HOW GENUINE IS THE "RAPTURE" DOCTRINE?

[Josheb]

The drawing up of believers on the last day. some call it the rapture.

That's correct. Others call it the resurrection. The raised in Christ are raised from the dead to eternal life. Those dead in sin are raised from the grave to eternal destruction. All stand before God for sentencing (Heb. 9:27). We call it "Judgment Day," but the judgment and its verdict have already been rendered (men love darkness instead of light and will not come into the light for fear their deeds will be seen for what they are) and all denying the name of Jesus stand condemned already (Jn. 3:18-19). All have sinned and fall short of God's glory (Rom. 3:23) but, blessedly, there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). So, it is more accurate to call the day of judgment, "Sentencing Day." That is the day when the just recompense for sin is meted out, or the salvation that is by grace fulfilled. Those the Father has brought to him will be raised on the last day (Jn. 6:44) but those who have rejected him will be judged that same day (Jn. 12:48). The same cross that saves also condemns (Mt. 10:33).

 

[TMSO]

You seriously need to get out of here. “So shall we (living and dead) ever be with Him in the air” ( notice: not on earth).

Read 10x more than you post, it’s really awful.

You don't understand. Those resurrected in Revelation 20 are living again on Earth in Jerusalem. They are the one's that Satan and the armies of Gog and Magog surround before Jesus finally destroys Satan, death and hades. They are on Earth, hence they live again. (And it specifically states they live again. Why? They are on Earth.)

"4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of [b]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

They were souls, and then they came back to life. The first resurrection. (The context makes it clear that this is the first resurrection.)

What I am saying is that the passage in Thessalonians doesn't mention resurrection, but translation, which includes change. Based on this, I am saying it is not clear whether there is a resurrection, or if it is solely a translation and those who are asleep get a head start. The first resurrection isn't until before the millennium in Revelation 20.

 

[TMSO]

Post # 59 proves otherwise. I Post 59 you stated, "Jesus does not descend for the rapture," and in reply to that you were shown 1 Thessalonians 4:16, a verse that explicitly states "the Lord will descend..."

I clarified this some time ago. Why the false witness? Do you not have an argument against what Paul said? I said that Jesus is in the air, as Paul said. I said He did not descend TO EARTH (I clarified it, since the explicit statement of what Paul wrote was missed, so since I didn't take the time to repeat Paul, you refused to accept it.) We will meet Him in the air, and will thus be with Him [in the air is understood.] He does not descend to Earth.

That qualifies as you stating the opposite of what scripture states.

This qualifies as you bearing false witness to make a non-existent argument. It has already been clarified.

Furthermore, having stated Jesus does not descend for the rapture you also say he comes to earth for the millennium kingdom.

He does. That kingdom which God says will fulfill His oaths to David. And God's oaths do not fall flat. Again, it is the Messianic Kingdom, not the eternal kingdom of the Father. It fulfills the oaths made to David. Once that is accomplished, Jesus defeats His enemies (Satan, death and hades), and the old heavens and Earth are done away with, and we have NHNE and New Jerusalem.

Therefore Jesus has descended.

No you fail to explicitly state what Paul stated. Are you saying, Jesus is here. He is here in the wilderness? He is over there?

There are only two options here: either Jesus is one earth when he gathers everyone before heading back to heaven (which would still be a descent) or he goes back to heaven and then descends again (ala 1 Thes. 4) to have all the wheat and weeds gathered. Either way Jesus descends and what you've stated does not reconcile with scripture and one posts doesn't reconcile with another.

Paul says Jesus is in the air, not on Earth. I thought you said we have to take scripture as it is written?

Yep. And I pointed out nowhere does Revelation 19 ever state such a thing.

There are two choices for Revelation 19:
"19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence[e] had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. 21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh."

Either Satan has invaded heaven, and we have a successful coup against God (coup: a notable or successful stroke or move, of which invading heaven would definitely be a notable stroke/move), and Jesus has to wipe out the invaders (mortals) who successfully cracked through into the eternal realm of heaven, or, we get what is explicitly written here. The beast and the kings of the earth are in front of their armies arrayed against the one sitting on His horse, who is in front of His army. In the battle that ensues the beast and the prophet are captured and thrown into the lake of fire burning with sulfur, and Jesus kills everyone else.. personally. So, is this fighting in heaven, or is the fighting on Earth? It is one or the other. And where the fighting is, is where Jesus is, killing the armies of the beast and the kings of the earth. (And killing the kings of the earth while he is at it.) Which is it? What seems to be obvious, which is the fighting is on Earth, or the bend to belief idea that this war is actually in heaven, and Satan was not cast out as it some chapters earlier in Revelation.

It took multiple attempts to get you to acknowledge what should be obvious to all and what should immediately be acknowledged by all: the actual facts of the text. Revelation repeatedly states Jesus is in heaven until chapter 21 and you've gone on record stating the book never states Jesus is physically on earth, but you read it as something implied though it is nowhere stated in the entire book until chapter 21 (the one possible exception being Rev. 14:1). Comparatively speaking, I point to plainly read scripture and the explicit statements and you point to inferentially read scripture and implications read into the text.

You still haven't been able to point out where it explicitly states Jesus comes to Earth in Revelation 21, much less show Jesus name anywhere in the text. (Either by figurative speech (such as "The Word of God" as seen in Revelation 19), or explicitly stated as Jesus. You also have failed to show the trinity explicitly mentioned anywhere in scripture, given that what we explicitly see is "The Lord our God is One."

Rev 21 "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. " Peter says that all the elements melt with fervent heat. The Earth ceased to exist. The works of the Earth (sin) were burned up.

And yet Jesus explicitly stated the disciples would be handed over to tribulation (Mt. 24:9), He explicitly stated they would see the great tribulation and it would be cut short for the sake of the elect (Mt. 24:21), all seven of the seven churches in Revelation are repeatedly encouraged, exhorted, and admonished to persevere through the tribulation, and in Revelation 7 we read, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

Let's deal with Jesus explicit statement: " 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no [q]life would have been saved; but for the sake of the [r]elect those days will be cut short. "

The attempts of others to say that it doesn't mean it will be horrible, does not seem to understand that the quantifier, the qualifier here is the word great. That is the adjective. It will be so great that no tribulation since the beginning of the world will be as great, or after. (It won't be duplicated.) In fact, it will be so great, that if the days had not been cut short, no life would have been saved. Population of Earth: 0. No life. It is kind of obvious, considering that WW II was worse than AD 70 for the Jews, that AD 70 isn't what Jesus was talking about. What will happen will be worse than the holocaust, worse than what the crusades did to the Jews, worse than any tribulation the Jews have ever faced. That is, it will be greater than any tribulation that the Jews have ever faced. In face, it will go beyond the Jews to all life on Earth. I'm pretty sure that you said we are to go with the expllicit statement, right?

The rapture does NOT occur prior to the tribulation.

And I was so looking forward to a marriage supper of the lamb, as spoken in Revelation... 19. I guess no one is going.

 

[TMSO]

Argumentum ad nauseam and gaslighting.

I am on record stating our beliefs should be bent to well-rendered, exegetically rendered scripture that begins with accepting and believing the explicit statements.

That is true. You are on reacord stating this, however, your own actions do not reflect this. Psalm 110 states that the scepter stretches forth from Zion (Jerusalem, the Holy City). Apparently, this explicit statement was not good enough for you and your beliefs, because you changed it to heaven. It's as though you feel that the reason why it says Zion is because heaven is a foreign word to God. (I speak of how it appears to me.) You then use this to ADD to the passage (from heaven) to every stated event afterwards. There is a reason why "from heaven" is not written there. It isn't there. It is your belief, and the passage being bent to your belief.

You are the guy who has been bending scripture to fit his beliefs in almost every post. Every time I have corrected one of your interpretations, I have done so starting with what is explicitly stated and used those statement and explained how any inference is necessary, not optional.

Again this term, explicitly stated. I don't think it means what you think it means. Jesus says that there will come a great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of time, and will not be after. (It will not be duplicated.) You say this speaks to type. I agree with you. It is a type. It is a GREAT tribulation. (The adjective, the quantifier, the qualifier is right there... explicitly). Jesus further defines it by saying that if God didn't shorten the time, there would be no life left on Earth. That tells us just how GREAT this tribulation will be. It will be greater than the holocaust (which was worse than 70AD.) It will be worse than what the Catholic Church did. (to include the crusades. They were viscious.) It will be global, as Jesus says there would be no life on Earth if the days weren't shortened. (So it isn't limited just to the Jews.) This is just as bad as those who say that Noah's flood was localized. (Sure, if by localized they mean the whole planet.)

Jesus was explicit. WWII so far is the closest we have gotten to what could have been the Great Tribulation Jesus spoke of. It was the worst the Jews had faced (over 6 million killed), and it affected the whole world. (It was a World War.) However, there was never the possibility of all flesh being wiped out. Germany wasn't trying to do that. The US wasn't trying to do that. Salin was Stalin. Japan had their own plans. So, if we go with what Jesus explicitly said, we are still waiting for this Great Tribulation that is greater than any tribulation prior.

 

[Mr GLee]

You don't understand. Those resurrected in Revelation 20 are living again on Earth in Jerusalem. They are the one's that Satan and the armies of Gog and Magog surround before Jesus finally destroys Satan, death and hades. They are on Earth, hence they live again. (And it specifically states they live again. Why? They are on Earth.)

"4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of [b]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

They were souls, and then they came back to life. The first resurrection. (The context makes it clear that this is the first resurrection.)

What I am saying is that the passage in Thessalonians doesn't mention resurrection, but translation, which includes change. Based on this, I am saying it is not clear whether there is a resurrection, or if it is solely a translation and those who are asleep get a head start. The first resurrection isn't until before the millennium in Revelation 20.

The Amil position works the best .

No reincarnation (and they came back to life)

One resurrection at the end of the age : Signified as a thousand years .

The resurrections gate was opened when Jesus said it is finished.They will stay open till the last day under the Sun .

Today, to be absent from the body is to present with the Lord in the City of Christ that he prepared for His bride the church

There is no no biblical idea of dying mankind disappearing causing a catastrophes all over the world . Planes with no pilot falling out of the blue , cars unmanned crashing. etc . . for a literal thousands years and coming back with the same earthen bodies of death.

The thousand years in that parable is signified (not revealed ).its none of our business. Signify using the temporal things seen to represent the unseen eternal things of God .. It's the kind of teaching that hides the gospel understanding from some as it gives the believer the understanding of His faithfulness.

The valuable prescription for rightly dividing parables (signified )

1st Corinthians 4:17-18 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

He sent it and signified it .Calling it hidden manna in chapter 2:17

No sign where given to seek and wonder after .Christian have prophecy. Sign seekers are called a evil generation .

The mystery is in the use of the parables which without Christ spoke not. They teach us how to understand by faith, His understanding.

Many ignore the signified instructions in exchange in a sign to wonder after. Will it be true ?

Revelation 1King James Version1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

I give to eat of the hidden manna our daily bread.. . .the understanding of his will

 

[Josheb]

I clarified this some time ago.....

That is not the point.

The point is that your original statement was wrong. It was wrong and needed to be corrected, not clarified. That has happened here a lot with your posts. Paul is not the problem. Your reading of Paul is the problem.

 

[Josheb]

That is true. You are on record stating this, however, your own actions do not reflect this.

You are going to have to stop making this about me. Tu quoque is a fallacious response. Let your "This is true," be "this is true" without ever mentioning me.

Psalm 110 states that the scepter stretches forth from Zion (Jerusalem, the Holy City).

NO!

He extends his sceptor from Zion while still seated at the LORD's right hand in heaven. When we read the rest of the Bible we find "right hand" is not simply about georgraphy but also about ontology, power, authority, and we also find Jesus is seated on His Father's throne. He is seated at his Father's right hand on His father's throne. We also find heaven is His throne and the earth His footstool. The enemies on the footstool will be made a footstool.

While the Lord is in heaven and the LORD is doing the defeating.

Apparently, this explicit statement was not good enough for you...

Again, making it about me does not make your nonsense any better. Implied ad hominems are just as fallacious as explicit ones.

Hebrews 12:22-24
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Zion is not the earthly Jerusalem. If I use your argument and apply your rules to you then apparently Hebrews 12:22-24 is not good enough for you.

Psalm 110:1 is very plain. The Lord is seated in heaven until the LORD defeats his enemies. Raed every prophecy about the Lord's second coming in that context and the entire Bible will make much better sense that the multiple-coming-separated-rapture-Jesus-not-descending-but-descending-but-only-to-earth-non-descent-descent-coming-to-earth-even-though-scripture-does-not-explicitly-state-that-Zion-is-earthly-Jerusalem-when-Hebrews-explicitly-states-oterwise.

Whole scripture.

NOT Dispensationally mis-rendered eisegesis.

and your beliefs, because you changed it to heaven.

No, Scripture changed it to heaven.

Every exchange I point to explicit statement in the Bible and you ignore what is explicitly stated, preferring inference and what is thought to be implied over what is explicitly stated. You also emphasize the Old over the New, the older revelation that was veiled and hidden from the newer revelation that unveils and makes what was hidden known.

Go read Revelation 21. Then read Psalm 46.

Psalm 46:4-7
There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, The holy dwelling places of the Most High. God is in the midst of her, she will not be moved; God will help her when morning dawns. The nations made an uproar, the kingdoms tottered; He raised His voice, the earth melted. The LORD of hosts is with us; The God of Jacob is our stronghold. Selah.

See any parallel?

It's as though you feel that the reason why it says Zion is because heaven is a foreign word to God.

No, I say what I say because scripture explicitly states it and on every single occasion, I ask you to show me where scripture explicitly states something I get nothing, have to ask multiple times, maybe get an acknowledgment of the facts in scripture, and in the end a confession your comments are due to what is read to be implied. In comparison I never get asked, I get judged, and I always provide scripture - directly and immediately.

Christian eschatology is not Judaism.

(I speak of how it appears to me.) You then use this to ADD to the passage (from heaven) to every stated event afterwards. There is a reason why "from heaven" is not written there. It isn't there. It is your belief, and the passage being bent to your belief.

Again this term, explicitly stated.

Explicitly stated...... understood with whole scripture (not ripped from its context and made to imply things it cannot possibly mean once the entire Bible has been read with the newer revelation explaining the old.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

t does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what whole scripture states. This discussion is not about who thinks best. This discussion is about what scripture states when read in its entirety and the facts in evidence are as I have repeatedly summarized.

• You proof-text verse and do so often.
• You often ignore what is explicitly stated.
• You prefer what is implied (or what is thought to be implied).
• You're very reluctant to acknowledge the clear, plain explicit statements even when posted.
• You like the explicit statements of the OT, preferring not to consider what the NT explicitly states. In other words, explicit OT statements trump the explicit NT statements about the explicit OT statements (and that is not how the Bible is supposed to be read).
• You emphasize the OT over the NT, preferring the OT to explain the NT, the older revelation explaining the newer revelation even though that is exactly opposite what the New Testament writers did (they are constantly explaining the OT to their readers).
• You think this is about what you think versus what I think when the fact is I continue, repeatedly, post after post after post, ask for explicit statement and provide explicit statement.
• You think eisegesis is better than exegesis.

Nowhere in Revelation does the text explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth until chapter 21. Once you acknowledge that fact the next question is very easy: Why do you believe an end-times doctrine that ignores that fact?

That is about you and the way you think.

Modern futurism is an invention of the 19th century. It is very popular, but it has a lot of problems, beginning with the ones evidence and demonstrated in our exchange. Its popularity does not make it true (or false) but it does make belief easier. A lot of people have fallen prey to believing Dispensational Premillennialism (even if they do not consider themselves Dispensationalists). You, apparently, are one of them. I used to be one of them, too.

I read my Bible. I discovered two things: the Bible does not actually state what modern futurists say it says, and there are much more historical, mainstream, and, yes, orthodox views held in Christianity and none of them have the problems that have come up in our conversation here in this thread. NO ONE in Christendom has believed the rapture was separate from the resurrection prior to the 19th century invention of the separated viewpoint. You and I have been trading posts here in this thread four almost our weeks. You could have easily looked that last comment up, investigated it, verified, it seen that is factually correct, and acknowledged it!

Historical Premillennialists believe Jesus will be on earth for a literal 1000 years. You can still hold on to your premillennial kingdom view even though Revelation nowhere explicitly states Jesus is physically on earth until chapter 21. The separated rapture (which is the specified topic of this thread) is not a belief held by anyone in Christendom but the modern futurists. The Historicists reject that point of view. So too do the Amils, Postmils, and Idealists. Everyone in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice has long held the 19th century modern futurist view incorrect. You are the outlier. You have spent four weeks defending the outlying position. This is not news to anyone (except maybe you). Along with the separated rapture viewpoint comes the pre-tribulational view. Here, again, no one in Christian history held that to be a mainstream orthodox position until the mid-19th century.

Why did they not hold that view?

Because it cannot be built on explicit statements from scripture.

A person must read scripture inferentially and assume things are implied in order for modern futurism to be believed.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus says that there will come a great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of time, and will not be after. (It will not be duplicated.) You say this speaks to type. I agree with you. It is a type. It is a GREAT tribulation. (The adjective, the quantifier, the qualifier is right there... explicitly). Jesus further defines it by saying that if God didn't shorten the time, there would be no life left on Earth. That tells us just how GREAT this tribulation will be. It will be greater than the holocaust (which was worse than 70AD.) It will be worse than what the Catholic Church did. (to include the crusades. They were viscious.) It will be global, as Jesus says there would be no life on Earth if the days weren't shortened. (So it isn't limited just to the Jews.) This is just as bad as those who say that Noah's flood was localized. (Sure, if by localized they mean the whole planet.)

Jesus was explicit. WWII so far is the closest we have gotten to what could have been the Great Tribulation Jesus spoke of. It was the worst the Jews had faced (over 6 million killed), and it affected the whole world. (It was a World War.) However, there was never the possibility of all flesh being wiped out. Germany wasn't trying to do that. The US wasn't trying to do that. Salin was Stalin. Japan had their own plans. So, if we go with what Jesus explicitly said, we are still waiting for this Great Tribulation that is greater than any tribulation prior.

I am glad we agree on a few things.

However, the op-relevant point is that Christians go through the tribulation. As far as Christians persevering through the great tribulation, suffering, persisting, and surviving the tribulation this is something about scripture is very explicit. That is why Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Idealism all agree. That all agree with the clear plain statements of whole scripture, read exactly as written.

Subscribers of the 19th century invention known as Dispensational Premillennialism part ways with everyone else in Christian history and when asked why they say, "It is implied."

It took a long time but when pressed you proved to be a very good modern futurist. "It's implied."


The problem is when the whole paragraph, the whole chapter, the whole narrative, the whole book, and the whole Bible are read and the whole examined as a whole it turns out that thing that was thought to be implied is not actually implied and it cannot be implied. The rapture and the resurrection are not separate events. Christians do not get rescued from the great tribulation; they will be handed over to it with an expectation to overcome it and an assurance they will do so and be rewarded accordingly. The great tribulation is bad, but not as bad as the flood where only eight people survived so the clause, "such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will," is hyperbole. Scripture does not contradict itself.

@Buff Scott Jr. and I may end-times differences, but this op is correct: "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." The separated rapture doctrine is incorrect.

 

[Mr GLee]

He extends his sceptor from Zion while still seated at the LORD's right hand in heaven. When we read the rest of the Bible we find "right hand" is not simply about georgraphy but also about ontology, power, authority, and we also find Jesus is seated on His Father's throne. He is seated at his Father's right hand on His father's throne. We also find heaven is His throne and the earth His footstool. The enemies on the footstool will be made a footstool.

Zion represents the eternal unseen City of Christ prepared for his eternal bride the church . Not after the temporal corrupted . .what the eyes see

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[Sheila3]

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!​

I agree

When Jesus returns it will be one event and he will simultaneously take up his as he is coming down.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 it says that day will not come until there be a falling away and that man of sin be revealed. ( The Beast and his Antichrist will be revealed first)

In 1 Corinthians 15:52 it also says at the last trump and when you go to Revelation 11:15 at the last trumpet, Christ is here and seen and it says the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of Our Lord and of his Christ. Then judgment

 

[EarlyActs]

I agree

When Jesus returns it will be one event and he will simultaneously take up his as he is coming down.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 it says that day will not come until there be a falling away and that man of sin be revealed. ( The Beast and his Antichrist will be revealed first)

In 1 Corinthians 15:52 it also says at the last trump and when you go to Revelation 11:15 at the last trumpet, Christ is here and seen and it says the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of Our Lord and of his Christ. Then judgment

Yes the end event is very quick, without Judaic details, and we are with him in the NHNE.

But the Thess material was all meant about that generation. Its instructions are very direct to their concerns. And God has delayed the final judgement of the world—as explained in 2 P 3. Not the wrath on Israel; that came in that generation.

 

[TMSO]

The Amil position works the best .

No reincarnation (and they came back to life)

You mean resurrection. You mean there is no resurrection. Did Jesus reincarnate? Lazaurs? The little kid Elisha brought back to life? The kid that fell out the window that Paul brought back to life?

One resurrection at the end of the age : Signified as a thousand years .

There is a resurrection after as well.

The resurrections gate was opened when Jesus said it is finished.They will stay open till the last day under the Sun .

Keep away from mysticism.

Today, to be absent from the body is to present with the Lord in the City of Christ that he prepared for His bride the church

There is no no biblical idea of dying mankind disappearing causing a catastrophes all over the world . Planes with no pilot falling out of the blue , cars unmanned crashing. etc . . for a literal thousands years and coming back with the same earthen bodies of death.

That is people being rational. If the rapture is the disappearing of Christians around the world, then obviously things will happen. Very rational. Rational doesn't mean true, it just means it passes the muster of logic.

The thousand years in that parable is signified (not revealed ).its none of our business. Signify using the temporal things seen to represent the unseen eternal things of God .. It's the kind of teaching that hides the gospel understanding from some as it gives the believer the understanding of His faithfulness.

The valuable prescription for rightly dividing parables (signified )

1st Corinthians 4:17-18 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

He sent it and signified it .Calling it hidden manna in chapter 2:17

No sign where given to seek and wonder after .Christian have prophecy. Sign seekers are called a evil generation .

The mystery is in the use of the parables which without Christ spoke not. They teach us how to understand by faith, His understanding.

Many ignore the signified instructions in exchange in a sign to wonder after. Will it be true ?

Revelation 1King James Version1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Things that are imminent. That is ready to happen at any time.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

I give to eat of the hidden manna our daily bread.. . .the understanding of his will

 

[TMSO]

I am glad we agree on a few things.

However, the op-relevant point is that Christians go through the tribulation.

Of that can we be sure? Is it possible that just as Jesus life paralleled the Jewish experience in the Old Testament, that the same will be for the church? In the way that God will separate the church from the world at the time of the "plagues", as God separated Israel in Goshen from what was happening in Egypt? There are a lot of parallels in scripture.

As far as Christians persevering through the great tribulation, suffering, persisting, and surviving the tribulation this is something about scripture is very explicit. That is why Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Idealism all agree. That all agree with the clear plain statements of whole scripture, read exactly as written.

We don't know about the Great Tribulation, we just know about tribulations, such as what the disciples went through, and Christians have gone through throughout history. Read what the Russians did to Christians during the Cold War. Let's just say that if it doesn't phase you, you have no soul to save. (I say that about anyone who would be unphased by what they did.)

Subscribers of the 19th century invention known as Dispensational Premillennialism part ways with everyone else in Christian history and when asked why they say, "It is implied."

So, you have researched all of history and missed Polycarp (1st/2nd century), Papias (second century), Ignatius (second century), Irenaeus (second century), Borther Dolcino (14th century), etc. And apparently you haven't read the pre-Christ eschatological writings of the Jewish people.

It took a long time but when pressed you proved to be a very good modern futurist. "It's implied."

And a good trinitarian. "It's implied". And you are good at implying Jesus return in Revelation 21, since it isn't expicitly stated there. Especially since the Earth He is to return to, ceased to exist before Revelation 21:1. And you still haven't dealt with Satan having a successful coup in heaven in Revelation 19.

The problem is when the whole paragraph, the whole chapter, the whole narrative, the whole book, and the whole Bible are read and the whole examined as a whole it turns out that thing that was thought to be implied is not actually implied and it cannot be implied. The rapture and the resurrection are not separate events.

Paul seems to handle them as separate events. Something not lost on the person who wrote the sermon of the Pseudo Ephraim between the 4th and 6th centuries.

Christians do not get rescued from the great tribulation; they will be handed over to it with an expectation to overcome it and an assurance they will do so and be rewarded accordingly. The great tribulation is bad, but not as bad as the flood where only eight people survived so the clause, "such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will," is hyperbole. Scripture does not contradict itself.

That is because God loves pouring out His wrath on His children. They deserve it. They deserve to be crushed by the one who would have them call Him Father. The Great Triublation is God's wrath. What comes before the Great Tribulation is not God's wrath.

Let's try this again.
1. Again, the type that Jesus is using as hyperbole (literal hyperbole) is great. That is, how great, how amplified the tribualtion would be. It would be so great that in the history of the world, there has never been a tribulation so great, and there will be none as great after. So... did Jesus lie?
2. You imply that the flood was tribulation. God does not imply such things, and explicitly states that it is punishment. For what reason would you change what God said?
"13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of [j]humanity has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of [k]people; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. "
That isn't tribulation. God has planned destruction, and no one would escape. However, God needed someone through which to fulfill His promise to Eve. God chose Noah. Some say it is because Noah and family were the only pure-bred humans left. I don't go that far, but it would be interesting if that were true. The story is that human/angel hybrids are no longer human, and therefore cannot be redeemed. So God destroyed them. It was not tribulation. Please stop implying Jesus lied.

@Buff Scott Jr. and I may end-times differences, but this op is correct: "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." The separated rapture doctrine is incorrect.

Just say that the oaths God made to David fell flat. Explain Jesus answer to the disciples question: "Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Why didn't Jesus just say no, and in fact, there will be no kingdom restored to Israel? Why did He tell the disciples that it is God the Father who knows when the kingdom will be restored it Israel, and that it isn't for them to know?

"6 So, when they had come together, they began asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 But He said to them, “It is not for you to know periods of time or appointed times which the Father has set by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.”"

It is rather explicit. They will prepare the world for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, by serving as witnesses for the Messiah King.

 

[TMSO]

You are going to have to stop making this about me. Tu quoque is a fallacious response. Let your "This is true," be "this is true" without ever mentioning me.

NO!

He extends his sceptor from Zion while still seated at the LORD's right hand in heaven. When we read the rest of the Bible we find "right hand" is not simply about georgraphy but also about ontology, power, authority, and we also find Jesus is seated on His Father's throne. He is seated at his Father's right hand on His father's throne. We also find heaven is His throne and the earth His footstool. The enemies on the footstool will be made a footstool.

Here is what you said, and why I said you changed it:
[Emphasis is mine]
"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.

<Josheb said>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."

Is there a reason why you are bending the passage to your beliefs? The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion. That is future tense. The Messianic Kingdom is future tense.

"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." This is PRESENT tense. The reason why I highlighted the word power is due to what that word in Hebrew means.

of Your power;

חֵ֫ילֶ֥ךָ (chei·le·cha)

2428: strength, efficiency, wealth, army

from chul

in the day of your [strength, efficiency, wealth, ARMY] Whose army are the youth a part of?

While the Lord is in heaven and the LORD is doing the defeating.

Which is in contradiction to Revelation 19, which has Him defeating His enemies (gathered enemies as HIs footstool) on Earth.

Again, making it about me does not make your nonsense any better. Implied ad hominems are just as fallacious as explicit ones.

I think they are fallacious when you make it up. You even BEND MY WORDS to your beliefs, in this case, implied ad hominem. You explicitly state that above.

Hebrews 12:22-24
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Are you really using eisegesis to connect this to Psalm 110? I mean, it explicitly does not state this.

Zion is not the earthly Jerusalem. If I use your argument and apply your rules to you then apparently Hebrews 12:22-24 is not good enough for you.

What does Hebrews 12:22-24 have to do with Psalm 110? It isn't even stated here. However, there are other Psalms where Zion is Jerusalem, and it is clear. Would you change all of David's Psalms in this way, or just one so it matches your belief? Did David say Mount Zion in Psalm 110? Did David say that He rules over His enemies, or in their midst, saying among them? (Which is an issue if you say in the midst of, or among His enemies... in heaven. What enemies does Jesus have in heaven?

Psalm 110:1 is very plain. The Lord is seated in heaven until the LORD defeats his enemies. Raed every prophecy about the Lord's second coming in that context and the entire Bible will make much better sense that the multiple-coming-separated-rapture-Jesus-not-descending-but-descending-but-only-to-earth-non-descent-descent-coming-to-earth-even-though-scripture-does-not-explicitly-state-that-Zion-is-earthly-Jerusalem-when-Hebrews-explicitly-states-oterwise.

Ah, so one verse interprets ALL of scripture? "
Psalm 9:14
That I may shew forth all thy praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion: I will rejoice in thy salvation."

Psalm 69:35
For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah: that they may dwell there, and have it in possession.

Psalm 74:2
Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.

Psalm 76:2
In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.

Psalm 78:68
But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

Whole scripture.

NOT Dispensationally mis-rendered eisegesis.

Or your mis-rendered eisegesis.

No, Scripture changed it to heaven.

You can see above where I showed that YOU changed the Messianic Kingdom from Earth to heaven. Jesus NEVER told the disciples there would be no Messianic Kingdom, or that He will not restore the kingdom to heaven.

Every exchange I point to explicit statement in the Bible and you ignore what is explicitly stated, preferring inference and what is thought to be implied over what is explicitly stated. You also emphasize the Old over the New, the older revelation that was veiled and hidden from the newer revelation that unveils and makes what was hidden known.

You pointed out Jude. I showed you this had nothing to do with Satan. I then used other passages speaking about the same exact thing, and showed exactly what the passage is stating. You changed what Jude was saying to bend it to your belief. You never answered to what I pointed out, except to say that I mishandle scripture, because I show what it explicitly states in THREE different passages that match up explicitly.

Go read Revelation 21. Then read Psalm 46.

Psalm 46:4-7
There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, The holy dwelling places of the Most High. God is in the midst of her, she will not be moved; God will help her when morning dawns. The nations made an uproar, the kingdoms tottered; He raised His voice, the earth melted. The LORD of hosts is with us; The God of Jacob is our stronghold. Selah.

See any parallel?

No. No I don't. I can see a possible parallel between this and Revelation 19/20, but not Revelation 21.

 

[TMSO]

No, I say what I say because scripture explicitly states it and on every single occasion, I ask you to show me where scripture explicitly states something I get nothing, have to ask multiple times, maybe get an acknowledgment of the facts in scripture, and in the end a confession your comments are due to what is read to be implied. In comparison I never get asked, I get judged, and I always provide scripture - directly and immediately.

I have given you the end of Revelation 19 multiple times, but you will not explain it. It is in 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. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many crowns; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. "
Following Him where exactly?
"19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse, and against His army."
To assemble against them. I mean, that seems pretty clear.

It does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what whole scripture states. This discussion is not about who thinks best. This discussion is about what scripture states when read in its entirety and the facts in evidence are as I have repeatedly summarized.

Apparently it does, given your past comments. If you truly believed that why do you end with "as I have repeatedly summarized"? The discussion is not about who thinks best, but you think best, right?

• You proof-text verse and do so often.
• You often ignore what is explicitly stated.
• You prefer what is implied (or what is thought to be implied).
• You're very reluctant to acknowledge the clear, plain explicit statements even when posted.
• You like the explicit statements of the OT, preferring not to consider what the NT explicitly states. In other words, explicit OT statements trump the explicit NT statements about the explicit OT statements (and that is not how the Bible is supposed to be read).
• You emphasize the OT over the NT, preferring the OT to explain the NT, the older revelation explaining the newer revelation even though that is exactly opposite what the New Testament writers did (they are constantly explaining the OT to their readers).
• You think this is about what you think versus what I think when the fact is I continue, repeatedly, post after post after post, ask for explicit statement and provide explicit statement.
• You think eisegesis is better than exegesis.

Wow. I didn't know you preferred the double barrel for ad-hominem attacks. You telling me how I think to attack me.

That is about you and the way you think.

And now the direct attack. Right after you said

It does not matter what you or I think

I read my Bible. I discovered two things: the Bible does not actually state what modern futurists say it says, and there are much more historical, mainstream, and, yes, orthodox views held in Christianity and none of them have the problems that have come up in our conversation here in this thread. NO ONE in Christendom has believed the rapture was separate from the resurrection prior to the 19th century invention of the separated viewpoint. You and I have been trading posts here in this thread four almost our weeks. You could have easily looked that last comment up, investigated it, verified, it seen that is factually correct, and acknowledged it!

Pseudo Ephraim: "Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? . . . For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

I read the whole sermon. It talks about everything you say didn't exist until the 19th century invention of the separated viewpoint. And I didn't say that the resurrection and the rapture are separate. I brought up for discussion that it is not explicitly mentioned, and used the wording for Revelation 20 to show this. However, you bring a shotgun to discussions to all who don't agree with you. (At least, that is how I see it. At this point, you could ask, why I see it that way? Or you can attack me. Your choice.)

The separated rapture (which is the specified topic of this thread) is not a belief held by anyone in Christendom but the modern futurists. The Historicists reject that point of view. So too do the Amils, Postmils, and Idealists. Everyone in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice has long held the 19th century modern futurist view incorrect. You are the outlier. You have spent four weeks defending the outlying position. This is not news to anyone (except maybe you). Along with the separated rapture viewpoint comes the pre-tribulational view. Here, again, no one in Christian history held that to be a mainstream orthodox position until the mid-19th century.

Read the Pseudo Ephraim piece above again. I read the whole sermon. It is clear that this is exactly what the writer believed in the 5th-6th centuries. And that does not come up in a vacuum, especially if it is a sermon. This idea was floating around. It also explains brother dolcino's belief in the 14th century (1300-1307).

A person must read scripture inferentially and assume things are implied in order for modern futurism to be believed.

Let's do a test. The passage on the two witnesses in Revelation. I believe it as explicitly stated. Two witnesses, Enoch and Elijah (Pseudo Ephraim and the early church agrees). Some figurative speech may be the flame that comes from their mouth, however, that may be literal. I don't have a problem accepting it as explicitly written. I also have no issues accepting the explicitly written 3 1/2 years. Or the fact that they will die, and will be resurrected after 3 1/2 days. I have no problem. No need to imply anything, as it is explicitly stated. And everyone around the whole world will see it for 3 1/2 days, thanks to social media and the internet. Up to now, it hasn't been possible, but now it is. How long did it take for the whole world to find out about what Hamas did to Israel? Minutes? Hours? A day? I don't imply anything, but take it explicitly. Tell me what you think it says. Will it change the words written to something else?

 

[Mr GLee]

You mean resurrection. You mean there is no resurrection. Did Jesus reincarnate? Lazaurs? The little kid Elisha brought back to life? The kid that fell out the window that Paul brought back to life?

Different kinds of demonstrations as parables are used for different purposes or doctrines .

The Father resurrected Jesus the Son of man during the three days and night prophcied demonstration of him and the Father working as one.
God . Not served by the dying hands of mankind. . three or more a crowd

Jesus had no power to save himself. The three days and nights promised demonstration was given in three parts The garden . . .moving to the hill or cross and the tomb.

The Father finishing the demonstration removed the grave clothes and rolled back the stone.

Mark 16:3-5King James Version3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted

Lazarus was used to demonstrate a new believer entering fellowship. Four days the Father kept his body from dying and never rises . ( called sleeping )

The difference he commanded them to roll back the stone and remove the stinky grave cloth again to demonstrate Christian fellowship

John11:38-41 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

 

[Mr GLee]

There is a resurrection after as well.

The resurrection gate that was opened when Jesus said it is finished.It will stay open until the last day .

That is people being rational. If the rapture is the disappearing of Christians around the world, then obviously things will happen. Very rational. Rational doesn't mean true, it just means it passes the muster of logic.

To rationalize reason or logic by making the signified understand of a parable into a literal thousand years is where many error .

To literalize the parables and make it about the historical without the signified it would seem to make the opening instruction, that not only did he send the living word but signified His understanding called hidden manna in 2:17 .making it to no effect.

We look to the historical the temporal seen then rightly divide the parables .Parable teach us how to walk after the unseen things of God. His mighty faith.

Both that seen the temporal and the unseen eternal must be mixed.

Revelation 1King James Version1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

 

[TMSO]

Different kinds of demonstrations as parables are used for different purposes or doctrines .

The Father resurrected Jesus the Son of man during the three days and night prophcied demonstration of him and the Father working as one.
God . Not served by the dying hands of mankind. . three or more a crowd

Jesus had no power to save himself. The three days and nights promised demonstration was given in three parts The garden . . .moving to the hill or cross and the tomb.

The Father finishing the demonstration removed the grave clothes and rolled back the stone.

Mark 16:3-5King James Version3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted

Lazarus was used to demonstrate a new believer entering fellowship. Four days the Father kept his body from dying and never rises . ( called sleeping )

All believers who are dead are said to be sleeping. (Pauls uses that term a lot.) However that is not what Lazarus being raised from the dead was used for. Jesus told them specifically what the purpose of Lazarus death and being brought back to life was for.

" 4 But when Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness is not [b]meant for death, but is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.” 5 (Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister, and Lazarus.) 6 So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was. 7 Then after this He *said to the disciples, “Let’s go to Judea again.” 8 The disciples *said to Him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone You, and yet You are going there again?” 9 Jesus replied, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks during the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks during the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in [c]him.” 11 This He said, and after this He *said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going so that I may awaken him from sleep.” 12 The disciples then said to Him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will [d]come out of it.” 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about [e]actual sleep. 14 So Jesus then said to them plainly, “Lazarus died, 15 and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let’s go to him.”"

It was not meant for death, but so the glory of GOd, and the glorification of the Son of God through raising Lazarus from the dead. So it was not meant for Lazarus to die and remain dead.

"40 Jesus *said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” "

Lazarus was dead, Jesus clearly states this. This is important, for Jesus wasn't going to wake Lazarus up as the disciples said, but to raise Lazarus from the dead, which was the purpose for Lazarus sickness and death. Not to remain death, but to be the glory of God, and the Son of God glorified through his coming back to life.

The difference he commanded them to roll back the stone and remove the stinky grave cloth again to demonstrate Christian fellowship

" 44 Out came the man who had died, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus *said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”"

Lazarus was a little... tied up in burial clothes that needed to be removed. There is nothing that states that this is to demonstrate Christian fellowship. All this was about bringing glory to God, and that the Son of God be glorified. Don't add to it what is not in the passage.

John11:38-41 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

 

[Mr GLee]

Lazarus was dead, Jesus clearly states this. This is important, for Jesus wasn't going to wake Lazarus up as the disciples said, but to raise Lazarus from the dead, which was the purpose for Lazarus sickness and death. Not to remain death, but to be the glory of God, and the Son of God glorified through his coming back to life.

Lazarus was dead asleep. Jesus wept ( verse 35) because of there lack of understanding of the parable . Jesus the most misunderstood person that ever walked on earth. The father working in jesus yoked with him used the Son of man jesus to teach us how to walk or understand by faith "the unseen eternal things of God Even his own family and the apostles thought he was of his rocker . Lonely man putting all his trust in the unseen Holy Father.

First he called it a sickness unto death not dead never rising. . the first two days of four.

John 11. 6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.

Two days later. Rise Lazarus the wake up call . . then he had the disciples remove the grave clothes and roll back the stone .

The three day and night promised demonstration. The work of two as if one. The Father working with Jesus during that promised demonstration .

The Father removed the grave clothes and rolled back the stone .

With Lazarus it was Christian fellowship the removal the stinky clothes of the unbelievers welcoming them into fellowship of those that were previously dead in trespases and sin.

Two differences, different reasons One the witness of two the father and Son . . the other a crowd.

 

[TMSO]

Lazarus was dead asleep.

Why do you change what Jesus clearly stated. The disciples said, if he is asleep, let's go wake him up. Jesus just simply stated, Lazarus is dead. Why? Because the disciples didn't get it.

Jesus wept ( verse 35) because of there lack of understanding of the parable .

No. He wept because He felt grief. He was overcome by grief. Jesus shared in our experiences, and this is where He experienced grief.

Jesus the most misunderstood person that ever walked on earth. The father working in jesus yoked with him used the Son of man jesus to teach us how to walk or understand by faith "the unseen eternal things of God Even his own family and the apostles thought he was of his rocker . Lonely man putting all his trust in the unseen Holy Father.

First he called it a sickness unto death not dead never rising. . the first two days of four.

John 11. 6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he abode two days still in the same place where he was.

Two days later. Rise Lazarus the wake up call . . then he had the disciples remove the grave clothes and roll back the stone .

The three day and night promised demonstration. The work of two as if one. The Father working with Jesus during that promised demonstration .

The Father removed the grave clothes and rolled back the stone .

With Lazarus it was Christian fellowship the removal the stinky clothes of the unbelievers welcoming them into fellowship of those that were previously dead in trespases and sin.

Two differences, different reasons One the witness of two the father and Son . . the other a crowd.

You know. After reading what you have written, it is obviously not worth discussing with you anymore. You are so far outside of what scripture states. You should try Josheb.