Raf

Quite the opposite: I am not stating ANYONE's position regarding dispensationalism or any other topic. It's not "more likely CES' answer..." It IS CES' answer. We're going in circles. I'll be first to cry uncle on this. That's quite a leap. If Darby had called it "The catching away" instead of the "rapture," he could still come up with exactly the same eschatology using different terms (which Wierwille proved, in your own words, by using a Biblically accurate term but promoting the exact same eschatology). None of which has anything to do with what I've been trying to say, but I've already cried uncle. See above. Nor I against you. I hope you don;t see it that way. And you are presenting your case well.

I'll even try to make this a little easier, Steve: Before responding to my post, please note the following... Raf is NOT saying that The Rapture is a pretribulation event. Raf is NOT defending dispensationalism. Raf is NOT saying that the "Church" is a separate and distinct entity from Israel. Raf is NOT saying that I Thessalonians 7 and Ezekial 37 are describing different events. ALL RAF IS SAYING, IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE! Sorry, couldn't resist. All Raf is saying is that the word "rapture" is derived from the Latin Vulgate's form of the words "caught away," and is thus "Biblical," regardless of how it has been interpreted or misinterpreted by dispensationalists, covenant theologists, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, and Democrats.

Steve, You're making assumptions about my argument that are incorrect. Let's back up a bit and make this a bit more clear: You said "Rapture is an unbiblical word" (I paraphrase). I said, "Rapture comes from the Latin, not the Greek." You counter that we can't get the word "rapture" from the Greek, which is... exactly what I said. The Greek word you cite is translated "caught up." That Latin word I cited is translated "caught up" in the exact same verse. All I am saying is that the word "rapture," because of this one simple truth, is Biblical, unless you are going to argue that we can't use words with Latin origins in this discussion, which is your prerogative but I would respectfully disagree. NOW, based on what I wrote, you don't need to change a thing about your theology or eschatology. I limited my argument to ONE aspect of your earlier post: whether the word "rapture" is Biblical. Even if you don't agree with my conclusion, can you at least agree that I have a solid argument? Some other things you note (which I think are strong): Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus did not know what he meant by "born again." Jesus did not use the words "new birth." The Bible does not use those words. Yet many Christians recognize the concept as scriptural. Do you? (Maybe you don't: Vince Finnegan now teaches that to be born again is a reference to the resurrection, not to some spiritual experience we have while on this earth). If that's the case, then I used a poor example in making my argument that unbiblical words can be used to describe Biblical concepts (ie, even if "rapture" IS an unbiblical word, that doesn't mean it's an unbiblical concept. If "new birth" is a poor example of this, then certainly "advent" and "ascension" are good examples. Neither word is in scripture, not even in your concordance). Speaking of which: This is strawman, Steve, and you're a better debater than this. I never said you could find "rapture" in a concordance... from the Greek. HOWEVER, if you had a concordance from the Vulgate, do you think you might be able to find some information on the Latin word in question? Hmm? You say the Latin word has a different semantic range than the Greek word. I'm unfamiliar with the term "semantic range," but I assume from context you mean that they don't correspond directly in meaning, denotation and connotation. I respect that, if it's what you're saying, but it's extraneous to my argument (which, again, is SOLELY that "rapture" is not an unbiblical word). This is like saying "if Peter wanted to say 'repent and undergo baptism,' he would have said so, but instead he said 'repent and be baptized.'" You're drawing a distinction where none exists. Steve, can you find one post where I even MENTIONED Darby, much less cited him as a reliable source? One? Come on, one? (Okay, maybe there's one, but I don't remember it). And here's the whopper, the one where you misread me the worst: I said that the "rapture" aka "caught away" of I Thessalonians 4 "cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture." YOU changed that to imply that I said "the resurrection and gathering described in I Thesssalonians 4:13-18 is [something] other than the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament?" Problem: that's not what I said. Acts 4:26 states (quoting Psalm 2), "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ." Is this the gathering together of I Thessalonians 4? No. So when you use the words "gathering together" to describe I Thessalonians 4, is there a possibility that someone might not understand what you mean? Whereas, if you use the term word "the rapture," does ANYONE doubt that you're talking about I Thessalonians 4? Limit my argument to this: Rapture is a Biblical word. According to you, Steve (and you make a compelling case), what Wierwille, CES and others teach about The Rapture is based on a host of misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and CES would be better off abandoning that mindset and going strictly by what the Bible teaches. The "Rapture" of I Thessalonians 4 IS the same thing (again, this is your argument) as the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament. So what's the problem?

Can't make it. Not enough Chicago nurses in attendance.

No. That was my point. There are Biblical concepts whose words are not used in the Bible. "Advent" and "Ascension" are clear examples. Umm, I said LATIN. Not Greek. And it's not a stretch to suggest that the noun form of a word is related to its verb form. The words "caught up" in the Latin Vulgate are the word "rapiemur," from which we derive the English word "rapture," which can also be used as a verb (or, more accurately in this case, a past participle, ie, "we which are alive and remain shall be raptured together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air"). First of all, it's not being "misused." "Caught up (past participle, not a verb)" implies "rapture (noun)" much the same way "he was baptized (past participle)" implies "there was a baptism (noun)" and yes, much the same way "I am believing (present participle)" implies "I have faith." Wierwille used a Biblically correct term, I agree. But to say that "rapture" is a Biblically incorrect term is false. Not just provably false, but proven false (unless you want to argue that no words derived from the Latin may be used in discourse, in which case I would respectfully but adamantly disagree). It's not an unbiblical term. Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate, and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of "gathering together" mentioned in scripture. They gave this answer in the Revelation tapes you listened to, and I just gave an answer here. Backatcha, brother. P.S. Once again, to make it clear, I am not trying to defend dispensationalism or a pre-trib rapture here. I'm isolating my comments to one point and one point only, that the word "rapture" is not unbiblical.

Steve, You're entitled to your views on what the Bible does and does not teach, but the word "rapture" is indeed a Biblical word. It's the latin form of the word "caught up." Saying "the rapture" is not a Biblical word is similar to saying "the new birth" and "advent" are not Biblical terms. Maybe they're not in the King James, but the concepts are certainly there. (I'm not trying to defend pre-trib or dispensationalism at this point: only noting that the word "rapture" is not unbiblical).

I know this isn't what you had in mind, but... ;)--> AHHH, AUTUMN IN FLORIDA!

Mike again misses the point: YOU MEAN WE HAVE TO DIG UP A 1978 ISSUE OF THE WAY MAGAZINE TO FIND OUT WHAT JESUS CHRIST IS DOING TODAY?!?! Three books on the life, death and person of Jesus Christ, as well as eight books on various other subjects, and none of them cover what Jesus Christ is really doing today; we need to find a 1978 Way Magazine? Sheesh! :)-->

Ditto.

Actually, we don't know that. Book simply doesn't say.

I say that there is such a thing as a false conversion. It takes place when a person SAYS "Jesus is Lord" but doesn't mean it. I call it the difference between profession and confession. Wierwille (or rather, Kenyon) called it the difference between mental assent and believing. Whatever you call it, it's the difference between meaning something and just saying something. "Jesus is Lord." Anyone can say it. But not everyone who says it, means it. I don't pretend to know who does or who doesn't. But I can guarantee you there are tons of people who think Jesus is their Lord, but he's not, because it's a mere profession and not a true confession of the heart. Of those, Jesus said they would come to him and say "Lord, Lord," and he will reply that he never knew them. Strong words, but I think they prove that there are people who THINK Jesus is their Lord, but don't really believe it. Speaking of "Left Behind," one of the most believable characters in the first (awful) movie is the pastor, who sits in church after the "rapture" and prays about what a hypocritical fool he was. "I knew Your message. I knew Your Word. I stood RIGHT HERE! And I PREACHED IT! And I was GOOD! But they're gone. They're gone. Ah, but knowing and believing are two different things."

You know, this is EXACTLY (and I mean danged near word for word) what Kirk Cameron's character does with another character in the (awful) movie, "Left Behind II: Tribulation Force."

Dave, I think Steve is trying to say that posting links to articles is all Jeff does. I think Jeff is a great guy. If he wants to just post links, that's fine with me. I'd rather hear his own words too. But if he doesn't want to do that, it's up to him. It does leave him open to the criticism, though. Jeff, I share your struggle.

Count me in.

Silly? Oh, you mean the acronym! Coooool!

Could you be a tad more specific?

Now THIS, I think, bears repeating... It's amusing to me that people who would not accept these qualities in a candidate for dog catcher excuse them in a person who claims to speak for Jesus Christ.

Mike, Here's what I wrote: I'm not aware of you ever denying what Wierwille did. Minimizing it, yes. Downplaying it, yes. Misrepresenting it, yes. Mischaracterizing it, yes. Excusing it to your idolatrous ends, yes. But never denying it. So your rebuttal is unnecessary.

Mike, listen to me. Lean in real close... Idolatrous pigswill!!! Thank you for playing.

Here's a scenario for you to consider: God and Jesus Christ are face to face. God talks to Christ directly, tells him everything he needs to know. I mean, you don't even KNOW how ridiculous you sound! That God would need to send Jesus to the future to read PFAL instead of JUST TELLING HIM TO HIS FACE!

Too true, Rascal. People can praise Wierwille to the skies, but let someone point out that the emperor had no clothes (pun intended) and all of a sudden it's "waaaaah, stop talking about a man after he's dead..." You know what? Everytime anyone denies what Wierwille did, they call his accusers LIARS while they live. I agree and will say again that the value (and/or lack thereof) of what he taught stands independently of his character.

You are a master all right: a master of misrepresentation. For your information (twit), the objection was not due to the feeling that Jesus is all-knowing, but rather to the feeling that 2000 years of direct connection with God and being seated at His right hand requires a supplemental education to be found in your flawed orange book. That you should think Jesus ever had something to learn from PFAL reveals (as if it needed revealing by this point) the sad depth of your idolatry.

Since, however, PFAL was not given by revelation, but is the flawed work of a flawed man, it's only logical that honest people would be able to weed out the good from the bad in it and come out the better.

If being on gscafe has taught you nothing else, it should have taught you this: Although you were there, there was plenty that you did not witness. Same goes for me.

Getting better at that dodging and distracting bit aren't you. The point: YOU said, citing a well known Wierwillism, that the gospels are for our learning. But the problem with that is that the word for "learning" in the verse Wierwille quoted is the same word as "doctrine," so the gospels, according to the Bible (the same authority Wierwille was relying upon to make his statement in the first place), are for our doctrine. Naturally, anything in any book of the Bible that's not specifically addressed to us is not to be carried out by us (unless you've made a habit of accepting sister Phoebe into your church lately). (And Urbanus). "For our learning" creates the false impression that the teachings of Christ are not for the Church, when many are specifically to the church: this is a truth you will NEVER understand or accept because your idolatrous devotion to PFAL and your inability to go beyond it. A shame, really.