Since we do not have a thread with the sole subject being the rapture, I wanted to start one here.

Before I start, I want everyone to understand that the great tribulation that occurs in the last 3 and one-half years of the 70th week of Daniel, is also known as "the time of Jacob's trouble". This must be understood, or the rapture may be difficult to believe.

The time of Jacob's trouble is specific to the 144,000 virgin Jews saved after the time of sorrows when they realize that the anti-Christ is not the coming Messiah. (In this case, virgin refers to the fact that these 144,000 will have the pure lineage of Jacob without having intermarried with other races, not their sexual state)

Next, we have to understand that there is a very big difference between spiritual Israel(the elect according to God's foreknowledge) and physical Israel(the seed of Jacob). The spiritual Israel will be taken in the rapture. The seed of Jacob will remain until the great tribulation. (God is not through with Israel yet! Remember: "but he shall be saved out of it." He must fulfill His promise to Israel.

We are now living in the church age, also known as the age of grace. During this time, there is the Gentile rule over Jerusalem.

The leading away into captivity of Judah into all all nations occured under Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C. Thus began the "times of the gentiles". You can read about this in Daniel Chapter 2, which outlines Nebuchadnezzar's dream which describes the entire span of Gentile rule, and which rulers ruled over Jerusalem, or had it under it's control.

What are those world powers that will rule over Jerusalem? For brevity, I will list the following according to Nebuchadnezzars dream:

1) The head - gold - The baylonian empire (Nebuchadnezzars empire)
2) The breast and arms - silver - Medo-Persian empire
3) The belly and thighs - brass - Greece
4) The legs - iron - Rome
5) The feet and toes - Revived Roman Empire - (yet to come)

All of these empires have come and gone ruling over Jerusalem except one, the revived roman empire. Understand that the Roman empire(as a power) was completely ended by 476 A.D.

The times of the Gentiles will end with the glorious Second Coming of Jesus Christ:

Thus ends the rule of the Gentile world powers over Jerusalem and God will set up His millennial kingdom here on earth.

What does this have to do with the rapture you ask?

I answer you with the lack of the church(Bride of Christ) during the tribulation. the focus is not upon the church. There is no mention of the church in chapters 4-19 of Revelation, the most detailed overview of the 7-year tribulation in all the bible. The church is not mentioned during the seal, trumpet, or bowl judgments because it is not there during the outpouring of these judgments.

Not only this, but what does the Lord promise the churches in Revelation 3:10?

He does not say he will keep them in the hour, He says He will keep them from it! So at the end of the third chapter we have seen what is to come to all of the churches. However, what of those people who are in those churches who did not heed? What does the Word of God have to say to these people who have heard the Word of God and did not believe?

Until He comes in the clouds(1 Thess. 4:17-18 ),

Jim

This post was last modified: Sun Sep 14, 2008 01:22 AM by Jim.

Good post Jim with a lot of truth. I'll just isolate one area. You said:

Why do you beleive it relates to heritage and not a sexual state? Just curious as I have never heard that before.

Any time the term "virgin" is used in relation to Israel in the book of Jeremiah, it always refers to a specific group, not a sexual state, examples:

In every case, the reference to the "Virgin of Israel" is not singular, but plural, and as you see in verse 7 crying out to God, as themselves, the remnant of Israel, those who had not intermarried with any other race.

Jeremiah 31 is referencing the New Jerusalem:

The "mystery" of which Paul speaks of....the rapture of the Church

I believe the synoptic Gospels to be silent on the rapture. No, even Matthew 24, which I believe to be misinterpreted by most people, is not a reference to the Bride of Christ (Matt. 24:40).

As we see in John 14:2,3

Notice He does not say "I will come again to the earth", but "I will come again, and receive you unto myself".

Love in Christ,

Jim

It must have been awesome for Paul and others as the implications of these "mystery's" were made clear to them.

Especially the truth of the rapture. It would appear that the impact of the imminent return of Christ had far reaching consequences in the daily lives of believers then. Some, to their shame, stopped working expecting the Lord to appear soon, but others worked to win lost souls to Christ!

God helps us to better understand imminency and be out winning souls!

Ooooh, Martin, as usual, I do not believe in coincidences. This is exactly what evangelist Frank Bailey said in a sermon in which I was listening last night. How true it is!

Imagine how complacent we would be if we knew exactly when Christ was coming for His bride. I'll tell you what we would do. Because we are human, we would sit around doing as much as we could for the flesh, then at the last second, start doing something for Christ. Oh what a waste that would be!

Thank God for the promise of the rapture of His Bride!

Love in Christ,

Jim

From 1537 ek { ek} or ex { ex}

a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative;; prep

Strong, J. 1996. The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.). Woodside Bible Fellowship.: Ontario

Based on this the verse could be interperated as "...I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation (onward)..."

OK, let's take a look at this.

onward from whence? Can we spiritually conclude that the Lord was referring to that exact point as a starting point?

Let's look:

This, to me, seems that it has yet to come.

The Lord appoints things in His own good time. He refers to it as the hour of temptation(trials and tribulations), which shall(future tense) come.

I do not agree that it was used in the sense of starting from that point. Even Strong's suggests "the point whence action or motion proceeds", and we read that the starting point of reference is given:

It does not say has come. There is a distinct difference.

Jim

) The head - gold - The baylonian empire (Nebuchadnezzars empire)
2) The breast and arms - silver - Medo-Persian empire
3) The belly and thighs - brass - Greece
4) The legs - iron - Rome


5) The feet and toes - Revived Roman Empire - (yet to come) Wrong. The empire continued in the papacy, and contiues still, part of the fourth. The only kingdom still to come is the fifth one, Christs. . At the time of Cromwell there was a sect called "The Fifth Monarchists", who believed that Christ's Kingdom could be set up on earth, in the Church. I believe that Cromwell himself went along with this for a short while. I suppose the Restoration movement believe something similar.

If I am wrong and you are right, where is your evidence?

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 11:50 AM by Jim.

I believe the papacy may have continued religious Rome, as the Catholic church but also in that they continued the Roman idea of a man being "God", but they have not continued the political Rome.

Perhaps they have prepared foundations on which to build, but antichrist will be the one to build up political Babylon once again.

Okay, I feel a little silly. I shot a little early there, but have spent the day pondering events in this forum last night (Oz time), and have consider a more feasable possibility.

Consider that Jesus' address to the seven churches were to seven literal churches that were around then and was totally wiped out at a later time by Muslim invaders.

Consider that John received his vision approx 95-96 AD. Consider that this would place it in the middle of the second "official persecution" of the church, by the Roman Empire, which was under Emperor Domitian. The first two persecutions were localised to Rome, with the precedant for empire wide persecution being set up by Pliny the Younger approx 111-113, however Trajan slowed the whole deal down.

Marcus Aurellius (161-180) began proactive persecutions during his reign.

It wasn't until Decius (249-251) that Christians were targeted widescale as the cause of all the empire's woes.

Even after all that, the worst persecutions were inflicted by "Professing Christians", and the major difference was that the heathens just wanted us to convert to their idolatry, where the "church" wanted to eradicate the heretics, recanting or not.

Considering that the letter to the Philadelphian church was sent to people who lived in 96 AD, they would not have been alive in 249 AD let alone in a future fulfillment of Jer 30 judgement upon Israel spilling over into a Church that seeks to protect it's "root".

Essentially, there doesn't need to be a rapture to fulfill this portion of scripture, as it is more likely to have already been fulfilled, than to be a message for us today.

I also will take into consideration of all of the churches that Paul sent letters to, including some of those churches referred to in Revelation. What is that supposed to mean? Nothing.

The epistles written to "churches" refers to all christians abroad (bride of Christ). If those epistles were specific for those churches then we might as well throw our bibles away, huh?

Love in Christ,

Jim

I'm sorry Jim, but I believe that that statment is a little extreme. You seem to be saying that statements directed to specific people are to be taken as general statements. Do you hold that women in church should be wearing head coverings, or was that a cultural statement specifically directed to the Corintian church?

Stop. You are completely taking me out of context. Your beginning to this argument focused on the address(I am assuming you mean the letters in Rev. 1-3) to the seven churches. You then asserted that those churches were wiped out by muslim invaders at a later time.

What are we to conclude then, but that your intention was to show that those addresses have been fulfilled in those specific churches?

I was simply coinciding the fact that those same churches which you assert that the letters were to from Jesus, also had letters sent to them from Paul in the NT. If this is so, then the letters from Paul also must have been fulfilled, correct?

This is what it sounds like, so, your assertion that I "seem to be saying that statements directed to specific people are to be taken as general statements" is wrong.

My statement was that the epistles/letters from Paul & John to the churches were specific to the bride of Christ as a whole. Never in my explanation did I say they were "general" statements.

The specifics argument was not toward the churches, but to the people occupying those churches(bride of Christ).

Love in Christ,

Jim