jesus is physically in Jerusalem during the 1000 years, with those who took part in the first resurrection, who are living again on Earth. Hence a resurrection. If they are just in heaven, why do they need to be resurrected? We already see a group who is alive and well in heaven who have not been resurrected, who are waiting for the punishment of those who killed them. Given robes and walking around.

LOL! That is not what Revelation 19 states and when you make claims like that in your posts you need to back them up with scripture. Nowhere in chapter 19 does it explicitly state Jesus is physically on the earth. What it does state is that John saw the heavens opened and he saw armies of Christ assembled..... in heaven, and the armies of men assembled on earth (verses 11-19). The earth is mention only twice in that chapter (verses 2 and 19) and neither explicitly states Jesus is physically on earth.

Get out your Bible right now and read the entire chapter and verify what I just wrote. Prove me wrong. Post the verse explicitly stating Jesus is physically on earth.

Wow. You are so drugged up on your beliefs that I'm pretty sure you will be denying the trinity in the near future, as it is not explicitly anywhere in scripture either. (I don't stop there, because I will actually present an argument...): If you read the last verses of Revelation 19, it is very clear that all the action is on Earth. I mean, it has to be. Jesus is killing the soldiers of the beast's army, and birds are feasting on the carcasses, as we can read in the Old Testament about the final battles. Are the birds in heaven? Revelation 20 continues on from this point. This is the answer to the disciples question in Acts, to which Jesus did not say no. "Are you now going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" Jesus said that it was not for the disciples to know the times and seasons established by the Father. So, in other words, the kingdom will be restored to Israel, but that is the Father's business, not ours. John tells us it is going to happen, but not when. If you read the pseudo ephraim sermon, it says that the Anti Christ will have Israel rebuild the temple, and then he will take his place in the temple and make himself God. He will claim that he is the Father and he is the Son. Please note that this sermon was written around the 4th-5th century, possibly earlier. I read the Syriac version, the Latin version, and parts of the Graecian versions. The writer was very much a futurist, and believed in a pre-trib rapture. However, he set the tribulation to 3 1/2 years.

If and when you do not and cannot find that verse say so in your next post. Do the right thing and come out with honesty and forthcomingness and say, "You're correct, Josh, neither chapter 19 or chapter 20 actually explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth!"

"FOUND IT!!!" You are correct Josh. Nowhere is the trinity mentioned explicitly in the Bible. I repent of my belief in the trinity. (Something I will never say.) Revelation 19 is clear in it's locale, that Jesus is on Earth. (Or somehow Satan got into heaven... Do you really believe that?)

Then we can talk about how and why it is modern futurism has twisted and perverted God's word to make it say something it nowhere states AND why they do so in direct contradiction and direct opposition to what all of Christendom has always taught for twenty centuries.

Again, more fallacies.

Apparently, you do not because you have made claims about what I believe that are not true, and you've made claims about scripture that are like wise simply, plainly, demonstrably not true. I do believe Jesus will bodily return to earth and nowhere do chapters 19 and 20 explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth.

See. Since Revelation 19 makes it pretty clear that He is on earth slaughtering the Anti-Christ's armies, then you do not believe in Jesus second coming. You do realize that it is at this juncture that you should be jumping back to Zechariah 12, right? Jesus has just defeated the armies set to destroy Israel, so, prophetically, He should be presenting Himself to His people. Where do we find that in scripture? Zechariah 12. Jerusalem restored.

When you make statements like that you prove yourself beneath everyone and not worthy of discussion. Get your head out of the sand and look at scripture. Read chapters 19 and 20 and quote the verse(s) that explicitly states Jesus is physically on earth. Do it now. Your next post need be only one verse long. Just one explicit statement and you instantly prove me wrong. One verse.

Already done, and shown in context. Now, show me where in scripture the trinity is explicitly mentioned. Your next comment should be blank.

Absent that one verse your next post should be, "Yes, I see that what you say is true and correct. There is not one verse in either chapter that explicitly states Jesus is physically on earth and it is not until chapter 21 that Jesus is explicitly said to come to earth."

Wow, you really do see yourself as master of the world, bringing adjulation to yourself.

Either post the verse or post an acknowledgment no such verse exists.

I already did. It is as explicit as the trinity.

 

[TMSO]

And as a false accuser you give me a headache, so we're even.

I am one of the most literal readers of scripture you will find in this forum. I am one of the most exacting exegetes you will find in this forum. Your accusations are baseless and fallacious. The facts of scripture are that nowhere in chapters 19 or 20 of Revelation does the text of scripture ever, anywhere explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth. It is not until chapter 21 that he is stated to come to earth.

You are asking me to give you an impossible task. Jesus is returning to this Earth, as the young men promised the disciples when Jesus ascended. So, your impossible task is to show where in Revelation 21 it explicitly states that Jesus is physically on Earth. I would even accept implicitly. I will even post the first part of the chapter that isn't completely devoted to just New Jerusalem.

I fully believe that the second coming is BEFORE the NHNE. If that helps. [I know, I just disqualified any response you make. Hey, I wasn't the one who started it.]

"Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, [a]John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said [b]to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”

6 And He said to me, “It[c] is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes [d]shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, [e]unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

So, I gave you the only context that is not dealing solely with the New Jerusalem. Though you will notice that like all of the chapter is dealing with the New Jerusalem.

 

[Josheb]

Nowhere in Revelation 20 does it explicitly state that Jesus is in heaven. It doesn't even implicitly state that He is in heaven. Revelation 19 implicitly states that Jesus is on earth.

You are dodging the matter. At the beginning of Revelation Jesus is in heaven. Throughout the book of Revelation Jesus is stated to be in heaven. He's in heaven and he stays in heaven. It is not stated he comes to earth.

You were asked one very singular and simple matter: Provide a verse explicitly stating Jesus is physically on earth or acknowledge the absence of such a verse instead of doing either you are doing what I said you'd do many, many posts ago: the inferential reading leading to an inferential interpretatio. It is right here....

How else is He going to personally kill the armies on earth as it says Jesus does at the end of the chapter.

He commands them from heaven! That's how.

ould you please make an argument?

I do not need an argument. I have scripture.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

The Lord will remain seating in heaven until the LORD makes a footstool of his enemies. No interpretation of the verse is necessary or desired. It means exactly what it explicitly states.

Psalm 110:2-7
The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, "Rule in the midst of Your enemies." Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You as the dew. The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." The Lord is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore, He will lift up his head.

The LORD stretches forth the Lord's scepter from heaven. The Lord rules in the midst of his enemies from heaven. The Lord is a priest forever in the Order of Mel from heaven. He shatters kings, judges the nations, fills the nations with corpses from heaven. His head is lifted up in heaven. He does not come to earth until his Father has subdued all his enemies.

The book of Revelation expounds on this same exact fact. At the beginning Jesus is in heaven. He is in heaven all through the seven letters. He is observed in heaven in chapter 4. In chapters 5 and 6 Jesus is in heaven as the seals are opened. It is his angels that go to earth, not Jesus. The Lamb is still enthroned in heaven in chapter seven, watching as the tribulation comes upon his people (this and Mt. 24:9 definitively refute pre-tribulationism), In chapters 7-11 The lamb is still in heaven as the trumpets are sounded. It is angels, not Jesus who are stated going to heaven. The war of chapter 12 is in heaven, and Jesus is still seated on the throne there in heaven. In chapter 14 the Lamb stands on Mt Zion and some read this to mean he is standing on the earthly mount Zion but the voice in John's vision comes from heaven and the temple (vs 17) is in heaven. Chapter 15 again explicitly states what John sees is in heaven and this persists through the emptying of the bowls of wrath through the downfall of Babylon concluded in chapter 18. The marriage feast of chapter 19 is in heaven. After that John sees the heavens open and in heaven he sees Jesus and from his mouth he strikes down the nations. He's still in heaven. In chapter 20 Jesus is still seated on the great white throne.

I am not adding any interpretation. That is what scripture explicitly states. YOU are reading scripture inferentially AND doing so in neglect of what is explicitly stated. I read it for what is states. You read it for what your doctrine tells you is says. What it states is NOT what it has been made to say. Bow your eschatology to what is stated.

Jesus is in heaven throughout the entirety of Revelation until chapter 21. Chapter 21 is the only place the book explicitly states Jesus physically comes to earth.

You say his coming is implied. It is not implied. What is implied - in the absence of any explicit statement - is what has been previously established repeatedly throughout the text: Jesus is in heaven!

He remains there until all his enemies are defeated.

Exactly as Psalm 110 states.

Wow. You are so drugged up on your beliefs.....

Thank you for your time but I do not trade posts with those call me "drugged up". I do not repeat my posts unnecessarily, either. The fact remains: Neither chapter 19 nor chapter 20 explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth and the only way those texts can be read to say that is by inferential interpretation that ignores the repeated facts of the text - exactly as I pointed out several posts ago.

If you had an explicit statement, the matter would instantly be decided. Admitting an implied reading is not the same as you acknowledging and absence of explicit statement.

 

[Josheb]

You are asking me to give you an impossible task. Jesus is returning to this Earth, as the young men promised the disciples when Jesus ascended.

I agree. THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE.

I fully believe that the second coming is BEFORE the NHNE. If that helps.

Yes, I understand that is what you believe. I also understand you hold that belief in the absence of any explicit statement in scripture and arrive at that belief based in an implied reading of the text. Your belief is an opinion.

So, I gave you the only context that is not dealing solely with the New Jerusalem. Though you will notice that like all of the chapter is dealing with the New Jerusalem.

That's chapter 21. You're making the case for my posts: Nowhere in chapters 19 or 20 is Jesus ever explicitly stated to physically come to earth. It is not until chapter 21 that he does so - after his enemies have been defeated.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."


The Lord stays in heaven until the LORD defeats his enemies. No implied reading, inferential reading, or added interpretation needed. Believe what is explicitly stated.

 

[TMSO]

I agree. THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE.

Yes, I understand that is what you believe. I also understand you hold that belief in the absence of any explicit statement in scripture and arrive at that belief based in an implied reading of the text. Your belief is an opinion.

Please, just state that you are a unitarian. Make it easier on all of us. Express your belief that everything has to be explicit. The Earth Jesus promised to return to is gone before verse 1 of chapter 21, so you have basically stated you don't believe in the second coming, right? I mean, you already said that the first time Jesus is shown to be on Earth for the second coming is Revelation 21. Since the first verse negates this being His second coming, then there must not be a second coming, correct? I mean, you have completely undermined Zechariah 12-14. And after all that time John took to prove that the One mentioned in Zechariah is Jesus.

That's chapter 21. You're making the case for my posts: Nowhere in chapters 19 or 20 is Jesus ever explicitly stated to physically come to earth. It is not until chapter 21 that he does so - after his enemies have been defeated.

Um, it is not explicitly or even implicitly implied that the old earth and old heavens still exist in verse one of chapter 21. In fact, it explicitly states they are gone. You have just reasoned away the second coming. Nice.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

The Lord stays in heaven until the LORD defeats his enemies. No implied reading, inferential reading, or added interpretation needed. Believe what is explicitly stated.

No, it says until His enemies are His footstool, which you see at the end of Revelation 19, when He destroys all His enemies. There is only one enemy left, at which time Paul says that Jesus gives the kingdom back to the Father. When His final enemy, death is destroyed. (End of Revelation 20, death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire.) His enemies are His footstool through the millenial kingdom. The image is not destruction, it is domination. All the enemies are gathered in one place (Revelation 19), and He dominates them all, right down to Satan himself. It is upon these that He returns to Earth. (Unless you have an argument that the enemies are gathered at alpha centauri, and birds can breathe in space.

 

[Mr GLee]

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).

I would think the promised three day and night demonstration of the Father not seen and Son of man Jesus, dying mankind seen, signaled His coming. It began the period of the last days ending with the last day, the day of the lord. or the Day of Jesus Christ. . the end of time under the sun. All part of the first century reformation the pivotal point the "last day"

The same day we receive our new incorruptible body and the day of judgement in the lake of fire.

John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

No outward sign was given he will depart on the last day .

 

[Josheb]

Please, just state that you are a unitarian.

I am not a unitarian. That's just dumb.

Please just state Revelation 19 and 20 do not actually explicitly state Jesus physically comes to earth, and it is not until Revelation 21 that he is reported to come to earth.

 

[Mr GLee]

I am not a unitarian. That's just dumb.

Please just state Revelation 19 and 20 do not actually explicitly state Jesus physically comes to earth, and it is not until Revelation 21 that he is reported to come to earth.

The promised one time demonstration of the power father and son Jesus dying mankind is over . Jesus awaits his new incorruptible body just like the rest of the family of God that call no man on earth Holy father .One is our Holy Father in heaven, the Christ. Some did know Christ who worked in the Son of man. . all of his born again children as sons of God .

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

God is not a man.

 

[TMSO]

You are dodging the matter. At the beginning of Revelation Jesus is in heaven. Throughout the book of Revelation Jesus is stated to be in heaven. He's in heaven and he stays in heaven. It is not stated he comes to earth.
You were asked one very singular and simple matter: Provide a verse explicitly stating Jesus is physically on earth or acknowledge the absence of such a verse instead of doing either you are doing what I said you'd do many, many posts ago: the inferential reading leading to an inferential interpretatio. It is right here....
He commands them from heaven! That's how.
I do not need an argument. I have scripture.

And apparently it says whatever you want it to say.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

The Lord will remain seating in heaven until the LORD makes a footstool of his enemies. No interpretation of the verse is necessary or desired. It means exactly what it explicitly states.

Wow, you interpreted the passage when you said none is necessary. You are just saying that your interpretation is the only acceptable interpretation, even given the context of the whole Psalm, and actually changing what GOD HIMSELF SAID.

Psalm 110:2-7
The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, "Rule in the midst of Your enemies." Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You as the dew. The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." The Lord is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore, He will lift up his head.

So, Psalm 110:2 explicitly states that the Lord wil stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion [Israel/Jerusalem], saying, "Rule in the midst of Your enemies." That is an EXPLICIT statement. Now lets see what you did to that explicit statement.

The LORD stretches forth the Lord's scepter from heaven.

Did you just change God's explicit statement? That is not what the passage says. Are you an idealist in that you make a passage say what you want it to say, and not what it actually says? From Zion. This is not the only damage you have done to the passage. Just see the next bit.

The Lord rules in the midst of his enemies from heaven.

Consider this. In the midst speaks of one's immediate surroundings. This places Jesus' enemies, in heaven. I'm just reading your explicit statement. If you say no, then you may want to look up what "in the midst of" means. So, let's see who Jesus' enemies would be. Well, it would be the big guy, God the Father, the angels, the beasts who worship Him, etc. However, if one follows context explicitly, one understands that it is from His kingdom, which is Zion, from where His scepter is stretched forth. Which makes perfect sense. Israel exists, in the end times, in the midst of Jesus' enemies.

The Lord is a priest forever in the Order of Mel from heaven. He shatters kings, judges the nations, fills the nations with corpses from heaven. His head is lifted up in heaven. He does not come to earth until his Father has subdued all his enemies.

This Psalm lost all meaning when you changed what God said through David. All of the above also changed. And if you read Revelation, it is Jesus who subdues His enemies. If you read the verse, and check out commentaries, they explain what the word power means, and who these young people are in verse 3. When you understand what the words mean, it changes the whole context. The Father makes the enemies a footstool, and Jesus subdues, destroys, dominates, etc. them all. Also, in some Jewish traditions, Salem, the city where Melchizedek reigns, is in Jerusalem, so again, perfect sense with the passage.

The book of Revelation expounds on this same exact fact. At the beginning Jesus is in heaven. He is in heaven all through the seven letters. He is observed in heaven in chapter 4. In chapters 5 and 6 Jesus is in heaven as the seals are opened. It is his angels that go to earth, not Jesus. The Lamb is still enthroned in heaven in chapter seven, watching as the tribulation comes upon his people (this and Mt. 24:9 definitively refute pre-tribulationism), In chapters 7-11 The lamb is still in heaven as the trumpets are sounded. It is angels, not Jesus who are stated going to heaven. The war of chapter 12 is in heaven, and Jesus is still seated on the throne there in heaven. In chapter 14 the Lamb stands on Mt Zion and some read this to mean he is standing on the earthly mount Zion but the voice in John's vision comes from heaven and the temple (vs 17) is in heaven. Chapter 15 again explicitly states what John sees is in heaven and this persists through the emptying of the bowls of wrath through the downfall of Babylon concluded in chapter 18. The marriage feast of chapter 19 is in heaven. After that John sees the heavens open and in heaven he sees Jesus and from his mouth he strikes down the nations. He's still in heaven. In chapter 20 Jesus is still seated on the great white throne.

The destruction of His enemies happens... ON EARTH. (Perhaps as far as Alpha Centauri, but scripture isn't clear. That would be inference.) This is Jesus destroying His enemies, on Earth. The Father gathered, the Father made a footstool, Jesus dominates and destroys them.

I am not adding any interpretation. That is what scripture explicitly states.

This word, explicitly, I don't think it means what you think it means.

YOU are reading scripture inferentially AND doing so in neglect of what is explicitly stated. I read it for what is states. You read it for what your doctrine tells you is says. What it states is NOT what it has been made to say. Bow your eschatology to what is stated.

This is getting to be sad. Why are you fighting over this totally negotiable piece of the faith. You had to change what Psalms 110 said, and then you say it is explicit. Explicit does not mean changing what it says. That is inference. Adding "from heaven" to everything is inference. Considering that it is supposed to be "from Zion", if one is being explicit

Jesus is in heaven throughout the entirety of Revelation until chapter 21. Chapter 21 is the only place the book explicitly states Jesus physically comes to earth.

Please post the verse, word for word, that explicitly STATES, in clear writing, Jesus physically comes to earth. Please. I'm waiting. I have read it a few times today, and I can't find it. Perhaps it is hidden somewhere between the lines in inference?

You say his coming is implied. It is not implied. What is implied - in the absence of any explicit statement - is what has been previously established repeatedly throughout the text: Jesus is in heaven!

It is implied. I mean, sure the war could be happening at Alpha Centauri, or perhaps that awesome incredible Betelgeuse, or, one understands that it is here on Earth that Jesus is riding His horse, making bird food.

He remains there until all his enemies are defeated.
Exactly as Psalm 110 states.

Except it doesn't. When you change God's words (it is a prophecy, so words straight from God's mouth), you can make it mean whatever you want.

Thank you for your time but I do not trade posts with those call me "drugged up". I do not repeat my posts unnecessarily, either. The fact remains: Neither chapter 19 nor chapter 20 explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth and the only way those texts can be read to say that is by inferential interpretation that ignores the repeated facts of the text - exactly as I pointed out several posts ago.

You misunderstood. I am saying that you are whole heartedly sold out to your beliefs over scripture.

If you had an explicit statement, the matter would instantly be decided. Admitting an implied reading is not the same as you acknowledging and absence of explicit statement.

If you had an implicit statement in Revelation 21, since there is no explicit statement as you claim, you would have a point. However, both inference and explicit references are completely absent from Revelation 21. (Consider the Earth that Jesus is supposed to return to ceased to exist before verse 1 of Revelation 21.)

 

[TMSO]

I am not a unitarian. That's just dumb.

But nowhere is the trinity explicitly mentioned in scripture, while unitarian belief is explicitly mentioned. It is when you look at the implicit statements in scripture, that what is said explicitly takes on a new shape. Some say that the original view of the trinity that Calvin held is more akin to modalism. (It wasn't modalism, but similar.)

Please just state Revelation 19 and 20 do not actually explicitly state Jesus physically comes to earth, and it is not until Revelation 21 that he is reported to come to earth.

Agreed. It explicitly states that Satan, the beast, and his armies successfully stormed heaven, so Jesus needed to kill them all in heaven before they could assassinate God. This lack of critical thinking I see is really killing this discussion. You aren't even reading the passages, and just saying it doesn't say anything. And then you say that Revelation says something, when it doesn't. Again, give an explicit verse in Revelation that states that Jesus comes to Earth. You won't find it either explicitly or implicitly. Why? Earth ceased to exist before verse 1. It is all NHNE. In fact, the bulk of Revelation 21 is solely about New Jerusalem. None of it is about Earth. Just that John saw a new heaven and new earth because the old was gone.

 

[Josheb]

And apparently it says whatever you want it to say.

No, it states what it states, does not states what is not stated, and if what is stated changed into something NOT stated it is impossible to arrive at the Jesus-is-on-earth position.

The "apparently it says whatever you want it to say" is the metric YOU are using, not me. That is why I have repeatedly asked the text be examined for what is and is not stated and not what modern futurism makes it "say."

Wow, you interpreted the passage when you said none is necessary.

No, that too is incorrect. One of the most basic rules of exegesis is to read the text exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless the text itself gives reason to do otherwise. Given the fact the Revelation text repeatedly states Jesus is in heaven and NEVER states otherwise until chapter 21, the normal, literal, logically necessary NON-INTERPRETIVE reading is that Jesus is in heaven unless the text states otherwise.

So I asked you to examine the text. I asked you to acknowledge the silence of the text and you refused to do so. What I got is an admission you think the text implies Jesus on earth. I went through the entire book and cited the multiple, repeated statements in the book stating Jesus is in heaven. Not a single word acknowledging the truth of the text's own statements. What it states, not what I made it say in interpretive opposition to what is stated.

You are the guy who says scripture means whatever you want it to say. The text itself is not relied upon; it is interpreted with inferences and implied interpretations. When this is pointed out you call people names and say godlessly untrue and unkind things about them. The defense of sound doctrine never requires ad hominem.

Read the text as written. Read what is explicitly stated. Resist the impulse to reinterpret the text to make is say something other than what is stated. Bend doctrine to the text, not the other way around.

 

[Josheb]

This lack of critical thinking I see is really killing this discussion.

I agree. You should stop accepting what others have taught you and read scripture as written.

You aren't even reading the passages, and just saying it doesn't say anything.

That is hogwash.

You said Jesus does not descend. I posted scripture explicitly stating he does descend. You never admitted the mistake and have yet to correct it. You contradicted your own posts when in one post you said people meet Jesus in the air and in another post implied, they resurrect on earth. I showed how Jesus is still enthroned in the latter case so those ruling with him on his throne cannot be on earth. You still haven't corrected that mistake. There is a handful of mistakes in this thread and not one of them has been acknowledged or corrected. The normal, healthy, Christian life is to repent and make amends when making mistakes. The facts in evidence are that is you who makes baseless claims, and it is I who responds with scripture that is plainly read as written without added interpretation.

When you say the text implies Jesus is on earth you are 1) adding to the text something it does not actually state, adding to the text something it cannot be made to say given EVERYTHING it has stated prior to and leading up to that point, AND "not even reading the passages." It is you who is culpable of the "Just saying it doesn't make it so." Just saying the text implies Jesus is on earth does not make it so.

Nowhere in the book of Revelation is Jesus explicitly stated to come to earth until chapter 21. Everything that happens on earth before then is commanded from heaven and it is angels or God's people that execute those commands.

 

[TMSO]

Read the text as written. Read what is explicitly stated. Resist the impulse to reinterpret the text to make is say something other than what is stated. Bend doctrine to the text, not the other way around.

Please explain to me your handling of Psalm 110:

2 "The Lord will stretch out Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”
3 Your people [a]will volunteer freely on the day of Your [b]power;
In [c]holy splendor, from the womb of the dawn,
[d]Your youth are to You as the dew.
4 The Lord has sworn and will not [e]change His mind,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
5 The Lord is at Your right hand;
He [f]will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He will judge among the nations,
He [g]will fill them with corpses,
He [h]will shatter the [i]chief men over a broad country.
7 He will drink from the brook by the wayside;
Therefore He will lift up His head."

Why did you infer that from Zion actually meant from heaven? Are you saying that God made a mistake in giving this prophecy to David? Are you correcting God's mistake? Perhaps it would help you to know that I never considered this prophecy in eschatology, but only as a Messianic prophecy. It defines the Messiah by what He does, and by "The Lord will stretch out Your strong scepter from Zion." How else do you believe the Jews built a proper understanding of the Messiah, even if they missed some important points. They knew enough that Jesus was able to use this prophecy to explain to the religious leaders who He is. They understood what He was saying, even if they didn't believe it.

However, looking at it from an eschatological position, it fits in perfectly with other eschatological prophecies, if you don't change the explicit writing. (Such as changing it from "from Zion" to "from heaven" as you have done.) Take your own advice (this is correction. I don't have an issue with you like you do with me.) Consider this passage as explicitly written, in light of other scripture as explicitly written. Here is an example.

Acts 1
"9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, then behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, 11 and they said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”"

A cloud took Him up and out of their sight. As though heaven closed around Jesus, right? It also states that Jesus will come in the same way as they watched Him go into heaven.

Fast forward to Revelation 19: "11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war."

Given Acts 1, what is a logical conclusion for Revelation 19, without changing what it says? Without interpreting it? Remember, John saw Jesus ascension, which may have affected how He wrote this verse. Just a thought.

 

[Josheb]

Please explain to me your handling of Psalm 110........

1) I have already done so. 2) No more until you answer the questions first asked you.


I answered and addressed every question asked in Post 133 before they were asked. I have not received anything remotely close to parity.

Given Acts 1, what is a logical conclusion for Revelation 19, without changing what it says? Without interpreting it? Remember, John saw Jesus ascension, which may have affected how He wrote this verse. Just a thought.

Revelation is not the logical conclusion of Acts 1. Revelation 21 is the logical conclusion. Revelation 21 is where the book explicitly states Jesus physically comes to earth and nowhere in Revelation 19 does it state that. You, AGAIN, are the one "interpreting" things and doing so departing from what is stated in the texts. I am the one looking at exactly what the text states, accepting what is stated exactly as stated, believing it, and basing my end-times views on what is stated.

What Acts 1 states is Jesus "will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven," and the way they watched him go into heaven was "He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight." Now this is probably figurative language given the multitude of times God said to come and go in/on/with clouds in the Old Testament, but even if we read it literally and think Jesus literally rode away on an earthly cloud (water particles) all the way to heaven, there is absolutely no mention of clouds in Revelation 19! You say the logical conclusion of Revelation 19 is Jesus physical coming to earth given Acts 1, but Revelation 19 states nothing comparable to Acts 1. There is nothing logically conclusive in Revelation 19 at all given what is stated in Acts 1.

• There's not mention of Jesus physically coming to earth in Revelation 19.
• There's no mention of Jesus coming to earth in or on clouds in Revelation 19.
• There's no mention of clouds in Revelation 19.
• The wedding feast is stated to be in heaven.
• The vision of the armies is stated to be seen in heaven.
• In point of fact..... the angel in Acts 1 did not actually state Jesus would come all the way back to earth. He simply said they see Jesus come again as they'd seen him leave = one clouds.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-18
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Revelation 1:4-8
John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood — and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Neither text actually states Jesus physically comes to earth. The Thessalonian text says he meets his people in the air. No mention of physically living on earth. The Revelation 1 text, again, states nothing about Jesus physically being on the earth. Both passages, however, do explicitly state Jesus is coming in/with clouds. Notice the Revelation 1 text states Jesus is the ruler of the kings of the earth. Jesus is in heaven, but he is, nonetheless, the ruler of the kings of the earth. He rules from heaven.

Revelation 19? No mention of Jesus on earth. No mention of Jesus coming in clouds. No mention of clouds. Nothing in Acts 1 is found in Revelation 19.

Given Acts 1, the logical conclusion of Revelation 19 without changing what Revelation 19 states, is that Revelation 19 has nothing to do with Acts 1. It is not until chapter 21 that Revelation states Jesus comes to earth.

The text of Revelation 19 has to be changed to logically conclude Jesus physically comes to earth. Revelation tells us not to change Revelation.

So....

Once again, I've answered and addressed your questions but have not received the same.

 

[TMSO]

1) I have already done so. 2) No more until you answer the questions first asked you.

So you freely admit that you bent the passage to your belief? I mean, anyone can see that you took God's words "from Zion" and changed them to "from heaven". Not even I deign to change God's words for the sake of my belief. I may interpret it to mean something else (with sufficient evidence), but I don't go changing the words. I mean with your changes, Psalms 110 is no longer a Messianic prophecy. You didn't even give God a reason for changing what He said. No reason for why you don't believe Psalm 110 to be a Messianic prophecy.

I answered and addressed every question asked in Post 133 before they were asked. I have not received anything remotely close to parity.

I didn't expect you to just give me the win. I expected discussion.

Revelation is not the logical conclusion of Acts 1. Revelation 21 is the logical conclusion. Revelation 21 is where the book explicitly states Jesus physically comes to earth and nowhere in Revelation 19 does it state that. You, AGAIN, are the one "interpreting" things and doing so departing from what is stated in the texts. I am the one looking at exactly what the text states, accepting what is stated exactly as stated, believing it, and basing my end-times views on what is stated.

I had planned (spatial allowances are too constraining) to paste all of Revelation 21 here, along with a chart of words and there occurences to show that Jesus physical return to Earth is not found anywhere in Revelation 21. What we do find is that Jesus is already there. How did He get there? It doesn't say. In fact, Jesus name never appears in Revelation 21. The word return never shows up in Revelation 21. There are no clouds in Revelation 21. (I go on lower down). I read the whole chapter, and it isn't there. Either explicitly or implicitly. It is, however, implicitly mentioned in Revelation 19, and can easily be lined up with Zechariah 12. With Revelation 21 you have this problem with the very first verse stating that the Earth to which Jesus was to physically return... no longer exists. So not only is His return NOT explicitly stated in Revelation 21, it is IMPOSSIBLE. However, what we do have is the bride coming down from heaven, because the groom is already there. Why? Because He returned back in Revelation 19. Again, why do you believe Satan implemented a successful coup of heaven, that Jesus had to stop? Looking at the explicit writing of Revelation 19, it is blatantly obvious that the fighting occurs... on Earth. Jesus didn't poke His head out of heaven, say hi, and go back. He is on a horse. He is geared for war. And in the last verses He is slaughtering the armies of the beast and hsi image. In heaven? He is also using a melee weapon, which shows close quarters combat. He is on Earth, fulfilling Zechariah.

What Acts 1 states is Jesus "will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven," and the way they watched him go into heaven was "He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight." Now this is probably figurative language given the multitude of times God said to come and go in/on/with clouds in the Old Testament, but even if we read it literally and think Jesus literally rode away on an earthly cloud (water particles) all the way to heaven, there is absolutely no mention of clouds in Revelation 19! You say the logical conclusion of Revelation 19 is Jesus physical coming to earth given Acts 1, but Revelation 19 states nothing comparable to Acts 1. There is nothing logically conclusive in Revelation 19 at all given what is stated in Acts 1.

• There's not mention of Jesus physically coming to earth in Revelation 19.
• There's no mention of Jesus coming to earth in or on clouds in Revelation 19.
• There's no mention of clouds in Revelation 19.
• The wedding feast is stated to be in heaven.
• The vision of the armies is stated to be seen in heaven.
• In point of fact..... the angel in Acts 1 did not actually state Jesus would come all the way back to earth. He simply said they see Jesus come again as they'd seen him leave = one clouds.

There is no mention of Jesus physically coming to Earth in Revelation 21.
There is no mention of Jesus coming to earth in or on clouds in Revelation 21.
There is no mention of clouds in Revelation 21.
The wedding feast is in heaven, hence a pretrib rapture, not some marriage sack lunch of the lamb that we eat as we come back to Earth in a posttrib rapture...
There is no army, no war, no defeat of enemies that accompanies Christ's return in Revelation 21.
What was simply said in Acts 1 is: "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”" Not on clouds. "9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight." So the opposite of lifted up, and the opposite of the clouds taking Him up and out of sight.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-18
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Not descending to Earth. In the air.

meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord

so we shall always be with the Lord... in the air.

Revelation 1:4-8
John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood — and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Neither text actually states Jesus physically comes to earth. The Thessalonian text says he meets his people in the air. No mention of physically living on earth. The Revelation 1 text, again, states nothing about Jesus physically being on the earth. Both passages, however, do explicitly state Jesus is coming in/with clouds. Notice the Revelation 1 text states Jesus is the ruler of the kings of the earth. Jesus is in heaven, but he is, nonetheless, the ruler of the kings of the earth. He rules from heaven.

Revelation 19? No mention of Jesus on earth. No mention of Jesus coming in clouds. No mention of clouds. Nothing in Acts 1 is found in Revelation 19.

Nothing in Acts 1 is found in Revelation 21.

Given Acts 1, the logical conclusion of Revelation 19 without changing what Revelation 19 states, is that Revelation 19 has nothing to do with Acts 1. It is not until chapter 21 that Revelation states Jesus comes to earth.

But it doesn't state that. That is your belief talking. That is you bending scripture. At least I can make the clear argument that Jesus was slaughtering enemies on Earth. (Unless you believe Satan successfully infiltrated heaven after God kicked him out for the last time. I mean, that would be a coup for Satan, a defeat of God on His own turf. The consequence of what you are saying.

The text of Revelation 19 has to be changed to logically conclude Jesus physically comes to earth. Revelation tells us not to change Revelation.

So....

Once again, I've answered and addressed your questions but have not received the same.

I have answered. You have not answered me. I have shown the verses. I even brought in Zechariah, which you ignore. Zechariah seems to be important, and that exact passage, because John brings it up in His gospel, and shows that Jesus will be the one who fulfills it. However, you deny the fulfillment. God will save Jerusalem in that day, and then will basically bring Calvin's regeneration to all the remaining inhabitants, and they will recognize Jesus. They will be saved by Jesus (which is what salvation is) personally. Like Paul. I did a word analysis of Revelation 21, and I can truly affirm that Jesus second coming to Earth is NOT explicitly stated in Revelation 21. Not even implicitly. We do see Him already there. Why? Because He is already there, since Revelation 19 and 20.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

HOW GENUINE IS THE "RAPTURE" DOCTRINE?​

It's a "Doctrine" i.e. "MAN'S THEOLOGY". AND since it deals with future events it's part of "Eschatology", which is a religious term for "Rank Speculation".

WHat I DO KNOW is when Jesus tells me to "Come up here" - I'm OUTTA HERE. and it seems that signs are gathering that we're coming into the "End times". SO I'll "Occupy till HE COMES.

 

[TMSO]

It's a "Doctrine" i.e. "MAN'S THEOLOGY". AND since it deals with future events it's part of "Eschatology", which is a religious term for "Rank Speculation".

WHat I DO KNOW is when Jesus tells me to "Come up here" - I'm OUTTA HERE. and it seems that signs are gathering that we're coming into the "End times". SO I'll "Occupy till HE COMES.

The discussion here is with those who say that Jesus is never going to say "come up here". That that in itself is rank speculation.

 

[Josheb]

1) I have already done so. 2) No more until you answer the questions first asked you.

So you freely admit that you bent the passage to your belief?

That is not an answer to any of the questions first asked. You are trolling. I am moving on.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

That is not an answer to any of the questions first asked. You are trolling. I am moving on.

You are a contentious person. You write huge posts to gaslight people and flood information. You consistently commit the Ad Hominem fallacy while spelling out that you want people to attack arguments instead of people. That makes you a hypocrite. You come across as extremely irritated and argumentative and aggressive and then appeal to other people committing the Ad Hom fallacy to exonerate yourself from culpability.

There are two parts of Jesus' sermon you would do well to bear in mind. 1) Judge nobody unless you will be judge by God (the meaning is self evident) and 2) if you are without hypocrisy, you can judge others because you don't suffer from the same problem as them.

You evidently are a hypocrite according to Jesus. My suggestion to you would be to be less cock-sure you already know all arguments and everything, because it's not hard to find fault with any of your interpretations of scripture.

For my own part, I realize that I just apparently committed the same "crime", but it's not possible to solve interpretative difficulties in internet forums that are limited to written words only without a tone of voice and a back and forth real life discussion devoid of animosity, video evidence, and so on. I am 100% confident that in real life it wouldn't be hard to teach someone they are a hypocrite because there would be no need for hiding behind a computer screen on the internet and attempting to get away with abuse.

 

[Josheb]

You are a contentious person...........

Then ignore my posts.


Or examine them more closely. If that is done you will find I never post about a poster unless and until that poster has made the posters the topic of discussion. You will also find I never make baseless statements about another poster. I do not make up beliefs about others as was done here in this thread. If I say, for example, "You do not believe Jesus descends from heaven," I can prove that statement using the other poster's own words. If I say, "you're trolling," I can support that observation with actual words from the other person's posts.

Like this: You, @Dave_Regenerated, just stepped into a disagreement that is not your and posted completely off-topic and rule-violating ad hominem. That is not an opinion. It's an observable fact objectively verifiable by reading Post 139.

And if the roles are reversed you are going to have an enormously difficult time I, personally, am a contentious person. Piles of posts can be provided in which disagreement occurs, but contention and contentiousness are completely different. Gaslighting would be blaming another for my own conduct, and you will not be able to prove I blamed anyone in this thread for my posts.


On any occasion where ANY poster proves I judged unjustly I publicly post an expression of my regret, and intent to improve, and if possible, I'll amend or delete the offending content. Furthermore, in any thread where those who disagree with me keep the posts about the posts problems do not exist.

For my own part, I realize that I just apparently committed the same "crime"

Yep.

, but it's not possible to solve interpretative difficulties in internet forums that are limited to written words only without a tone of voice and a back and forth real life discussion devoid of animosity, video evidence, and so on.

Completely false. If a post violates the forum's rules, then report it, exactly as I have Post 139 .

I am 100% confident that in real life it wouldn't be hard to teach someone they are a hypocrite because there would be no need for hiding behind a computer screen on the internet and attempting to get away with abuse.

ROTFLMBO!

Internet discussion boards are real life and you are the hypocrite here.

Proverbs 26:17
Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.




My op-relevant disagreements with the other poster are many, but I have limited my own replies to specifics he has posted, the alternatives asserted by scripture when read as written, the theological context as he has asserted it and its contrasts and comparisons historically, and the blatant refusal to address that content - especially its relevance to his stated views.