[JoeT777]

i cannot dispute scripture. galveston took it right out of the Bible. first corinthians speaks of the catching away of the believers. when i say believes i speak of those who have been born again. just because a person believe there was a man called Jesus doesn't mean that person will be in the catching away. sitting in a church doesn't make you a christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car. quoted from joyce meyers. there are going to be 7 years of tribulation. are we going into it right now? there has been some different thought of when the catching away of the saints is going to happen. some say after three and one half years and some say before the tribulation starts. the antichrist will set up a one world government and one world religion at that time. lets hear some comments on the antichrist. a man who will come to conquer the world. the spirit of antichrist is in the world right now. the antichrist will imitate Christ and many will be fooled by him. i don't want to be here when this a takes place.

The argument isn't whether there will be a great tribulation, but rather when those living in that day will be brought into the Kingdom of God; whether they will be taken out of the world to, as it were, escape the tribulation. Galveston1's reference to 1 Thes 4:15-18, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Catholic Church is a forced interpretation.

Anyone passage in scripture must be in harmony with other passages; otherwise the author(s) would be contradicting themselves. This is not a good thing in scripture as it would produce varying different faiths; but we're called to one faith (Cf. John 17:20-26).

This particular problem arises in the first book of Thessalonians if we hold that the living in Christ will be “raptured” out of the world to avoid the tribulation. The contradiction is that this scripture requires “the dead in Christ shall rise first.” Other scriptures call for the dead in Christ to rise only on the last day. To be raised first we hear Christ's words, “Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.” And, you must be of Christ. Which we hear Christ pulling us into his Kingdom, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” (John 6:55) So, we see that the living don't catch up with Christ until after (or at least at the same time) as the dead on the last day when Christ comes to re-claim his Kingdom?

In Revelations 20 a spiritual battle takes place where satan is bound for a long time, during which only the “beheaded martyrs” (priests of God and Christ) are risen to minister to God in heaven. After satan is released for a short time, then the dead in Christ are risen. Then and only then the Kingdom of God is re-established on earth and living in Christ go out to meet Christ.

The concept of a pre-tribulation can be traced to John Darby in 1830. For some 1800-years prior to this the concept was unknown. Darby suggests that there will be “rapture” prior to the time of tribulation, later picked up by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. He based this on his observance of Margaret MacDonald, a 14-year old, in a levitation séance in 1830. (Cf. Dave MacPherson, The Rapture Plot) This is not a conditions I would call conducive to a revelation by the Holy Spirit.

As Fred has stated, multiple times, we will never know the time or place of his coming, "but of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (Matt 24:36)

JoeT

[classyT]

The concept of a pre-tribulation can be traced to John Darby in 1830. For some 1800-years prior to this the concept was unknown. Darby suggests that there will be “rapture” prior to the time of tribulation, later picked up by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. He based this on his observance of Margaret MacDonald, a 14-year old, in a levitation séance in 1830. (Cf. Dave MacPherson, The Rapture Plot) This is not a conditions I would call conducive to a revelation by the Holy Spirit.

As Fred has stated, multiple times, we will never know the time or place of his coming, "but of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (Matt 24:36)

JoeT

Joe,

I think you are really wrong. First I have NO IDEA where you get your info on John Darby but let me assure you, I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren. They followed closely the teachings of John Darby. For you to even THINK that John Darby would get his information from a girl in a trance or vision or whatever it was it LAUGHABLE. His teachings are so straight laced... if it wasn't in the WORD... he didn't TEACH it. YOU ERR BIG on this one. Besides that this girl had the vision in 1830... he was preaching the rapture in 1827... it had NOTHING to DO with the vision. I will go a step further and say that John Darby believed that everything that God wanted to reveal to us he did so in the Bible. I sincerely doubt he even BELIEVED the girl.

Look the Apostle Paul is the first to teach of the catching away in the new testament.. 1 Thess. What exactly do you think Paul is speaking of in those passages anyway?

You are correct NO ONE knows the DAY OR THE HOUR... but the Lord Himself said we could know the signs and when he is at the DOOR.

[JoeT777]

Joe,

I think you are really wrong. First i have NO IDEA where you get your info on John Darby but let me assure you, I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren. They followed closely the teachings of John Darby. For you to even THINK that John Darby would get his information from a girl in a trance or vision or whatever it was it LAUGHABLE. His teachings are so straight laced...if it wasn't in the WORD...he didn't TEACH it. YOU ERR BIG on this one. Besides that this girl had the vision in 1830...he was preaching the rapture in 1827....it had NOTHING to DO with the vision. I will go a step further and say that John Darby believed that everything that God wanted to reveal to us he did so in the Bible. I sincerely doubt he even BELIEVED the girl.

Look the Apostle Paul is the first to teach of the catching away in the new testament..1 Thess. What exactly do you think Paul is speaking of in those passages anyway?

You are correct NO ONE knows the DAY OR THE HOUR...but the Lord Himself said we could know the signs and when he is at the DOOR.

Look it up yourself: Dave MacPherson, The Rapture Plot. Google the name "Margaret MacDonald"

JoeT

[classyT]

Look it up yourself: Dave MacPherson, The Rapture Plot. Google the name "Margaret MacDonald"

JoeT

Sorry but he is full of phooy. No way... just because DAVE MacPherson said so.. don't make it so. Bummer.

[JoeT777]

sorry but he is full of phooy. No way...just because DAVE MacPherson said so..don't make it so. bummer.

So, show me "phooey"? It would seem to me that such phooey would be easily discounted. I've supported each statement with scripture or other reliable sources. ClassyT, on the other hand, only seems to provide phooey. Surly your convictions are based on more, where's the beef.

JoeT

[classyT]

They are all biblical and you know it. ( I'm referring to 1 and 11 Thess. PAUL TAUGHT IT FIRST.. (the catching away) You don't believe... I do. I wasn't calling YOU phooy I was calling Dave MacPherson that. Look, I grew up under John Darby's teachings... I oughtta know what the guy believes. He wouldn't even so much as acknowledge a vision in the Church period. He didn't believe in modern day prophets... I'm telling you he was a straight laced maybe even bording legalistic. He was very very knowledgeable in the Word. He was not at ALL into visions or dreams.. he believed like I said before that EVERYTHING that GOD wanted to reveal to us was in the Word. You haven't provided anything more than what DAVE McPhearson says. I suggest you actually READ some of John Darby's writings before you judge him. He started teaching the rapture in 1827... 3 years before the girl with the vision. And that is all I am going to say about that... ( kind of like forrest gump)

[Galveston1]

The argument isn’t whether or not there will be a great tribulation, but rather when those living in that day will be brought into the Kingdom of God; whether they will be taken out of the world to, as it were, escape the tribulation. Galveston1’s reference to 1 Thes 4:15-18, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Catholic Church is a forced interpretation.

Anyone passage in scripture must be in harmony with other passages; otherwise the author(s) would be contradicting themselves. This is not a good thing in scripture as it would produce varying different faiths; but we’re called to one faith (Cf. John 17:20-26).

This particular problem arises in the first book of Thessalonians if we hold that the living in Christ will be “raptured” out of the world to avoid the tribulation. The contradiction is that this scripture requires “the dead in Christ shall rise first.” Other scriptures call for the dead in Christ to rise only on the last day. To be raised first we hear Christ’s words, “Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.” And, you must be of Christ. Which we hear Christ pulling us into his Kingdom, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” (John 6:55) So, we see that the living don’t catch up with Christ until after (or at least at the same time) as the dead on the last day when Christ comes to re-claim his Kingdom?

Why are you having so much trouble understandng that the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the changing of the living believers occurs in immediate sequence? And we have been in the "last days" ever since the time of Christ.

In Revelations 20 a spiritual battle takes place where satan is bound for a long time, during which only the “beheaded martyrs” (priests of God and Christ) are risen to minister to God in heaven. After satan is released for a short time, then the dead in Christ are risen. Then and only then the Kingdom of God is re-established on earth and living in Christ go out to meet Christ.

After satan is loosed for a short time (after 1,000 yrs of confinement) the only resurrection mentioned is that of the WICKED dead, not the righteous.

The concept of a pre-tribulation can be traced to John Darby in 1830. For some 1800-years prior to this the concept was unknown. Darby suggests that there will be “rapture” prior to the time of tribulation, later picked up by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. He based this on his observance of Margaret MacDonald, a 14-year old, in a levitation séance in 1830. (Cf. Dave MacPherson, The Rapture Plot) This is not a conditions I would call conducive to a revelation by the Holy Spirit.

I'm not convinced of MacPherson's objectivity. What I have heard about Margaret MacDonald is that she gave a message either in "tongues" with interpretation, or a word of prophecy, both gifts named by Paul in 1 Cor. ch 12.

As Fred has stated, multiple times, we will never know the time or place of his coming, "but of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (Matt 24:36)

JoeT

1Thes 5:2-4
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
(KJV)

I have never said that the rapture and the Second Coming of Christ are the same event.

Jude 1:14-15
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
(KJV)

You have not addressed this passage so far. Fred said it applied to angels, but I reject that. In Revelation glorified men are sometimes called angels, even the pastors of the 7 churches are so called, but the Bible always identifies angels as such.

[arcura]

Please keep in mind that there will be one only return of Jesus to this planet with its clouds.
Therefore there will be NO rapture as it is being taught.
The rapture theory is a contradiction to Holy Scripture.
If you don't believe that, just wait and see, and I believe you will have a LONG wait of at least 100 years
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[450donn]

Please keep in mind that there will be one only return of Jesus to this planet with its clouds.
Therefore there will be NO rapture as it is being taught.
The rapture theory is a contradiction to Holy Scripture.
If you don't believe that, just wait and see, and I believe you will have a LONG wait of at least 100 years
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,
I don't know what hat you pull all these fantastic numbers out of, but I got to say it is entertaining to watch you falling off the pew.:D
Where does this now 100 years come into play?
Since Christ does call his church (the believers both living and dead in Christ) home How do you reconcile this same statement in the bible? Is the Bible lying?
I think you need to get your head out of the one religion you are stuck in and read and listen to some other denominations preachers for a while to understand the truth that is in the inspired word of God.

[arcura]

450donn,
Thanks but it should be obvious that the 100 years OR more is MY estimation according to the reasons I mentioned.
And I HAVE listen to other denomination preachers rant about the rapture including John Hagee several times.
I hear them struggle to put together enough pick and chose passage to appear to be convincing, but they are NOT because the bible clearly says that Jesus will return when least expected and ONLY one time.
By the way I do not fall off my pew because I don't have one in my church we have chairs.
But I do roll on the floor laughing at the rapture nuts who refuse to believe what Jesus says about himself.
Fred

[450donn]

Fred. You are getting all messed up in your doctrine.
The church will be called home. That is a fact. IF you had truly listened to people Like Hagee and many others with an open mind instead of the closed mind you are stuck in you and searched the scriptures and followed along for more than 15 minutes you would really understand. But I am preaching to the people who refuse to accept that maybe "the church" could be wrong on a lot of doctrine and therefore will not accept any other teachings.
So, let me ask you this,
Where does it say that you pray to Mary?
Or to some obscure saint?
What does the Bible teach about idols and idol worship?
Where does the Bible teach that sprinkling a baby is scriptural?
Those are your teachings are they not?
I don't accept them as biblical, but I sure am not going around spewing lies about you and your practice of doing it. Maybe you need to open your mind up to the big wide world of Gods teachings that are offered outside your church.
Sorry, I did not mean to get onto a rant. But it is very plain to see that the one sided rantings of several of the posts here are blindly biased and intended solely to influence people to YOUR way of thinking and not to explore the word of God in an open discussion.

[arcura]

450donn,
Sorry, but I have read books by bible experts who bb;ica;;y prove that the raptore is a trap, a hoax.
I believe THEM
My mind WAS open to the idea until I found out how wrong it is.
Fred

[JoeT777]

The church will be called home. That is a fact. IF you had truly listened to people Like Hagee and many others with an open mind instead of the closed mind you are stuck in you and searched the scriptures and followed along for more than 15 minutes you would really understand. But I am preaching to the people who refuse to accept that maybe "the church" could be wrong on a lot of doctrine and therefore will not accept any other teachings.

It’s probably because you don’t have an understanding of Catholics that you would suggest that the Catholics aren’t scripturally based. I’ve come to understand that Catholicism is a faith not only founded on Scripture but that Scriptural understanding is in harmony with Apostolic Tradition. No, we don’t accept other’s teachings unless of course they too can be shown to be in harmony with Scripture and Tradition.

Where does it say that you pray to Mary? Or to some obscure saint?

Catholics believe that there is one Kingdom of God who are spiritually bond with the fateful in purgatory, and heaven; the mystical body of Christ. As such we look at the Church Militant (those on earth), the Church suffering (those in purgatory), and the Church triumphant (those in heaven) as one Church with Christ at its head. Just as you can turn to your pew mate and say, pray for me, we are in solidarity with members in heaven. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Communion of Saints

What does the Bible teach about idols and idol worship?

Catholics don’t worship idols.

If perchance you’re referring to icons, we don’t worship them anymore than you worship the icons on your desk top – they are reminder of a saint or event in the life of Christ. Just like your desk top icons remind you of the programs they represent. Do you worship your computer? After all, there are icons on it! Silly isn’t it? CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Veneration of Images

Where does the Bible teach that sprinkling a baby is scriptural?

I’ll let you read about this one. If you want to be immersed, that’s OK two. The matter and form of the baptism only requires water (the amount isn’t of issue) and a certain form that must invoke the Holy Trinity.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism

Those are your teachings are they not?

Assuming you are protestant, I’d say they were as much your teachings as ours up till 1520. Now think about this, there is a Catholic faith from the time of Christ till 1520 and all of a sudden icons become a spiritual problem? If you’re frightened by icons you are under no obligation to use them as a sacramental (reminder of holy things). The statues of saints don’t jump down from the walls and eat little children.

The difference in our faiths is both superficial in one sense and very profound in another.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Roman Catechism

I don't accept them as biblical, but I sure am not going around spewing lies about you and your practice of doing it. Maybe you need to open your mind up to the big wide world of Gods teachings that are offered outside your church.

Well, those beliefs and tenets are Biblical as well as representing the very word of mouth teachings of the 12 Apostles and ultimately Christ himself. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Scripture

Sorry, I did not mean to get onto a rant. But it is very plain to see that the one sided rantings of several of the posts here are blindly biased and intended solely to influence people to YOUR way of thinking and not to explore the word of God in an open discussion.

Ranting in my book is Ok; rant away. Just be kind enough to become informed. My bias isn’t blind, it’s deliberate, The Word of God written in Scriptures only truly comes alive with the discipline of Catholic teaching; each scripture harmonizing with another.

JoeT

[arcura]

Joe T.
Well said.
Well presented.
Well Done.
You are right about Catholicism
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

all of a sudden icons become a spiritual problem?

There was a controversy that raged over icons in the ancient world. Iconoclasm was, ultimately, anathematized. Interestingly, though, iconoclasm wasn't a Christian issue until the rise of Islam. It was principally promoted by Christians who had been influenced by Islam's prohibitions against images of any kind in worship.

[Akoue]

Ps: The human person is itself an icon.

[arcura]

Akoue.
Thanks.
I did not know about Islam regarding Iconoclasm.
Also I did not realize that I and all others are icons.
I do realize that my alarm clock is an icon.
LOL
Fred

[Fr_Chuck]

Not even near addressing the OP question

Thread closed