NEW UPDATED POLL: When is the rapture?

[Diggindeeper]

The tares are not taken out until it is time for the new world.
This harvest is when the reapers will be the angels, not like in Rev. 14 where the One on the cloud will reap the earth.

But...the above quote demands ANOTHER separate time of separation between the just and the unjust...

[vinsight4u8]

But...the above quote demands ANOTHER separate time of separation between the just and the unjust...

There is going to be another time of separating of the types of people, only they have never been dead. They survived clear to the end. The only dead that will be raised after the 7th trumpet, is the wicked. The wicked aren't raised until after the Gog war gathering and fire comes down from heaven and destroys them.

[Diggindeeper]

There is going to be another time of separating of the types of people, only they have never been dead. They survived clear to the end. The only dead that wil be raised after the 7th trumpet, is the wicked. The wicked aren't raised until after the Gog war gathering and fire comes down from heaven and destroys them.

I honestly don't remember you believing this when you first came here. Has this changed? Or, did you just not mention it till lately?

[vinsight4u8]

I honestly don't remember you believing this when you first came here. Has this changed? Or, did you just not mention it till lately?

I have always seen the sheep and goats judgment as at the end, and the wicked get cast into the lake of fire. By always, I have been 7th trumpet -post-trib rapture ever since I was fifteen years old. I read the Bible, I had heard about a rapture (pre-trib kind) and I asked God to show me, since He is the Author of the book, and i saw it is at the end of the trib. i was saved at fifteen, and then began to read and read the Bible (KJV). There isn't a resurrection taking place when John mentions "the first resurrection" in Rev. 20:5. John is just telling us who showed up. As if I said that I saw my high school class. That does not mean we are then at school. When the wife puts on righteousness in Rev. 19:8, she has put on immortality. We shall be like Him.

Galatians 5:4
For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Rev. 19:7
...his wife hath made herself ready.
v8 ...for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

|||Rev. 19:6 can be linked to a similar part in Rev. 11:8 where the 7th trumpet sounds.

19:6
...ye that fear him, both small and great.

11:18 ...them that fear thy name, small and great...

`

[JerryShugart]

I have been 7th trumpet -post-trib rapture ever since I was fifteen years old. I read the Bible, I had heard about a rapture (pre-trib kind) and I asked God to show me...

Of course throughout time God has used His servants to teach doctrinal truths so I will give you evidence that disproves a post-trib rapture. We can see that the Apostles Paul was taught that the catching up of the saints could happen at any time. He taught the Christians to be looking for the Lord's return from heaven

"For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil.3:20,21).

The word "look" is translated from the Greek word apekdechomai, which means "assiduously and patiently to wait for" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

In the following verses Paul is speaking of the same thing:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation (apokaradokia) of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God…And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body" (Ro.8:18,19,23).

Here Paul is speaking of "the redemption of our body", an event that will happen when the Lord Jesus appears. The Greek word translated "earnest expectation" is apokaradokia, and this word means "to watch with head erect or outstretched…to wait for in suspense" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Vine says that the word means "primarily ‘a watching with outstretched head’ (apo, ‘from,’ kara, ‘the head,’ and dokeo, ‘to look, to watch’), signifies "strained expectancy, eager longing," the stretching forth of the head indicating an ‘expectation’ of something from a certain place, Rom. 8:19; Phil. 1:20" (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

The same Greek word "was used in Greek writings to describe the alert watchman who peered into the darkness, eagerly looking for the first gleam of the distant beacon which would announce the capture of Troy." (Precept Austin).

So according to the Greek experts the word that Paul used in regard to the "redemption of our body" is a word that indicates that this event can take place at any time.

With this in view we can certainly understand that the following verses cannot possibly be referring to the time when the rapture will occur:

"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" (Mt.24:29-30).

We can understand that here the Lord Jesus will not appear until certain other events first take place. There must first be the "tribulation" of those days and also the signs must first appear in the sky.

Paul certainly would not be telling anyone to be watching for the Lord Jesus with their heads outstretched in expectation of seeing Him appear in the sky if other events had to happen before He could possibly be seen.

These facts demonstrate conclusively that the verses in Matthew 24 which show a coming of the Lord Jesus are not speaking of the rapture. Otherwise we must somehow trick our mind into believing that Paul was telling the Christians to be in constant expectation of the Lord Jesus' return even though there was no chance of Him returning until after the tribulation was over and the signs in the heavens had appeared.

[thedee]

Of course throughout time God has used His servants to teach doctrinal truths so I will give you evidence that disproves a post-trib rapture. We can see that the Apostles Paul was taught that the catching up of the saints could happen at any time. He taught the Christians to be looking for the Lord's return from heaven

"For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil.3:20,21).

The word "look" is translated from the Greek word apekdechomai, which means "assiduously and patiently to wait for" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

In the following verses Paul is speaking of the same thing:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation (apokaradokia) of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God…And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body" (Ro.8:18,19,23).

Here Paul is speaking of "the redemption of our body", an event that will happen when the Lord Jesus appears. The Greek word translated "earnest expectation" is apokaradokia, and this word means "to watch with head erect or outstretched…to wait for in suspense" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Vine says that the word means "primarily ‘a watching with outstretched head’ (apo, ‘from,’ kara, ‘the head,’ and dokeo, ‘to look, to watch’), signifies "strained expectancy, eager longing," the stretching forth of the head indicating an ‘expectation’ of something from a certain place, Rom. 8:19; Phil. 1:20" (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

The same Greek word "was used in Greek writings to describe the alert watchman who peered into the darkness, eagerly looking for the first gleam of the distant beacon which would announce the capture of Troy." (Precept Austin).

So according to the Greek experts the word that Paul used in regard to the "redemption of our body" is a word that indicates that this event can take place at any time.

With this in view we can certainly understand that the following verses cannot possibly be referring to the time when the rapture will occur:

"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" (Mt.24:29-30).

We can understand that here the Lord Jesus will not appear until certain other events first take place. There must first be the "tribulation" of those days and also the signs must first appear in the sky.

Paul certainly would not be telling anyone to be watching for the Lord Jesus with their heads outstretched in expectation of seeing Him appear in the sky if other events had to happen before He could possibly be seen.

These facts demonstrate conclusively that the verses in Matthew 24 which show a coming of the Lord Jesus are not speaking of the rapture. Otherwise we must somehow trick our mind into believing that Paul was telling the Christians to be in constant expectation of the Lord Jesus' return even though there was no chance of Him returning until after the tribulation was over and the signs in the heavens had appeared.

Yup. If the rapture was to take place after the tribulation period then it would make no sense to watch for Him now being the anti-christ has yet to step foot in the temple. Might as well watch for the Anti-Christ instead. This is a reason pre-trib makes the most sense.

[Realist1981]

The rapture of anybody can happen anytime. I can go to sleep tonight and stop breathing and as John Madden would "Boom" there you have it. I don't believe in a pre tribulation rapture. When Christ comes every eye will see him and know who he is.

[JerryShugart]

The rapture of anybody can happen anytime. I can go to sleep tonight and stop breathing and as John Madden would "Boom" there you have it. I don't believe in a pre tribulation rapture. When Christ comes every eye will see him and know who he is.

According to you the Lord will not come until when all the tribes of the earth see him 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" (Mt.24:29-30).

However, we can know that this coming of the Lord Jesus will not occur until AFTER the great tribulation and the signs appear in the sky.

So I cannot understand how you say that "coming" of the Lord esus can happen anytime. From what I see that coming cannot happen now or anytime prior to the great tribulation. So if Matthew 24:30 is describing the time of the rapture then it is impossible that it can happen now, prior to the great tribulation.

[John146]

It seems two different things are being spoken of. One, the rapture with the righteous being taken, and two, after Christ return, the wicked being taken, or, removed from the earth prior to Christ setting up His reign as Heir to the throne of Israel.

Two different views that disagree are not connecting in regards to understanding what the other is trying to say.

The difficulty then arising from the differences of just when these events take place. But whatever ones understanding of the what and when, clearly, all these events will take place. We have the righteous being removed(1Thess 4:17) and the elect(righteous) remaining(Matt 13:41,42). And we have the wicked remaining(1Thess 4:17) and the wicked being removed(Matt 13:41,42).

Yes, and it's important to clarify the difference. In the case of Matt 13:40-43 the context is a bit different than Matt 24:40-41. I believe both relate to Christ's return but aren't speaking of exactly the same thing. The one being taken and one left does not relate to Matt 13:40-43, but rather relates to Matt 24:37-39. In the case of one being taken and one left the context is that both are alive on the earth and one being taken and one being left at Christ's coming. In the case of Matt 13:40-43, Christ has already come and the one being taken and one left will have already occurred before that. What Matt 13:40-43 relates to is what will happen at the judgment after the dead have been raised. One will inherit the kingdom of the Father and the other will be cast into the fire. Again, that is not what one being taken and one left is referring to. That is only referring to what happens to those who are alive on the earth at His return and not what happens at the judgment which follows that.

[John146]

Actually you have not made many posts in regard to the following verse:

"Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather" (Lk.17:35-37).

In fact, in your post # 127 on this thread you quoted that verse and what I said in regard to that verse:

You say that the Apostles were asking "where" this would happen--where two women would be grinding grain together.

But if that is the question then the answer given by the Lord Jesus makes no sense whatsoever. If you are right then the Lord Jesus would be telling them that the two women were grinding grain together "where there is dead body," the same place where vultures gather. That is ridiculous since the time prior to this event all things were normal as they were before the flood:

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all" (Lk.17:26-27).

On the other hand, the Lord Jesus' answer would make perfect sense to those who asked if they were asking Him "where" it is that those go who are taken. They would understand that those taken are taken to where the vultures gather, a place where there are dead bodies. They would understand that those who will be taken will be the ones who are the unsaved.

You are very repetitive. You copy and paste the same things over and over again. You've made this point many times already and I've responded to it many times already. Therefore, I can only conclude that you don't read my posts carefully. I've asked you to tell me where the wicked would be taken to exactly. Have you ever answered that? If so, please show me where or just tell me again if you don't remember. Wouldn't they just be killed wherever they are rather than being taken somewhere?

After quoting that here is what you said:

Nothing these addtesses the points which I made that the Lord's answer does not match your idea of the question he was answering. In fact, you said nothing that addresses your words where you assert the following:

All this was said on the previous page and an examination of the few posts which you made since then proves that you never even attempting to defend your idea against what I said here:

You say that the Apostles were asking "where" this would happen--where two women would be grinding grain together.

But if that is the question then the answer given by the Lord Jesus makes no sense whatsoever. If you are right then the Lord Jesus would be telling them that the two women were grinding grain together "where there is dead body," the same place where vultures gather. That is ridiculous since the time prior to this event all things were normal as they were before the flood.

I can certainly understand why you have refused to defend your idea.

I have not refused to defend my idea. That is a lie. I have been defending it all along. This proves that you must not be reading my posts carefully at all. Your idea is that the wicked need to be taken somewhere to be destroyed. When do you plan on explaining that? When the wicked were killed in the flood did they need to first be taken somewhere in order to be killed? No. So, what "makes no sense whatsoever" to me is to think that Jesus was talking about where the wicked would be taken to be killed when the wicked wouldn't need to be taken anywhere to be killed.

[Diggindeeper]

You are very repetitive. You copy and paste the same things over and over again. You've made this point many times already and I've responded to it many times already. Therefore, I can only conclude that you don't read my posts carefully. I've asked you to tell me where the wicked would be taken to exactly. Have you ever answered that? If so, please show me where or just tell me again if you don't remember. Wouldn't they just be killed wherever they are rather than being taken somewhere?

I have not refused to defend my idea. That is a lie. I have been defending it all along. This proves that you must not be reading my posts carefully at all. Your idea is that the wicked need to be taken somewhere to be destroyed. When do you plan on explaining that? When the wicked were killed in the flood did they need to first be taken somewhere in order to be killed? No. So, what "makes no sense whatsoever" to me is to think that Jesus was talking about where the wicked would be taken to be killed when the wicked wouldn't need to be taken anywhere to be killed.

I'd like to add that it was the same way with the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. They were not 'taken' away somewhere. They were destroyed right then and there. And as it was in those days, so shall it be at the last day.

[John146]

I'd like to add that it was the same way with the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. They were not 'taken' away somewhere. They were destroyed right then and there. And as it was in those days, so shall it be at the last day.

That is exactly my point. The Greek word translated as "taken" is paralambanō and it means "to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self". In what sense could that apply to the wicked at Christ's return? None. But it can easily be applied to the righteous because we will be taken up and joined to Christ when we meet Him in the air. Jerry rudely tries to say that my understanding of their question "Where, Lord" makes no sense without even considering my view, but what doesn't make sense is the idea that the wicked need to be taken anywhere in order to be killed. No, they will be killed wherever they are with no need to be taken anywhere. Just like in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah.

[JerryShugart]

I've asked you to tell me where the wicked would be taken to exactly. Have you ever answered that? If so, please show me where or just tell me again if you don't remember. Wouldn't they just be killed wherever they are rather than being taken somewhere?

I have already said where the ones "taken" will be taken and I used the following verses to support my view:

"Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather" (Lk.17:35-37).

They will be taken to where the vultures gather, a place that speaks of death for the ones who will be taken.

Let us look more closely to see exactly who were taken at the flood:

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Mt.24:37-39).

The ones who were taken at the flood were the ones who were destroyed:

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all" (Lk.17:26-27).

And that will happen when the Lord Jesus returns: "so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

So it will be the unsaved who will be taken when the Lord Jesus returns to earth and the saved who will remain behind.

Now let us look at these words again and examine your view on them:

"Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather" (Lk.17:35-37).

You say that the Apostles were asking "where" this would happen--where two women would be grinding grain together.

But if that is the question then the answer given by the Lord Jesus makes no sense whatsoever. If you are right then the Lord Jesus would be telling them that the two women were grinding grain together "where there is dead body," the same place where vultures gather. That makes ABSOLUTELY no sense because the time prior to the taking of some all things were normal as they were before the flood:

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all" (Lk.17:26-27).

On the other hand, the Lord Jesus' answer would make perfect sense to those who asked if they were asking Him "where" it is that those go who are taken. They would understand that those taken are taken to where the vultures gather, a place where there are dead bodies. They would understand that those who will be taken will be the ones who are the unsaved.

[Diggindeeper]

Posted by JerryShugart

They would understand that those taken are taken to where the vultures gather, a place where there are dead bodies. They would understand that those who will be taken will be the ones who are the unsaved.

There is no such place 'where vultures gather'.

I live out in the country. I see these monster birds also called buzzards all the time. They don't just gather in a field or something. We see them swooping down eating dead squirrels, dead possums, etc and then we go on up the road and there lies a rabbit that has been run over, and there are the vultures again, on up the road feasting on road kill.

We don't have to scrape up remains and take it to where vultures gather......they just come to the dead. Out in a field, in the road, sometimes on the interstate highways.....wherever. They find the dead stuff and go for dinner.

[John146]

I have already said where the ones "taken" will be taken and I used the following verses to support my view:

"Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather" (Lk.17:35-37).

They will be taken to where the vultures gather, a place that speaks of death for the ones who will be taken.

But where is that exactly? Be more specific. Why would those who are to be killed at Christ's return need to be taken anywhere? In Noah's day who was taken to safety and who was left to be killed? In Lot's day who was taken to safety and who was left to be killed?

Let us look more closely to see exactly who were taken at the flood:

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Mt.24:37-39).

The ones who were taken at the flood were the ones who were destroyed:

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all" (Lk.17:26-27).

And that will happen when the Lord Jesus returns: "so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

No, they weren't taken. Look at the definition of the Greek word translated as "taken" that I gave in post #162. In order to be taken you have to go from one location to another. From a place of danger to a place of safety. That doesn't apply to what happend to the wicked in Noah's day. It was Noah and his family that were taken to safety while the wicked were left behind to die. You are not reading the text in the proper context.

So it will be the unsaved who will be taken when the Lord Jesus returns to earth and the saved who will remain behind.

Now let us look at these words again and examine your view on them:

"Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather" (Lk.17:35-37).

You say that the Apostles were asking "where" this would happen--where two women would be grinding grain together.

But if that is the question then the answer given by the Lord Jesus makes no sense whatsoever. If you are right then the Lord Jesus would be telling them that the two women were grinding grain together "where there is dead body," the same place where vultures gather. That makes ABSOLUTELY no sense because the time prior to the taking of some all things were normal as they were before the flood:

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all" (Lk.17:26-27).

On the other hand, the Lord Jesus' answer would make perfect sense to those who asked if they were asking Him "where" it is that those go who are taken. They would understand that those taken are taken to where the vultures gather, a place where there are dead bodies. They would understand that those who will be taken will be the ones who are the unsaved.

I've never seen anyone copy and paste the same exact thing over and over again the way you do. You don't need to say this any more, Jerry. I've already read this about 20 times and I've already given my reasons why I disagree. If you read my posts carefully you would know that I have already addressed this. What you need to address is the fact that the idea of being taken means to be taken from one place to another and to be taken from a place of danger to a place of safety. In what sense were the wicked taken in Noah's day? Where were they taken to? And don't just say where the vultures gather. Where do the vultures gather exactly? Give me a location that you think the wicked will be taken to be killed on that day.