Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 222

Thread: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,498

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    That's not correct. Taken has a positive meaning where left does not.
    Matt 4.5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple...
    Matt 12.45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
    Matt 27.27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

    How are these verses positive? Jesus is taken for an ungodly purpose. An evil spirit takes 7 more evil spirts. These things are negative, and not positive. I agree that paralambano quite often conveys a positive sense in a somewhat forceful taking. But my point is that the context determines whether this forceful taking is *always* positive. It is *not.*

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,600
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    The words taken and left can BOTH be used positively or negatively always depending on context.
    In many ways the key is agreed that no one wants to be where the vultures are and be a corpse.
    The question therefore then becomes how does someone avoid such a fate.
    It is NOT by Rapture, because God will do that and we can do nothing.
    Contextually the requirement is to be like Lot and to flee.
    Couldn't agree more. My prayer is the faith to believe and leave the rest to God.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,152
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Matt 4.5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple...
    Positive because it shows how to defeat Satan's temptations.

    Matt 12.45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
    It's a positive thing from the man's point of view. Also take note none of these examples have anything to do with "being taken in death" like people are trying to make it mean.


    Matt 27.27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.
    There was no violence in moving him from one place to the other. It was only after they brought him there that they started to harm him.

    Jesus is taken for an ungodly purpose.
    Actually the entire situation is a very Godly purpose as it was God's will that these things take place.



    An evil spirit takes 7 more evil spirts. These things are negative, and not positive. I agree that paralambano quite often conveys a positive sense in a somewhat forceful taking. But my point is that the context determines whether this forceful taking is *always* positive. It is *not.*
    I disagree plus the example of the one taken, who is taken before someone is "left" is always the ones being saved/rewarded in all the examples Christ gave...Noah, Lot, the wise virgins...so naturally the one taken is like all of those examples. The one taken/accepted are the living saints who are raptured. The ones not taken but left/rejected are those in Sodom, those out side of the Ark, the foolish virgins barred from entering the marriage.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,498

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Positive because it shows how to defeat Satan's temptations.
    It's a positive thing from the man's point of view. Also take note none of these examples have anything to do with "being taken in death" like people are trying to make it mean.
    There was no violence in moving him from one place to the other. It was only after they brought him there that they started to harm him.
    Actually the entire situation is a very Godly purpose as it was God's will that these things take place.
    I disagree plus the example of the one taken, who is taken before someone is "left" is always the ones being saved/rewarded in all the examples Christ gave...Noah, Lot, the wise virgins...so naturally the one taken is like all of those examples. The one taken/accepted are the living saints who are raptured. The ones not taken but left/rejected are those in Sodom, those out side of the Ark, the foolish virgins barred from entering the marriage.
    (Ge 22:3; 31:23; 45:18; 47:2; Num. 22:41; 23:14, 20, 27f; Jos. 4:2; 2Chr. 25:11; Esther 5:1; Song. 8:2; Jer. 32:7; 49:1, 2; Lam. 3:2; Da 4:31; 5:31; 6:19, 28; 7:18)

    Gen 22. 3 And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son.
    Isa 49.1 Of the children of Ammon. Thus saith Jehovah: Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth Malcam possess Gad, and his people dwell in the cities thereof?
    Lam 3.2 He hath led me and caused me to walk in darkness, and not in light.
    Dan 4.31 31 While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken: The kingdom is departed from thee.
    Dan 5.31 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
    Dan 7.17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, that shall arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.


    I've not checked it out, but the above references may refer to paralambano in the Septuagint. I'm not in a position to do research of this nature presently. If so, then paralambano may represent not just one but several different Hebrew words, some of them sometimes containing negative senses.

    Again, it is *context* that determines what a word means. Paralambano may very well be used most often to view positive things. But this does not prevent it from referring to negative things. For example, the idea of possessing the Promised Land may sound like a positive thing. But when the Israelis dispossess another culture of their land it may infer something negative.

    Israel experienced both kinds of things. They took land favorable to them. And they were dispossessed of their land. In the passage we're discussing it is Israel's judgment that is being discussed, and that suggests a negative use of the word paralambano. I think you're on very weak ground when you claim that paralambano necessarily claims something always positive!

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,152
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post

    Again, it is *context* that determines what a word means.
    Then what are dictionaries for?

    I think you're on very weak ground when you claim that paralambano necessarily claims something always positive!
    What about the other word? Will you try to argue that this is what Christians want to happen to them?

    left
    863

    863 aphiemi {af-ee'-ay-mee}

    from 575 and hiemi (to send, an intens. form of eimi, to go);
    TDNT - 1:509,88; v

    AV - leave 52, forgive 47, suffer 14, let 8, forsake 6, let alone 6,
    misc 13; 146

    1) to send away
    1a) to bid going away or depart
    1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
    1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
    1c) to let go, let alone, let be
    1c1) to disregard
    1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
    1c21) of teachers, writers and speakers
    1c3) to omit, neglect
    1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
    1e) to give up, keep no longer
    2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
    3) to leave, go way from one
    3a) in order to go to another place
    3b) to depart from any one
    3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all
    mutual claims are abandoned
    3d) to desert wrongfully
    3e) to go away leaving something behind
    3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
    3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
    3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
    3i) abandon, leave destitute

    "to send away"
    "of a husband divorcing his wife"
    "to expire"
    "to disregard"
    "neglect"
    "keep no longer"
    "to leave on dying"
    "leave behind one"
    "abandon, leave destitute"

    When Christ returns, one will be taken, the other will be left and that is chronological. Taken is first. Left is last.

    Who is taken and left on the day Christ returns and in that order?
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,125
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Then what are dictionaries for?
    Dictionaries tell us possible meanings.
    They don't say that a certain meaning is the ONLY one.
    To be taken can be positive or negative.

    I was taken to the cinema.
    I was taken to the police station.

    Either could be positive or negative.
    Do I want to go to the cinema? Is there something I want to watch there? Am I going for someone else?

    Am I being arrested and so taken to the police station? Am I giving evidence or reporting a crime? Perhaps to ID a body?

    You see the words have meaning in themselves, but words are put together in phrases and sentences which then develop the atmosphere and wider meaning.
    The CONTEXT is that at the end there are dead bodies.
    So if being left means you become a dead body then that is negative, but if by being taken means you becomes a dead body then that is negative.

    In Lot's situation he left - fleeing. So to leave was positive, and to be taken by the fire that fell was negative.
    Noah left in an ark and the rest were taken in the flood. SO also negative to be taken.

    To be taken by the AC's forces to be beheaded would be negative, to flee and so have left would be positive.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,498

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Then what are dictionaries for?



    What about the other word? Will you try to argue that this is what Christians want to happen to them?

    left
    863

    863 aphiemi {af-ee'-ay-mee}

    from 575 and hiemi (to send, an intens. form of eimi, to go);
    TDNT - 1:509,88; v

    AV - leave 52, forgive 47, suffer 14, let 8, forsake 6, let alone 6,
    misc 13; 146

    1) to send away
    1a) to bid going away or depart
    1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
    1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
    1c) to let go, let alone, let be
    1c1) to disregard
    1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
    1c21) of teachers, writers and speakers
    1c3) to omit, neglect
    1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
    1e) to give up, keep no longer
    2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
    3) to leave, go way from one
    3a) in order to go to another place
    3b) to depart from any one
    3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all
    mutual claims are abandoned
    3d) to desert wrongfully
    3e) to go away leaving something behind
    3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
    3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
    3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
    3i) abandon, leave destitute

    "to send away"
    "of a husband divorcing his wife"
    "to expire"
    "to disregard"
    "neglect"
    "keep no longer"
    "to leave on dying"
    "leave behind one"
    "abandon, leave destitute"

    When Christ returns, one will be taken, the other will be left and that is chronological. Taken is first. Left is last.

    Who is taken and left on the day Christ returns and in that order?
    I agree with FHG that words are not stuck in the mud, strictly one use, for the most part. I did a quick study to find 2 links that show the following (I haven't verified personally--there are discrepancies in the findings).

    Here one link mentions the word paralambano is used *22 times* in the LXX, and 49 times *in the NT* ( http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/a...icle&aid=34733), while the other link mentions the word paralambano is used 47 times in the LXX (C) and 49 times in the NT (D). (https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/w...aralambano.pdf).

    So 2 links confirm that they found paralambano 49 times in the NT. But these 2 links differ on how many times it is used in the LXX. One link finds paralambano is used 22 times in the LXX (Septuagint), whereas the other link finds it used 47 times in the LXX. I'm not sure which is accurate?

    In this link paralambano in a more generic form seems to be used even more times than either of these links indicate:https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/inde...-16pi-1061.png

    Paralambano appears either 22 or 47 times in the LXX. 2. It is used in the LXX to translate the following Hebrew terms: a. Yarash (vr^y *) (verb), “to take possession of, to subdue.” b. Laqach (jq^l*) (verb), “to take, to grasp.” c. Nahagh (gh^n*) (verb), “lead, drive.” d. Qabbel (lB@q^) (verb), “to receive.” 3

    I'm indebted to the above links for what little info I'm bringing here to you. It isn't my expertise. But I would suggest that Yarash, Laqach, Nahagh, and Qabbel are not restricted to *positive* applications. As I said before, to possess a land can be either a positive or a negative thing, depending on whether you are looking at one as possessing an inheritance or dispossessing the land that formerly belonged to someone else. I should think that in the time Jesus applied the term "paralambano" the application was negative towards Israel, who was being *dispossessed* of their temple and city?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,152
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Can you answer that question at the end of the post?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I agree with FHG that words are not stuck in the mud, strictly one use, for the most part. I did a quick study to find 2 links that show the following (I haven't verified personally--there are discrepancies in the findings).

    Here one link mentions the word paralambano is used *22 times* in the LXX, and 49 times *in the NT* ( http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/a...icle&aid=34733), while the other link mentions the word paralambano is used 47 times in the LXX (C) and 49 times in the NT (D). (https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/w...aralambano.pdf).

    So 2 links confirm that they found paralambano 49 times in the NT. But these 2 links differ on how many times it is used in the LXX. One link finds paralambano is used 22 times in the LXX (Septuagint), whereas the other link finds it used 47 times in the LXX. I'm not sure which is accurate?

    In this link paralambano in a more generic form seems to be used even more times than either of these links indicate:https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/inde...-16pi-1061.png

    Paralambano appears either 22 or 47 times in the LXX. 2. It is used in the LXX to translate the following Hebrew terms: a. Yarash (vr^y *) (verb), “to take possession of, to subdue.” b. Laqach (jq^l*) (verb), “to take, to grasp.” c. Nahagh (gh^n*) (verb), “lead, drive.” d. Qabbel (lB@q^) (verb), “to receive.” 3

    I'm indebted to the above links for what little info I'm bringing here to you. It isn't my expertise. But I would suggest that Yarash, Laqach, Nahagh, and Qabbel are not restricted to *positive* applications. As I said before, to possess a land can be either a positive or a negative thing, depending on whether you are looking at one as possessing an inheritance or dispossessing the land that formerly belonged to someone else. I should think that in the time Jesus applied the term "paralambano" the application was negative towards Israel, who was being *dispossessed* of their temple and city?
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,498

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    Can you answer that question at the end of the post?
    The question had a built-in answer. Since the prophecy of the temple's destruction, and the fall of Jerusalem, was a negative prophecy, I have to assume that the "one taken" is one taken in judgment, and the one left is left alive.

    The word for "taken" as used in the OT, via the Septuagint, can be applied as the dispossession of land by the militant conquests of Israel. This is what happened when Joshua led Israel to take possession of Canaan. But in quite the contrary fashion, the Assyrians and Babylonians came in and dispossessed Israel of their own land.

    This is precisely what Jesus was predicting, that a new "Babylonian" type of invasion was about to happen to Israel, in which Jerusalem would fall and the temple would be desolated. The Israelites would be taken. Some would be left. Where would this happen? It would be where the eagles gather to the "corpse" in Jerusalem.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,152
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The question had a built-in answer. Since the prophecy of the temple's destruction, and the fall of Jerusalem, was a negative prophecy, I have to assume that the "one taken" is one taken in judgment, and the one left is left alive.
    That doesn't sound like the order of events when Christ returns. Doesn't he rapture/take the righteous and then punish those who are left?



    This is precisely what Jesus was predicting, that a new "Babylonian" type of invasion was about to happen to Israel, in which Jerusalem would fall and the temple would be desolated. The Israelites would be taken. Some would be left. Where would this happen? It would be where the eagles gather to the "corpse" in Jerusalem.
    Except the passage is all about the day Jesus returns not some nearly 2000 years ago.

    Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
    Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
    Luk 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
    Luk 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.
    Luk 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
    Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
    Luk 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
    Luk 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,498

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    That doesn't sound like the order of events when Christ returns. Doesn't he rapture/take the righteous and then punish those who are left?
    I suppose so. On the last day of the age 2 things will happen. The Rapture of the Church will take place. And the Antichristian world will be judged. You don't need the "taken and left" passage to believe that. I believe the "taken and left" passage applied to Israel when the Romans invaded, captured Jerusalem, and later exiled the Jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq
    Except the passage is all about the day Jesus returns not some nearly 2000 years ago.

    Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
    Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
    Luk 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
    Luk 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.
    Luk 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
    Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
    Luk 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
    Luk 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
    Yes, I believe Jesus is comparing the 2nd Coming with the day the Romans invade Jerusalem. Both events will be a "day" of destruction, a day of judgment. I don't believe they are the same day. They only sound that way because they are being compared. Jesus is saying, in essence, that the same kind of day in his generation will experience judgment as the 2nd Coming will present.

    Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
    Luk 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

    The day when the Son of Man is revealed is the 2nd Coming.
    The day in which men come down from their housetop was in the time 66-70 AD.
    Both days are comparable because both present the danger of divine judgment, one day being in Christ's generation and the other day being at the 2nd Coming.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,152
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
    Luk 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

    The day when the Son of Man is revealed is the 2nd Coming.
    The day in which men come down from their housetop was in the time 66-70 AD.
    The problem is those scriptures say the day ppl come down from their housetops is the same day Christ returns. That will always be the issue for the ad70 crowd and these scriptures.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,600
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    The problem is those scriptures say the day ppl come down from their housetops is the same day Christ returns. That will always be the issue for the ad70 crowd and these scriptures.
    I won't quite reach the same conclusion that the 'day people come down from their housetop is the same day that Christ returns'. Since the warning is to not waste time to come down to take stuff from their house before escaping, I'd say that coming down from the rooftop denotes the risk of death and missing the chance to escape.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,498

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    The problem is those scriptures say the day ppl come down from their housetops is the same day Christ returns. That will always be the issue for the ad70 crowd and these scriptures.
    I agree. This was an important issue between me and FHG as well. If you want to believe these events have to do exclusively with the 2nd Coming, you will have the problem of ignoring that Jesus initiated this Discourse with a prophecy of the 70 AD event. That was when men came down from their housetops. Men do not come down from their housetops anymore, that I know of?

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    4,262
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Pre-Trib Raptured Where???

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    The problem is those scriptures say the day ppl come down from their housetops is the same day Christ returns. That will always be the issue for the ad70 crowd and these scriptures.
    I think that "the day" is more like a time period or a season

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 3 guests)

  1. randyk

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 92
    Last Post: Jan 22nd 2018, 05:06 AM
  2. Friendly discussion Mid-Trib and Post-Trib view...
    By Rockrz in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 271
    Last Post: Jul 21st 2014, 11:51 PM
  3. Replies: 94
    Last Post: May 7th 2014, 04:33 AM
  4. If Pre-Trib is wrong, how does Post-Trib reconcile Matthew 24:44
    By CanadianSlash in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: Jul 18th 2009, 02:41 PM
  5. Pre-trib, Post-trib, Mid-Trib Rapture Scripture
    By LaurieF in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: May 31st 2009, 01:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •