Revived version of the rapture of the manchild

[jari]

Jari, any theory one proposes for one scripture must be tried with ALL scripture. If one assumes the gathering in Matt. 24 is the rapture of the church, then one must check ALL scripture and see if that theory fits.

actually mat 24 should be sufficient in this case because Jesus did answer the disciples question.

otherwise Jesus wouldnt have really answered their question about His coming.

In fact, it does not fit! Jesus coming in Rev. 19 is AFTER the wedding, not before it. So it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the rapture to be when the gathering in Matt. 24 is - for at that time the wedding is OVER. Can you see that?

what do you consider to define it being after?
as far as i see rev 19 doesnt give any timeline of the events. no mention of after or before there, is there?

Did you not read that the armies of heaven come back WITH Him in Rev. 19? That is the Bride of Christ and the angels returning WITH Him. how then could we possibly be raptured and at the same time come WITH Him? Again impossible.

sorry i saw no problem like this when i read rev 19.

 

[lecoop]

actually mat 24 should be sufficient in this case because Jesus did answer the disciples question.

otherwise Jesus wouldnt have really answered their question about His coming.




what do you consider to define it being after?
as far as i see rev 19 doesnt give any timeline of the events. no mention of after or before there, is there?




sorry i saw no problem like this when i read rev 19.

The disciples NEVER asked Jesus about the rapture. Go read it again. It is simply NOT THERE. They DID ask about the end of the age.

Rev. 19 IS THE TIMELINE. However, if you feel the need to RE-ARRANGE John's God given chronology, have at it. But with the warning to never add or take away, I would be not be the one to even think of re-arranging. Jari, why would you EVER think John did not write it in the order it will happen? Did you never read how many times John wrote, "after this," or "after these things?"

I have written an axiom on Revelation:

Any theory that must re-arrange John's God give chronology is immediately suspect, and WILL be proven wrong.

So if you feel the need, go ahead, but I promise you - it will be proven wrong. John wrote in exactly the order things will take place.

Did you NOT NOTICE 19:10 & 11 begins with the word "THEN?" Is that not a timing word?

So what am I saying? Lest there be ANY misunderstanding, I will say it again. John wrote about the wedding and supper 1st, THEN wrote about Jesus on the white horse. Therefore that will be the EXACT ORDER when these things take place. Also note, the wedding WILL take place in heaven.

Therefore, ANY THEORY that says the rapture will be at Jesus coming on the white horse is FALSE and will certainly be proven wrong.

Coop

 

[jari]

The disciples NEVER asked Jesus about the rapture. Go read it again. It is simply NOT THERE. They DID ask about the end of the age.

dont forget they asked about His coming. Now when He comes thens rapture is it not? Jesus doesnt return to earth everyday.

Rev. 19 IS THE TIMELINE. However, if you feel the need to RE-ARRANGE John's God given chronology, have at it. But with the warning to never add or take away, I would be not be the one to even think of re-arranging. Jari, why would you EVER think John did not write it in the order it will happen? Did you never read how many times John wrote, "after this," or "after these things?"

i only have your word for it that they are in timeline order. how can i know this is true?
i think your just saying that because you want it to be so, but you have no proof.

If you look at Rev chapter 6 theres A white horse And the rider is given A Crown.

who has crown except Jesus? I think thats same event and white horse as in Rev 19.
And its about tribulation that presedes rapture.

I guess the bridge is ready before tribulation then.

 

[El Hombre viejo]

A Wise Man Said...

Do not go beyond what is written in the Bible!! That would be adding to or taking away from. When you do this you come under the curse.

Rev 22:18-19

Not saying anyone is doing this.....:shock:

 

[El Hombre viejo]

REaders, this is mostly human reasoning with a little truth.
The manchild of Rev. 12 IS Jesus.

This short 5 verse story is only God showing John what the dragon DID (past tense) when Jesus was born, how the dragon tried to kill Him as a baby. It was a "history lesson" written as a parenthesis (out of sync with the chronology of the book.) This chapter, chapter 12, is God introducing John to the dragon, and in particular what the dragon will do during the second half of the week. If you count, you will find the dragon is mentioned I believe over 30 times in this chapter.


John TELLS us this:

Revelation 19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

(The saints will also rule with Him.)

What "woman" gave birth to Jesus? Who else had the same symbols? OF course Israel - Jesus came from ISRAEL. Jesus told those living in Judea to flee when they see the abomination. Who for the most part lives in Judea today? Of course, the descendants of Jacob, Israelis. OF COURSE JESUS, the manchild, was "caught up to heaven." He "ascended" and disappeared in a cloud. Many SAW this event!

I will agree, however, thinking that Rev. 4:1 is the rapture is TERRIBLE Bible exegesis. Even a 5th grader could tell us that was JOHN being caught up into heaven to be shown what was coming in the future.

I agree too, "the falling away" is certainly not the rapture - it was a very poor job of translation. It is in error. Most of the first translations into English were better. They used "departing."

How in the world could "falling away" keep with the THEME of the passage, the "gathering?" It does not. So this passage IS the departing or rapture of the church. At least one Greek scholar has said that apastasia could well mean a "spacial departure," that is, a group of people taken from a larger group and MOVED to another location. "Departing" is a good translation that FITS THE THEME of "THE Gathering." Did Paul mention a SIGNIFICANT falling away in his first letter? Certainly not! Did he mention a SIGNIFICANT "CATCHING AWAY? Certainly he did! And Paul CLEARLY tells us that before the man of sin can be revealed, the one restraining him MUST BE "TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY." Will the rapture take something "out of the way?" Most certainly it will!

As for the HUGE group, too large to number, who John was told came out of "great tribulation." Does this specifically say they came out of the SAME GT that Jesus spoke of that would be greater tribulation than any other time on earth, before or after? NO! Most certainly NOT. And in context, John COULD NOT have meant that GT that Jesus spoke of. The days of GT that Jesus spoke of, that will be greater than any other time on earth, will NOT BEGIN until Satan is cast down from heaven in Rev. 12. John saw this huge group - too large to number - in chapter 7, BEFORE THE 70th week even begins! So it certainly cannot be speaking of the same "great tribulation." So what is John's meaning? Don't forget, Jesus told one of the churches in Rev. 2:22 that He would cast those with the prostitute "into great tribulation!" These people lived almost 2000 years ago! Most certainly Jesus promise to them did not mean the days of GT He spoke of in Matt. 24! No, here in Rev. 2:22, He only meant, God can created days of GT anytime and anywhere! So what was John's meaning? Only this, by the time the rapture comes, it will "great tribulation" around the planet. NOT so bad as the days Jesus spoke of, because that time will not come until Satan is cast down, but it will be bad. People will be being put to death ONLY because they love Jesus, around the world! That is John's meaning. It is that way in half the world already.

Daniel 11:35 is speaking of JEWS, NOT the Gentile church.

I also agree, the 24 elders do NOT represent the rapture. In fact, if one really understands the vision of the throne room there, that was a vision of the PAST: John was looking BACK in time to a time where Jesus was STILL ON THE EARTH, before He rose from the dead. So how could those 24 elders in heaven, before Jesus even rose from the dead, represent a rapture? Impossible.

Coop

Mi amigo You talk about human reasoning? What does this, that you have written, have to do with the WORD? You are speculating too.

 

[David777]

Hello all.

The two riders on white horses are not the same.

These riders are completely different, I have quoted both
descriptions of the riders from the book of Revelations.

I also highlighted the differences, please read.

Revelations 6

2 And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him,
and he went out conquering and to conquer.

That was the first rider on a white horse, he has a bow not a sword and the crown was GIVEN to him.
Now for the definitive rider on a white horse.

Revelations 19

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him
was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.

12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns.
He had a name written that no one knew except Himself.

13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses.

15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations.
And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the wine press of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

This rider on the white horse is not given his crowns.
Nor does He use a bow, there is no question who He is.

These riders are completely different, there is no comparison nor should there be.