Jesus is refering to the 2nd coming in the verses in Matthew in which you are referencing
I'll rewrite this to say that this is the second coming, as in one. He only comes back one more time and that's exactly what he teaches here. So to insert there's a rapture here that takes place before the second coming would make it three comings. That doesn't make sense. Jesus even prayed that we wouldn't be taken out of the world, just that we would be kept from evil.
And what you're basically saying too is Jesus in this entire speech doesn't teach rapture. Don't you find that strange when this is the first time the disciples ask for signs of his "coming" (singular) and for signs to the end. And why wouldn't they just say signs of his comings? And Jesus goes on to say it will be as the days of Noah when the flood came and took them all away. This clearly describe being taken away first as the wicked. And then Noah and his family survived 5 months, note the 5 month period in Rev. It's the same.
Again by separating them into two events, you're are changing scripture and this is a very dangerous thing to do. All throughout the bible, this event is called the "Day of the Lord". The minor prophets taught of this day as do Paul, etc.
You are doing nothing but grabbing scriptures out to make an argument and omitting verses that come right before or after them. Why would anyone read this way??
For example, as I said, if one reads further after 1st Thes 4 into 5, yes, you must continue to read to not lose any context or the subject at hand. Paul describes this event as the "day of the Lord" and goes, yes even further because of confusion into 2nd Thes to say that day "shall not happen" until the son of perdition appears. We haven't left the subject. Why would there be warnings by both Paul and Jesus himself in Matthew 24? Because people would rather believe a lie (Ez 13 says God is "against" those people who would teach his people to fly away to save their souls. He's against it. And because people would rather believe the lie he will send them strong delustion (antichrist) because they would not accept the love of the truth. This is where the great falling away (translated apostasy) comes in. You also used this chapter to support a rapture (vs 4-6) but conveniently left out the most important part just 2 verses up, that this event is called "the day of the Lord or the Lord's Day) (he comes like a thief in the night to those not expecting him. And they won't be) And again, if you read further into 2nd Thes, Paul says very plainly this day (same day, just one) shall not happen until... This is why the entire Bible really needs to be read as a whole.
I can just as randomly pull out another one of your arguments and show you an error,
[Only Christians will see Him 1 John 3:2, 1 Cor 15:52 [/quote]
Just move up one verse and it reads, Behold, I shew you a mystery, We shall not all sleep, but we shall "All" be changed. All means all, where does it read that only Christians will see him?? It also says "at the last trump in 52, last trump is the 7th as explained in Rev. That's it. At that point, it's the first day of the Millineum and we are changed into our spiritual bodies. There's nothing here describing a rapture at all, just that we all must be changed at the last trump- (Antichrist will be here at the 6th) and we will be in a twinkling of an eye. Where does it say the church is raptured out of here? He says all are changed at the twinkling of an eye.
This is just one verse-one.
In Rev just as I said, John was taken to the Day of the Lord, (there's that day again) not beforehand. And then he's taught about what has happened, what will happen, et. You used Rev 19: 6-9 to prove rapture but yet again omitted the important verses above which state that the great whore of Babylon, etc had "already" been judged. The puts the marriage after the tribulation. To say otherwise is a huge contradiction to what the verses are saying.
I don't need to read any articles. For one, I've probably read them. I've been studying the end times prophecy for about 8 years. And besides, we are not to put our trust in man over the word of God. So I'm a scripture gal, if something can't be backed up in scripture, I can't and will not go there. I've already weighed both sides because like you I believed once in the rapture. I was taught at one time everything you just posted and I believed until I read it for myself and saw it just wasn't biblical.
But I will tell you I'm in my forties and I believed in the rapture my entire life until someone once told me to check it out for myself. So I decided for the first time (yes that's long time as a Christian not have not read the Bible) to read the bible, the entire thing, something alot of Christians today can't lay claim to. And it flows very well together, the old with the new. And I never saw anything when read through to support more than one coming. It's easy to pull out verses like you have done and I've already showed you just a couple that aren't right. Please rethink this because no matter what people say about it not mattering the timing does matter- or Paul and Christ wouldn't warn us about it.
It's easy to just write out an outline like you have and post a verse that you think supports it but those are your words in the outline, not the way it's laid out in the Bible.
If you do reply back, can you still provide me the very first verse that you think describes a rapture in the NT? And one more question. What do think the "Day of the Lord" is?
reply
share