anime4christ

My point is that the resurrection precedes the "rapture". The last day will see the resurrection of the unjust as well; they won't be the ones meeting the Lord in the air like those in Christ, of course. I'm not arguing that the ungodly will be "raptured" along with those in Christ.

Views on the millennium don't constitute heresy by themselves. Views on the rapture only vary in dispensationalism. I consider dispensationalism itself heresy for the reasons I stated in the Gap thread. All non-dispensational systems (or lack of systems) would be considered post-trib, tho there is much more that can be said about that.

Oh yes, we lust for tribulation..being persecuted gives us sinful pleasure..that makes a ton of sense..

OR

"He" refers the last person mentioned, the prince that shall come, and the prince that shall come confirms the covenant for 7 years, then stops animal sacrifices and commits the abomination of desolation.

No twisting, stretching, or subtracting of the text is needed.

Is it OK to quote the Russian Synodal Translation (Masoratic/Textus Receptus based) on this particular verse or is the RST inferior though based on the same text? This is one of those verses where the RST has a different reading from the KJV.

Personally I think the reference to eagles was just what we would call a figure of speech.

I can imagine dispensationalists interpreting our words a few hundred years (should the world last that long) in the future and stumbling over all our figures of speech and idioms.. it will keep them busy for sure. :)

Oh wow. Eagles are airplanes. That's biblical.

I don't see how this has any real effect upon the Trinity.

Not to mention Scripture says God is the same yesterday, today and forever, which means God always was, is and always will be Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

:goodpost:

I don't think I answered this post as I didn't really understand the question, and I certainly didn't know the answer.

Yeah, it was a very weird mistake on my part..

I can't really help but see it connected with eschatology, but I think you get my drift. I think it could be explained outside my view of eschatology in much the same way, but I can't really separate it too well in my mind because it looks very connected to me. Besides the eschatology, I hope it may have been helpful. :)

You are forgiven. Now please come participate and provide scripture for this question. Much of it is resolved for me except the end point.

Now I feel even weirder. For some reason I saw Invicta's name instead of yours on the first post and thought I was replying to him. Was I hallucinating? LOL

What I believe the verse is saying is that Jesus is currently reigning in us until all his enemies should be put at his feet. After this comes the end, at which the kingdom is given up to the Father. In the end, the Father will be over all (He is now, but then probably directly without a mediator). In the Old Covenant, access to the Father was through the Holy Spirit on behalf of what the Son would do (although He was slain before the foundation of the world, visibly and in time that was then future), but it was through the shadow of the sacrificial system, the priesthood, and the holy of holies. In the New Covenant, it is much more direct: we are a priesthood and Jesus is now our high priest, so the connection to the Father for us, while being still through the Holy Spirit on behalf of Jesus' work, is much more direct. At the end, access to the Father will be even more direct. We will see Him face to face, yet I do believe that the Holy Spirit will still be dwelling in us and we will still only have access to the Father on behalf of what Jesus did for us. So, I believe the Trinity is eternal, but the roles change in some way through the ages (OT, NT, Eternity, not 7 disps) in order to bring the Father's reign closer and closer to us.

The eschatology post was for Invicta. I was going to start a thread on the millennium based on that passage, but I decided not to for now. So when David mentioned part of that passage, I just said that as a sort of "by the way" thing. I don't really want to discuss eschatology here for a while myself and this is not the thread for it, so disregard that post.

So the Spirit of God in the OT was not the Holy Spirit? I believe the Trinity is eternal. They may just have different roles at different times in relation to earth, but the Son and the Holy Spirit won't be disappearing after the end of the world.

It's something that I found hard to understand, but this passage (including the preceding and following verses) does rule out a future millennium. :)

Rick, I wasn't even thinking about the word hour in that passage as meaning the resurrection has a limit of 60 minutes to complete. The resurrection will be instantaneous. I'm reading the passage as a whole, not getting stuck on one word as dispensationalists often tend to. I try to look at the passage asking the question "what is THIS passage saying?" rather than "does the fifth word in this verse mean the same thing as the 378th time this word appears in the scriptures?" The latter is a very strange way to study and divide the word.

If the Bible is your sole authority, then why don't you "rightly divide" the word of truth? There is not just one general resurrection.

Just because you divide differently from me doesn't automatically mean that I'm the one who's wrongly dividing. We need to look at the evidence instead of throwing these kind of attacks out. This proves zilch.

The Bible is my sole authority, not Way of Life Encyclopedia written by men. Prove to me from the Bible that those are different resurrections (1 Thes 4:16 and John 5:28-29).

So you ate telling me that there will be 3 resurrections? 1 at rapture, 2 after tribulation, and 3 after millennium? Where does the bible say that? John 5:28-29 says there will be one resurrection.

Hello. Any reply to my refutation of 1 Thes 4 as a proof text for a pre-trib rapture, seeing as Paul says the resurrection happens prior to the rapture described in that chapter and Paul also says it is at the second coming?

Looks like all the dispensationalists have decided to ignore my comments on the resurrection being prior to the rapture, and being at Jesus' second coming. Why?

Yes, and the resurrection of the dead comes before the rapture of the living.

You do have to be dead to be resurrected right (I'm asking)? So, can I use "translated" for those who will be "caught up" alive to distinguish the living from the dead?

The point isn't translation vs catching up vs rapture. The point is that it is the same event as the resurrection. I believe in a rapture at the second coming and the resurrection if you want to call it that. It's just not a separate event is what my point is.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
¹⁷Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The reason we don't use the word rapture to label the event is because the bible already has a name for the event: the resurrection. Sure, those who are still alive will be caught up along with those who are resurrected at that same event, but it already has a name. The reason dispensationalists use the word rapture to label the event is because they believe it is a separate event from the biblical resurrection+rapture because it happens 7 years prior to the resurrection. When we deny a rapture, what we are denying is this particular theory where 7 years prior to the resurrection there is a separate rapture. For this reason we like to use the scriptural word resurrection in order to highlight that.

Not fear, separation. Those versions are corrupt garbage. That's why they were found in the garbage. Written by heathens who denied the Trinity, the death and resurrection of Christ and a host of other things. Liberals can't seem to stay away from these devilish manuscripts.

Before I ever read the KJV, I grew up reading the Russian RST, which is based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. After reading the KJV, I instantly liked it far more than the RST. Even though they are both translated from the same manuscripts, the KJV is a much better translation. However, there are a few verses here and there which are translated better in the RST. They are truer to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and make more sense contextually. It is because of this I cannot buy the notion that only one translation is perfect. One may be the best ever made in any language, but it cannot be perfect if some have passages which are better translated. It's like calling red green; it just isn't. It may be a very rich and beautiful red, but it isn't green. I agree with you that the new translations leave a lot of things out that are part of God's word and should not be removed, but I use the other versions because there are some places which are translated well and while it is good to warn of the omissions it still is good to give credit where it's due. I respect the position here on this issue, but I just cannot agree with it because I cannot believe that a translation is perfect having grown up reading the Bible in two languages (Russian being closer to Greek, btw). Even if I wanted to believe it, the evidence I have seen just doesn't let me. That does not mean I endorse tampering with God's word. It's not an either-or situation. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

Either way, the KJV does not say "and there shall be a rapture before the seven year tribulation" anywhere. It talks about us being caught up at the resurrection at Jesus' second coming.

I also use the KJV, the Amplified, the NASB and the ESV

I use all those except the Amplified plus I use the RST (Russian Synodal Translation), but on this forum, we're only allowed to quote the KJV. All posts containing any other version are frowned upon unless you are tearing that version down in your post. While I respect that rule here, I do find "do not quote any other version [unless to show how bad it is]" attitude a little odd. KJV is my favorite and the finest translation ever made, in my opinion. I just find the KJVO rule a little far where discussion of other versions is banned as though there is fear of them.