Question for Partial Preterist

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by andreas
I do not find the word "Rapture" offensive in any way ,cause i have a clear understanding as to its meaning. I have shown, the word is derived from a Latin word ,and was used by ALL,as in all kinds,of christians ,not just Dispensationalists.The question about "catholic",was unfair, as was not clearly defined, in contrast to the clear definition i offered about the meaning of Rapture.
andreas.

Catholic comes from the Latin word for universal. It has been used by all kinds of Christians, evidenced by the Apostles' Creed. It has longer and wider use than "rapture"

Cath"¢o"¢lic \ˈkath-lik, ˈka-thÉ™-\ adjective
[Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole "” more at cata-, safe]
(14th century)
1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal
b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it
c capitalized : roman catholic
Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary., Includes Index., 10th ed. (Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster, 1996, c1993).

You can't have it both ways.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by andreas
Being "caught up together" is called the Rapture. The word Rapture is derived from a Latin term which means "caught away" and is simply used by Christians to avoid repetitive quoting of the entire verse (1 Thess. 4:16) each time we reference the event it describes.It is not my definition, but it is used by many reformed christians.
andreas.

Your etymology is correct. Your use of the word is not. The Rapture DOES NOT REFER TO THE SECOND COMING! If you think it does you are either wrong in your usage, misinformed as to your definitions, or swimming against the stream of popular denotation. Which is it?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by andreas
I do not find the word "Rapture" offensive in any way ,cause i have a clear understanding as to its meaning. I have shown, the word is derived from a Latin word ,and was used by ALL,as in all kinds,of christians ,not just Dispensationalists.The question about "catholic",was unfair, as was not clearly defined, in contrast to the clear definition i offered about the meaning of Rapture.
andreas.

Andreas, your clear understanding of the usage of the word "rapture" is misinformed. Your definintion may be clear to you but it runs contrary to everyone else's. I'd suggest finding another word.

 

[andreas]

***Catholic comes from the Latin word for universal. It has been used by all kinds of Christians, evidenced by the Apostles' Creed. It has longer and wider use than "rapture"***

You are correct as to the meaning of the word,but do you honestly think that a group of "unchurched people" would know that?They are more likely to know the Roman catholic church, but not the correct meaning.If they as such, asked me if i was a catholic, then i will ,and i am certain that other people ,will assume that they meant Roman catholic.It all comes down to defining your terms, so that you do not intentionally "mislead the witness"
andreas.

 

[andreas]

***Rapture does not refer to the second coming"***


" Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other".Matthew 24:29-31

God is telling us that after the tribulation, the elect will be gathered with the Lord in the air.We are told the Rapture or the gathering is after the tribulation.Compare this with 1 Thessalonians 4:16,and also look at 1 Corr.15:52,which again talks about the last trumpet,the same trumpet of Mathew 24:31.
The second coming occurs after the tribulation(great) and on the last day when the ressurection and the judgment take place, the same day,the last day. John 6:40, John6:44, and John6:54.

IF THE RAPTURE DOES NOT REFER TO THE SECOND COMING ,THEN WHAT DOES IT REFER TO?
andreas.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by andreas
IF THE RAPTURE DOES NOT REFER TO THE SECOND COMING ,THEN WHAT DOES IT REFER TO?
andreas.

I've answered that question repeatedly. I don't imagine answering it again will change anything.

 

[andreas]

****The word "rapture" was created and popularized by Dispensationalists to describe a "secret" catching away of the Church (as an entity completely distinct from Israel), prior to the 7 year Tribulation. It is used to describe an event completely separate from the Parousia.

With those thoughts in mind, your usage of the word "rapture" to describe the Second Coming is incorrect. And that is the only point I was trying to make.****

That is no answer.I am asking you to provide some scripture to contradict what i provided for you, that the Rapture occurs at the end,the last day,where the resurrection and judgment take place.HE THAT HATH AN EAR LET HIM HEAR.Rev.2:29
Give us something to support your view,not just an opinion.I have given you proof that the word Rapture has a Latin derivation,and was not just a Dispensationalist invention,but all kinds of christians,including brother Calvin ,used the word.
You say that the Rapture has nothing to do with the end,the last day.What saith the scriptures?Rom..4:3

andreas.

 

[Roldan]

Whatever happened to my original question?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by andreas
****The word "rapture" was created and popularized by Dispensationalists to describe a "secret" catching away of the Church (as an entity completely distinct from Israel), prior to the 7 year Tribulation. It is used to describe an event completely separate from the Parousia.

With those thoughts in mind, your usage of the word "rapture" to describe the Second Coming is incorrect. And that is the only point I was trying to make.****

That is no answer.I am asking you to provide some scripture to contradict what i provided for you, that the Rapture occurs at the end,the last day,where the resurrection and judgment take place.HE THAT HATH AN EAR LET HIM HEAR.Rev.2:29
Give us something to support your view,not just an opinion.I have given you proof that the word Rapture has a Latin derivation,and was not just a Dispensationalist invention,but all kinds of christians,including brother Calvin ,used the word.
You say that the Rapture has nothing to do with the end,the last day.What saith the scriptures?Rom..4:3

andreas.

It is not an issue of Scripture, it is an issue of semantics. It is not an issue of doctrine, it is an issue of definition. Kapish?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Roldan
Whatever happened to my original question?

You're right it got lost. And I actually jumped into this thread because I was interested in the topic. Having cut myself loose from my dispensational moorings (hence my reaction to andreas' poor use of terminology), I find myself adrift in a sea of eschatological agnosticism. The only thing I know for sure is that Christ will return, just as He said. And it won't involve the Rapture.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by andreas
***Rapture does not refer to the second coming"***


[quoting Matthew 24:29-31]

God is telling us that after the tribulation, the elect will be gathered with the Lord in the air.

Well, first of all the tribulation being spoken of in Matthew 24 happened in AD70. So, unless you are a heretical preterist B does not immediately follow A.

Secondly, there is no "gathering in the air" in Matthew 24. That's a eisegetical embellishment on your part, no doubt influenced by your views on other second coming passages.

Matthew 24 is speaking primarily of the call of the gospel to gather God's elect by means of His messengers (aggelos). "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matt. 24:34)

Lightfoot writes, "When Jerusalem shall be reduced to ashes, and that wicked nation cut off and rejected, then shall the Son of man send His ministers with the trumpet of the Gospel, and they shall gather His elect of the several nations, from the four corners of heaven: so that God shall not want a Church, although that ancient people of His be rejected and cast off: but that ancient Jewish Church being destroyed, a new Church shall be called out of the Gentiles."

Originally posted by andreas
IF THE RAPTURE DOES NOT REFER TO THE SECOND COMING ,THEN WHAT DOES IT REFER TO?
andreas.

According to Scofield and his spiritual children it refers to a secret gathering of "church age" believer 7 years before the second coming. That is the pop definition used in most Sunday schools and Bible studies around the country.

Besides, the word "rapture" places the emphasis on us. The Biblical words "appearing" or "revelation" place the emphasis where it belongs, on Christ.

 

[andreas]

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a Shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the Trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then 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."

Please NOTE, it is with a shout and sounding trumpet, not secret!

1 Thes.4:16,


SO MR SCOFIELD AND THE SPIRITUAL CHILDREN GOT IT WRONG.
andreas.

 

[andreas]

****Kapish?****

What does that mean?I am not a linguist.
andreas.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by andreas


SO MR SCOFIELD AND THE SPIRITUAL CHILDREN GOT IT WRONG.
andreas.

Well, right or wrong they were the ones who coined the term to describe their particular theological position.

I find it doesn't do any good to try to argue theology based on arbitrary English definitions.

 

[Consistent]

What about Roldan's original question? Any other alternative besides Gentry's?

Originally posted by Roldan
I'm really trying to hold on to Partial preterism, but I have many questions thathave risen from digging into the Scripts.

1. If Nero was the "man of sin" and Thessolonians says that he will be destroyed by the splendor of Christ return and that was in 70 A.D right?

2. How can Nero be destroyed if he was already dead by 68 A.D.?

3. Also Jerusalem was destroyed not Rome

Help me out here.

Manata?

Does the abomination of desolation refer to the Edomites slaughtering of the Jews(67-68ad)? The Edomites worked for Rome...this is DeMar's position (see 'Last Days Madness')

Under this scenario, Nero could definitely be the man of lawlessness as the Edomites working for him committed the abomination.

Just some thoughts to bring this thread back on topic.

consistent

[Edited on 4-9-2005 by Consistent]

[Edited on 4-9-2005 by Consistent]

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by andreas
****Kapish?****

What does that mean?I am not a linguist.
andreas.

It means, "Understand?" It is usually asked by Vinny the Leg Breaker just before he collects your overdue debt.

 

[andreas]

You want to know what abomination of desolation is?Scripture tells us.

"In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations."

Ezekiel 44:7

Nothing to do with Edomides,natural Jews, Nero,or slaughtered pigs.

andreas.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by andreas
You want to know what abomination of desolation is?Scripture tells us.

"In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations."

Ezekiel 44:7

Nothing to do with Edomides,natural Jews, Nero,or slaughtered pigs.

andreas.

Well . . . I think God was being a little more specific when talking about the specific "desolation" spoken of by Daniel:



Matthew 24:
[15] "So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel (a.k.a. the "abomination of desolation"), standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
[16] then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;
[17] let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house;
[18] and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle.
[19] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
[20] Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath.
[21] For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.


Luke 21:
[20] "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
[21] Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it;
[22] for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written.

Both Matthew and Luke are obviously talking about the same event. Matthew says the event is the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. And Luke links it specifically to Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. So when I consider the specific nature of Matthew's and Luke's descriptions of the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, I don't think the general statments in Ezekiel 44:7 fill the bill, In my humble opinion.

But I am open to an alternate way of looking at it. What are your thoughts?

In Christ,
Joseph

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I think the key to uncovering what the desolation or the abomination was is as to when the Christians fled from Jerusalem and the surrounding environs.

When one figures out when they fled, what was happening exactly at the time in the Temple is very likely to be the Abomination of Desolation.

 

[RamistThomist]

I will continue Joseph's line of thinking. The description in Luke fits perfectly the Roman Army led by Titus in 70 AD, especially when Titus entered the holy of holies and pronounced it empty. Christ's words to flee that wicked city meant that God would destroy Jerusalem and that those who would later be Christians need not worry about defending Jerusalem. He was saying not to be caught trying to defend a symbol of an outdated, apostate religion. Israel had failed in her mission to be a light to the Gentiles and had crucified the Lord of Glory. Judgment had come in the form of Titus. God was going to vindicate his people with the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Jacob, when Titus entered the Temple, that was after Jerusalem had been conquered and decimated. The seditious and the rebels, had already made a mockery in the Temple before Titus.

So the questions to be asked is
1. How many people survived so as to see Titus enter the Temple so as to flee? Titus entering the Temple was merely an appendage to the already conquered Jerusalem.

2. It was known that rebels and the seditious had already committed murder in the Temple, now is this considered a sin, but not the abomination of desolation??????????


My own opinion is that the Abomination of Desolation occurred much earlier during the build up to the onslaught of Jerusalem. It was only during this time that the interim time period existed for Christians to escape. This time period did not exist after Titus went into the Temple. Jerusalem was already conquered, starved and a mere carcas at that point. I cannot see how a starved person could be fleeing at this point.

 

[Robin]

Uh, Oh....I can just hear it...

The answer to Joseph's query is not, either - or. It is, both-and.

Prophetic language in the OT is rich with double and overlap meanings. I know there are those here that don't agree.

Consider the covenantal language throughout the OT....Gen. 3:15 is the first prophecy about Christ -- yet national Israel emerges as a type of Christ; the patriarchs are types of covenant mediators; events were foretold and fulfilled over and over--progressing up to the epicenter of human history: the Incarnation. It's hidden in plain sight....the promise of a Land; Temple; Kingdom; Savior...to some degree, fulfilled by national Israel -- yet lost, and then finally attained in the Christ -- Who will be the final Consummator at His Return.

All these foretellings had progressive, unfolding, historical revelations as they played out in time and space. The OT is "type and shadow" the NT is the reality: Christ.

Besides all this..a word about the Nero question of being the "Anti-Christ." The apostasy means to "fall away" from, right? Well, Christians can fall-away from the Faith...but pagans are already lost and cannot fall away...they are already fallen. Nero can't cause an apostasy---he's an image of the Beast, actually. A picture of government persecuting God's elect on earth. We have no record of the Church being stumbled by Nero theologically. They knew he was "the Beast" --- as he incited one of the bloodiest persecutions in all Christendom.

One needs the "specatacles" of Covenant language to see the big picture.



R.

 

[andreas]

Hi Joseph,

I do not see Jerusalem as the literal city in the Middle East,but the body of Christ,the eternal church.


"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,
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,"
Hebrews 12:22-23.

In Mathew we are told what the church is,a city,that speads the gospel,a city that is the light of the world.THE CITY OF THE LIVING GOD,THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." Mathew 5:14

Nothing about a literal city,but a spiritual city.
andreas.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by andreas
Hi Joseph,

I do not see Jerusalem as the literal city in the Middle East,but the body of Christ,the eternal church.


"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,
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,"
Hebrews 12:22-23.

In Mathew we are told what the church is,a city,that speads the gospel,a city that is the light of the world.THE CITY OF THE LIVING GOD,THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." Mathew 5:14

Nothing about a literal city,but a spiritual city.
andreas.

Revelation 11:8
"and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically [2] is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified"
obviously this is a reference to a physical jerusalem.
Is it really the Beast who leads people astray, or is it not the false prophet? Nero can still be the beast and their be another who leads astray. Sorry, I cannot contribute deeper--all my notes and resources are at home.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by andreas
****The word "rapture" was created and popularized by Dispensationalists to describe a "secret" catching away of the Church (as an entity completely distinct from Israel), prior to the 7 year Tribulation. It is used to describe an event completely separate from the Parousia.

With those thoughts in mind, your usage of the word "rapture" to describe the Second Coming is incorrect. And that is the only point I was trying to make.****

That is no answer.I am asking you to provide some scripture to contradict what i provided for you, that the Rapture occurs at the end,the last day,where the resurrection and judgment take place.HE THAT HATH AN EAR LET HIM HEAR.Rev.2:29
Give us something to support your view,not just an opinion.I have given you proof that the word Rapture has a Latin derivation,and was not just a Dispensationalist invention,but all kinds of christians,including brother Calvin ,used the word.
You say that the Rapture has nothing to do with the end,the last day.What saith the scriptures?Rom..4:3

andreas.

You haven't given us anything other than a Latin word and an anachronsitic view of etymology. Suppose I was to take the Greek word dunamis (power). This is the word from which we get our word "dynamite." Now suppose I were to say that Paul calls the Gospel the "dynamite of God" in Romans 1:9. Obviously I would be in error since I am importing modern meaning into an ancient word. This is the error that D. A. Carson refers to as the exegetical error of anachronism. You are taking a Latin word and importing a 20th century meaning into it.

We are not disagreeing about the existence of a Latin word. We are disagreeing on the anglicized modern usage of it. Nobody spoke of "the Rapture" before Darby. This is because Darby coined the word to describe an event he believed would occur distinct from the Parousia. When the word "Rapture" is used today it always has that meaning.

So this leaves us with two possibilities regarding your usage:

1. You are wrong in your usage of the word.
2. You are trying to change the definition of the word.

 

[andreas]

Some Christians object to the use of the word Rapture, because they believe that it pertains to premillennialism or dispensationalism. The word Rapture has nothing to do with Premillennialism or Dispensationalism. I see no problem with using this word which is derived from the Latin term meaning "caught away" ,as described in 1 Thess.4:16.Nothing more nothing less.
andreas.

 

[andreas]

"I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah." Jeremiah23:14

People that deviate from the true gospel are to God like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.People in the external corporate church that commit wickedness are to God as the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.What is happening in the external corporate church now,with all the abominations taking place such as, homo bishops, gay and lesbian marriages,women preachers,etc............is exactly what happened in Jerusalem which was supposed to be a holy city,but instead crucified Christ.The abominations taking place in todays church will ultimately silence the eternal church,which is represented by the two witnesses.
So what has happened in the literal Jerusalem is happening now in the external corporate church.

andreas.