Is the Rapture credible?

[Clare73]

Why can't Jesus come back and judge the world and that's the end?

Because of the drama in interpreting prophetic riddles (Nu 12:6-8) literally. . .and which interpretations are not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:16).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because of the drama in interpreting prophetic riddles (Nu 12:6-8) literally. . .and which interpretations are not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:16).

What you've written looks like incoherent verse pasting.

 

[Clare73]

What you've written looks like incoherent verse pasting.

Are you asking for an explanation. . .or just denying the meaning of those Scriptures?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you asking for an explanation. . .or just denying the meaning of those Scriptures?

I am exiting discussion with you on this matter. It is not profitable.

 

[Clare73]

I am exiting discussion with you on this matter. It is not profitable.

Only Scripture is profitable, man's opinion is not.

You didn't look up those Scriptures, did you?

 

[1Tonne]

Because of the drama in interpreting prophetic riddles (Nu 12:6-8) literally. . .and which interpretations are not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:16).

Are you asking for an explanation. . .or just denying the meaning of those Scriptures?

I am exiting discussion with you on this matter. It is not profitable.

Xeno. You will find that Clare73 has made her own doctrines about prophecy based on a single verse, and then she will apply this to the whole bible. This even applies when verses in the bible contradict her doctrine. So, she believes that all prophecy, when written, is not written to be read literally as it says. So, everything is figurative and in riddles.
Sadly, because of this, it is pointless debating with her because her personal doctrine has closed her mind to understanding. She has tunnel vision.

 

[Clare73]

Xeno. You will find that Clare73 has made her own doctrines about prophecy based on a single verse, and then she will apply this to the whole bible. This even applies when verses in the bible contradict her doctrine. So, she believes that all prophecy, when written, is not written to be read literally as it says. So, everything is figurative and in riddles.
Sadly, because of this, it is pointless debating with her because her personal doctrine has closed her mind to understanding. She has tunnel vision.

"Because of the drama in interpreting prophetic riddles (Nu 12:6-8) literally. . .and which interpretations are not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:16)."

I note your failure to address NT teaching of Jesus Christ (as distinct from prophetic riddles, Nu 12:6-8) presented in my response quoted above. . .in particular 1 Th 4:16-17, which presents one second coming, one resurrection of all mankind, and one catching up of the saints, all at the end of time.

 

[1Tonne]

1 Th 4:16-17, which presents one second coming, one resurrection of all mankind, and one catching up of the saints, all at the end of time.

The issue I have with you is that you claim that your personal understanding is 100% what Jesus taught. However, I have shown that there is another understanding of 1 Thes 4:16-17, and I believe that this is the correct understanding. You claim that you teach what Jesus taught, while I look at the same verse and also claim to be correct. So, if there are 2 views (and I am pretty sure that others will have more), then it would be arrogant to claim that your view is actually what Jesus believed and taught. Especially when the other view is more compelling.
I do not mind if you say that you believe your view to be correct. We all do believe our own views. But when you claim your view is what Jesus understood and taught when there is no evidence to back your claim, then that is wrong and could be putting words into Jesus' mouth.

The other issue I have is that you say that all prophecy is written in riddles and therefore should not be read as literal. But you choose to read 1 Thes 4:16-17 at face value. So, literally. You believe that the dead believers are raised first, and then those who are alive will be raised. This puts a big hole in your doctrine that all prophecy is in riddles.

 

[Laodicean60]

Curious why beat a dead horse, maybe egos, both sides think they are right, so why argue till Jesus comes back?

 

[Clare73]

The issue I have with you is that you claim that your personal understanding is 100% what Jesus taught. However, I have shown that there is another understanding of 1 Thes 4:16-17,

There is no misunderstanding the plain and simple authoritative NT apostolic teaching (below) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (John 6:39),
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16),
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41),
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Matthew 25:31-33).

Paul locates the second coming, the resurrection and the catching up of the saints together at the end of time (1 Th 4:16-17).

Personal interpretations of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8) are not authoritative. . .while the above NT didactics of Christ (Lk 10:16) are authoritative.

Your understanding of the four events stated above is not in agreement with the authoritative NT apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16).

I will not be entertaining personal interpretations of prophetic riddles (Nu 12:6-8) attempting to unseat the authoritative NT apostolic teaching (above) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

 

[1Tonne]

Curious why beat a dead horse, maybe egos, both sides think they are right, so why argue till Jesus comes back?

It does feel like I am beating a dead horse. As I pointed out, we both think that we are correct. Clare73 believes that she is correct with her personal interpretation that she is willing to say it is what Jesus believed and taught, and I believe that the way I read this verse is correct, too. Though I do not have the audacity to say that it is 100% what Jesus taught. I have an understanding that I could be wrong.
So, my issue is not that we have differing views; it is her claim that her personal interpretation is what Jesus taught when she has no evidence of it. This is what I take umbrage at.

 

[ozso]

The rapture doctrine, as understood in modern Christian eschatology, is a relatively recent theological concept. It emerged prominently in the 1830s, largely attributed to the teachings of John Nelson Darby, a British evangelist and theologian. Darby developed the idea as part of dispensational premillennialism, which interprets biblical prophecies as events yet to occur [Rapture - Wikipedia] [Chapter 17: The Rapture Theory - Its Surprising Origin].

The term "rapture" itself is derived from the Latin word raptura, meaning "to seize" or "to carry off," and is linked to the Greek word harpazo found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, which describes believers being "caught up" to meet Christ in the air. Darby's interpretation distinguished the rapture from the second coming of Christ, proposing that the rapture would precede a seven-year tribulation period, followed by Christ's return and the establishment of a millennial kingdom[Rapture - Wikipedia].

While the rapture doctrine gained traction among certain evangelical groups, particularly in the United States, it is not universally accepted across Christian denominations. Many interpret the aerial gathering described in 1 Thessalonians 4 as symbolic of the elect joining Christ in heaven after his second coming, without the extended tribulation period [The Rapture | Belief, Definition, & Predictions | Britannica].

I can't see why anyone would give the rapture doctrine credence after studying its origins. Which of course you never seem to hear about from those teaching it.

 

[Laodicean60]

It does feel like I am beating a dead horse. As I pointed out, we both think that we are correct. Clare73 believes that she is correct with her personal interpretation that she is willing to say it is what Jesus believed and taught, and I believe that the way I read this verse is correct, too. Though I do not have the audacity to say that it is 100% what Jesus taught. I have an understanding that I could be wrong.
So, my issue is not that we have differing views; it is her claim that her personal interpretation is what Jesus taught when she has no evidence of it. This is what I take umbrage at.

You don't have to justify yourself to me, I'm a sinner like you.

 

[ARBITER01]

Curious why beat a dead horse, maybe egos, both sides think they are right, so why argue till Jesus comes back?

True.

Maybe if people spent more time with Jesus instead of listening to other folks about this subject, they would catch on to His teaching about it.

There's a reason we are known as the bride and He as the bridegroom.

 

[Laodicean60]

True.

Maybe if people spent more time with Jesus instead of listening to other folks about this subject, they would catch on to His teaching about this.

There's a reason we are known as the bride and He as the bridegroom.

Too bad we act like normal couples.

 

[Laodicean60]

Too bad we act like normal couples.

To clarify, our tribalistic nature when it comes to God's word. Christians telling each other they believe wrong when Jesus wanted us to believe in Him.

 

[Clare73]

I can't see why anyone would give the rapture doctrine credence after studying its origins. Which of course you never seem to hear about from those teaching it.

That is not the "rapture doctrine."

The "rapture doctrine" of apostolic teaching is in 1 Th 4:16-17.

 

[ozso]

That is not the "rapture doctrine."

The "rapture doctrine" of apostolic teaching is in 1 Th 4:16-17.

The interpretation of that passage meaning a rapture of the church didn't exist until 1830.

 

[Clare73]

It does feel like I am beating a dead horse. As I pointed out, we both think that we are correct. Clare73 believes that she is correct with her personal interpretation that she is willing to say it is what Jesus believed and taught, and I believe that the way I read this verse is correct, too. Though I do not have the audacity to say that it is 100% what Jesus taught. I have an understanding that I could be wrong.
So, my issue is not that we have differing views; it is her claim that her personal interpretation is what Jesus taught when she has no evidence of it. This is what I take umbrage at.

"Thy speech doth betray thee," for had you looked up Lk 10:16 you would have no umbrage.

The teaching of the apostles (e.g., 1 Th 4:16-17) is the teaching of Jesus (Lk 10:16)

Your failure to deal with the apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Jesus Christ (Lk 10:16) is the source of your Biblical error.

 

[Clare73]

The interpretation of that passage meaning a rapture of the church didn't exist until 1830.

Are you saying 1 Th 4:16-17 contains no teaching on the rapture?