• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The Rapture

Hmmmm....

Jesus says this episode will occur like it did in the days of Noah. In the days of Noah the ones who were taken away died. It was the ones who were taken away by the flood that were destroyed! It was the ones who remained, who were left behind after the flood that went on to live in a covenant relationship with God. This passage in Matthew 24 (and Luke 17) is NOT about a rapture. It's about destructive judgment.

Go read the Genesis account of the flood in chapters 6 thru 9. The read the Matthew 24 and Luke 17 passages paying attention to the details of the text.

Luke 17:26-30
26
And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so will it also be in the days of the Son of Man: 27people were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, and they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28https://biblehub.com/nasb_/luke/17.htm#fnIt was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, and they were building; 29but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.


Those taken away were destroyed. Not saved.
I agree, it is not mentioning a rapture.
Matthew 24:40-41 is verse used to justify the rapture. Although, within the text, there is no mention of the rapture. But since a person is “taken”, people who believe in the rapture have associated this as Christ taking the believers. Here is the verse:
“Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left.”
The verses prior to this say that when we see the end time signs happening, that we can know that the coming of Christ is nearby. In these perilous times, the antichrist and his army will advance and even take over Jerusalem. In Matthew 24:9 it says that believers will be delivered to tribulation and death. So, as the antichrist armies advance, there will be two men in a field; the Christian will be taken by the antichrist's army (and most likely beheaded), and the other, non-believer will be left. There will also be two women grinding at a mill; the Christian will be taken and the other will be left.
Verses 16-18 of Chapter 24 even tells people to flee. Do not be left in the field.
“then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.” So, don't be one of those men in the field becuase if you are a believer, you will be taken. Instead, flee to the mountains.
In reality, to be taken is a terrible thing. I think if Christians see that “to be taken”, is to be taken to tribulation, then they would not be wanting to be taken so much.
 
Some preterist argue Revelation was written before 70AD. I believe most scholars say it was written much later.
The last I had read, it was closer to 80AD, shortly before John died, and after he was exiled to the Island of Patmos. (He pulled a Rasputin, and just wouldn't die, so he was exiled instead.)
 
Some preterist argue Revelation was written before 70AD. I believe most scholars say it was written much later.
This is what I really need to know; which is it??

70 AD? I'm good...

90 AD? I need to pick an Eschatology from Scratch...
 
This is what I really need to know; which is it??

70 AD? I'm good...

90 AD? I need to pick an Eschatology from Scratch...
I'm a Fundamentalist. Knowing this ONE thing will solve most of my Eschatological issues...
 
This is what I really need to know; which is it??

70 AD? I'm good...

90 AD? I need to pick an Eschatology from Scratch...

I believe later is more accurate but preterist will disagree so here we are.

One view from the article:


Irenaeus​

"Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation."
 

I believe later is more accurate but preterist will disagree so here we are.

One view from the article:


Irenaeus​

"Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation."
Thanks...

I think the first point about Irenaeus is best. I think other points could be more easily answered; but I'm not looking to present Negative Argumentation. Irenaeus could have some misinformation being a couple generations removed; but probably not...
 

I believe later is more accurate but preterist will disagree so here we are.

One view from the article:


Irenaeus​

"Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation."
Here is a quote from Young's Analytical Concordance, regarding the book of Revelation.

"It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syria version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou – i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date.”
 
Here is a quote from Young's Analytical Concordance, regarding the book of Revelation.

"It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syria version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou – i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date.”
Thanks...

How do we confirm this? As I said, confirmation will get me to take one or the other fork in the road...

I don't want my ears scratched either way. Staying at the fork is why my Eschatology is Lame...
 
Thanks...

How do we confirm this? As I said, confirmation will get me to take one or the other fork in the road...
As with most things that happened a couple of thousand years ago, proof can be tricky to find. I suppose the original quote from Irenaeus would be a good start, if anyone can find it.
 
As with most things that happened a couple of thousand years ago, proof can be tricky to find. I suppose the original quote from Irenaeus would be a good start, if anyone can find it.
I'm sure I'm asking for too much. It's probably why I'll never commit to a trademark Brand of Eschatology...

I'm a Fundamentalist; and I need a Fundamental...
 
The Church is the city Abraham was looking for, its a heavenly City Heb 12:22-23

but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Its the great gathering of the people, Jacob knew about it Gen 49:10


The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
The Body of Christ will be in Mount Zion, (third heaven) which is the ruling area, while the city part, New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven.
 
There is no proven date for revelation many beleiev that it was written before 70AD
Domitian never persecuted Christians like Nero did. Nero was sixth of seven Ceasar’s which coincides with the seven headed beast in Revelation 17. The seventh remained for only a short season, and Galba was Ceasar for a little while.
 
Domitian never persecuted Christians like Nero did. Nero was sixth of seven Ceasar’s which coincides with the seven headed beast in Revelation 17. The seventh remained for only a short season, and Galba was Ceasar for a little while.
Agreed thanks
 
There is no proven date for revelation many beleiev that it was written before 70AD
I did a search on Google, and I found more people who said that it was written around 95AD, than those who said before 70AD or around 80AD. One even said it may have been 100AD. John MacArthur has it between 94-96 AD actually, not 80AD, so I didn't remember correctly.
 
Domitian never persecuted Christians like Nero did. Nero was sixth of seven Ceasar’s which coincides with the seven headed beast in Revelation 17. The seventh remained for only a short season, and Galba was Ceasar for a little while.
John MacArthur places Revelation sometime around 94-96 AD.
 
John MacArthur places Revelation sometime around 94-96 AD.
I think there’s too much internal evidence to refute the later date writing. The Olivet Discourse and Revelation go hand in hand. Plus, Josephus‘ writings support much of what transpired.
 
I did a search on Google, and I found more people who said that it was written around 95AD, than those who said before 70AD or around 80AD. One even said it may have been 100AD. John MacArthur has it between 94-96 AD actually, not 80AD, so I didn't remember correctly.

All of which aren't biblical authority. I have books on the early date also but to me history proves the truth.
 
Hmmmm....

Jesus says this episode will occur like it did in the days of Noah. In the days of Noah the ones who were taken away died. It was the ones who were taken away by the flood that were destroyed! It was the ones who remained, who were left behind after the flood that went on to live in a covenant relationship with God. This passage in Matthew 24 (and Luke 17) is NOT about a rapture. It's about destructive judgment.

Go read the Genesis account of the flood in chapters 6 thru 9. The read the Matthew 24 and Luke 17 passages paying attention to the details of the text.

Luke 17:26-30
26
And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so will it also be in the days of the Son of Man: 27people were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, and they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28https://biblehub.com/nasb_/luke/17.htm#fnIt was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, and they were building; 29but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.


Those taken away were destroyed. Not saved.
Why is there lines in that post where the text is struck through? I did not write it that way?
 
I agree, it is not mentioning a rapture.
Matthew 24:40-41 is verse used to justify the rapture. Although, within the text, there is no mention of the rapture. But since a person is “taken”, people who believe in the rapture have associated this as Christ taking the believers.
They believe that in direct contradiction to the context of what is elsewhere stated in that passage AND what is reported in the account of the flood.
In Matthew 24:9 it says that believers will be delivered to tribulation and death.
Which precludes any and all possibility of a pretribulation rapture. Those who believe the rapture will remove Christians from the subsequently occurring tribulation do so in direct contradiction to the fact Jesus explicitly stated the disciples would be handed over to tribulation AND the repeated examples in Revelation of the churches experiencing tribulation. Sometimes an effort to avoid this contradiction is made by distinguishing between tribulation in general and the "great" tribulation" but this is a red herring because Matthew 24 still specifies the disciples going through that tribulation AND the only other two scriptural mentions of "great tribulation (Rev. 2 and 7) are ones in which Christians experience the tribulation.

Pre-tribulational rapture is contradictory to scripture.
In reality, to be taken is a terrible thing. I think if Christians see that “to be taken”, is to be taken to tribulation, then they would not be wanting to be taken so much.
Yep.

I was just reading in Hoekema's book, "The Bible and the Future" (highly recommended) how the expectation of the kingdom of God in John the Baptist's preaching came with two expectation: 1) salvation and 2) judgment. Hoekema argues for a first century salvation and end of time judgment, but I read scripture to say both happen at two different times. Once in the first century (last days) and again on the last day.
 
Back
Top