My view is the traditional Christian view, not a perversion, yours is the perversion but we've had this discussion beforfe and this is where it always ends up and what more could possibly be said? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. That's what I believe, not your perversion. We are at the usual impasse. Shall we leave it there? Please?
The Reformation reestablished the original church or at least the essence of it as it was before the Roman politico-pagan church usurped it in the seventh century, and I'm quite sure your theology doesn't have any songs written for it.
Augustine has comments that support both sides of the issue. He's very strong on the Reformation doctrine of faith alone however, or grace alone or Christ alone etc., despite being all over the map in general. Origen is considered a heretic by many.
Let's be clear, GDR, all the Reformation rpinciples are in the Bible, spelled out in particular by Paul but also in the book of Hebrews. Your weird theology is the deviation, the perversion, not mine.
I didn't "screen out" anything. Those principles are in the gospels too but Paul said them particularly clearly and I remember what he said better. But of course I can go track them down in the gospels too.
Three of the gospels state that He came to serve not to be served and to give His life a random for many. If He bought us, ransomed us, that's His doing, not ours.
John 3:16 is a way of saying that whoever believes on Jesus will be saved, period, no other condition implied.
When Jesus washes the disciplies' feet He calls them clean. That is a way of saying He does the cleansing of our sins.
The very word "gospel" means "good news" and your idea of the gospel is far from good news, but the principle that Jesus came to save us and that nothing in our salvation is up to us, fallible wretches that we are, THAT is good news.
Again I point out that Jesus said He is the Lord of the Sabbath and that the Sabbath was made for man, and the Sabbath means rest and it's based on God's resting from His works on the seventh day. Jesus is our rest from our own works because He did the work of salvation that we are unable to do, giving us rest from the endless effort to be the loving person you insist iw what He asks of us. He knows we're fallen, the idea that He would ask that of us is ludicrous. We are only able to love "because He first loved us," and really, only because He died for us and sent the Holy Spirit to empower us to love. We fallen wretches aren't capable of the love God requires and you fool yourself thinking it possible. "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." All the "love" you think we are asked to do is dirty rags in God's eyes..
As a woman I reserve the right to change my mind but I'm kind of sorry I changed it about stopping this discussion. Anyway you cut off quotes and then answer the part that wasn't important but I'll have to come back to that later. Meanwhile John 3:16 promises eternal life. You turned that into some kind of unrecognizable hash. But I guess I'm too tired to think about it right now.
...that whosoever believeth on Him should have eternal life. And then it goes on about those who DON'T believeth on Him because of their bad deeds I know you want to completely rewrite Christian history and maybe if you get enough followers you can create a big enough heresy like Mormonism or JWs and pull it off but so far it isn't happening. Most of what we're talking about is also Catholic doctrine so you can't get away with palming it off on the Reformation which you then reinterpret as well.
If Phat and I and all your fundamentalist friends and family get taken in the Rapture soonish how will you explain it? Just wondering.
Well, this is a bust. I wanted to set it at 1:47:15 where the Rapture starts but I can't get it to stay. But that's where it starts and I'm afraid you'll have to set it yourself. No point really, just a celebration. If you'd like to hear the rousing "Hallelujah" chorus, that's at 1:35:51. , ,
Otherwise what to say? It took me years to come to the conclusion that the Rapture really is going to be a reality that occurs seven years before Jesus' Second Coming. I think I spelled out some of it on that thread on the subject not too long ago. Here's one post on it: Message 85 02-13-2020 9:20 AM
And of course you didn't answer my question. You don't have to believe in it to answer what reaction you would have if....
This dramatic end-time scenario is based (wrongly, as we shall see) on Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians, where he writes: For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God. The dead in Christ will rise first; then we, who are left alive, will be snatched up with them on clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
What on earth (or in heaven) did Paul mean?
It's always frustrating to have to deal with a popular imagining of this passage, the Left Behind series, when I haven't read it and didn't arrive at my conclusion because of it. I don't know if cars will crash as they are abandoned and all that, I kind of think we'll have a short moment of knowing it's about to happen and land our airplanes and park our cars for the event, or angels will take them over. I don't see why all that mayhem has to attend the event. But who knows, that's the Left Behind way of imagining it and they could be right.
There's nothing wrong with picturing heaven as "up there" since after all Jesus is depicted as having ascended upward into a cloud when He left to be with the Father, and the angel explained to the disciples standing there with their mouths open that He would return the same way. So He is said to come from above and we who are left alive are said to meet Him in the air.
Wright sees this as the Second Coming and there are lots of reasons why others conclude it's before the Second Coming. That's an enormous argument and I finally came to believe that it is a special event that removes the Church from the earth while the Day of the LORD plays out on the earth in a seven-year period which is laid out in the Book of Revelation. Heaven is no doubt "another dimension" without any particular space-time orientation, but the earth will still be the earth with its space-time orientation while the Church is in heaven wherever that is. We will be "changed" as the scripture says, the corruptible made incorruptible.
There has to be a Day of the Lord. It's been prophesied throughout the Old Testament. And the Church is not present in any of the Book of Revelation between Chapter three and Chapter nineteen when Jesus returns. There are plenty of biblical reasons why we believe what we believe. Wright is imposing too many of his own assumptions on a text that doesn't support them.
The remaking of heaven and earth doesn't happen at the Rapture or the Second Coming if you follow the scriptural references. I used to think it did, just as I used to think the Rapture was just our meeting Jesus in the air at His final return to earth. That is more along the lines of Wright's interpretation and it's the interpretation I used to have that I gave up for the Pre Tribulation Rapture. It is clear that the Church is promised by Jesus that we will not have to endure the wrath of God which is coming on the earth, and the Rapture explains that very nicely and it's buttressed by the absence of the Church in most of the Book of Revelation which spells out that final Day of the Lord when His wrath IS poured out on the earth. The Church is not there, we return with Christ when He does finally return. At that point He sets up His kingdom on the earth. It is not yet the NEW heavens and earth, that will occur after the Millennium or thousand-year reign of Christ which begins with the Second Coming, the Church having accompanied Him in our new glorified bodies.
If we just met Him in the air to return with Him to earth immediately there would be no Millennium in which people live normal lives, have children and so on, because glorified bodies can't procreate. I'm not saying I understand all the scripture behind these things, but it hangs together in a way the old idea which is Wright's does not. The War of Armageddon doesn't occur until the end of the Millennium of Christi's reign, when Satan is released and people who reject Christ join him against Christ. The people who live earthly lives during the Millennium are fallen and eventually their fallenness emerges in all out rebellion against God. We in our glorified bodies are saved from fallenness. All this has to happen for the scriptures to reach their fulfillment, otherwise way too much is left out of the prophetic picture.
The end of the space-time Creation won't come until the end of the Millennium. That is represented by the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven, described near the end of the Book of Revelation, a very strange three-dimensional cube that is said to have streets of gold but is nothing like any earthly city. It's the Bride of Christ and the place that will be inhabited by believers from then on and it is certainly not the space-time dimension we are used to. Believe me I don't understand any of this. It did occur to me that we are to be gently transitioned into a completely new way of being, we'll have a thousand years of more or less normal earthly life though the Church will have our glorified bodies during that time. The earth is to be restored to something Edenlikeness during this period of Christ's rule. It should serve to acclimate us gradually or by stages to the entirely new kind of existence that we'll have at the very end. It isn't going to be suddenly forced on us. In any case it is all very mysterious from where we sit now.
The upshot is that the next event on the divine calendar has to be the Rapture of the Church followed by the Day of the Lord. Wright's view is too condensed. He puts too many separate events together in one, Christ's return, the Rapture of the Church, the New Jerusalem which more or less symbolizes a whole new dimension, Armageddon and the Millennium if he even considers all that. He may leave some of it out. The Pre-Tribulation Rapture pictures it in meaningful stages, allowing for the fulfillment of many prophecies that Wright's scenario would leave out .
So Wright seems to prefer arbitrarily interpreting certain events as mere metaphors that sound awfully literal as written, with no justification whatever except his own inability to take them literally. Right?
Anyway the description of the Ascension is certainly one of those literal sounding events:
GDR writes:
Faith writes:
There's nothing wrong with picturing heaven as "up there" since after all Jesus is depicted as having ascended upward into a cloud when He left to be with the Father, and the angel explained to the disciples standing there with their mouths open that He would return the same way. So He is said to come from above and we who are left alive are said to meet Him in the air.
This is what comes from reading things with a 21st century mindset. Sure it is fine if you want to take as being literally up and literally in a cloud but that isn’t how it would been understood by the 7 churches that the letter was for.
What "21st centurity mindset" could you possibly be talking about? The literal reading is what we should expect of the early church, the metaphorizing reading of Wright is the modern mindset which can't stomach a literal reading, that's all.
Anyway the Ascension is described in Acts, not in Revelation: \
Acts 1 writes:
9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.
They were looking "steadfastly toward heaven as he went up." There is nothing metaphorical in this. They were watching a real event, Jesus going "UP," there is no justification whatever for turning this into a metaphor. He was talking to them, and while they were watching He went UP. They kept watching as He was "taken UP" and a CLOUD RECEIVED HIM. The word "up" occurs a number of times in this passage, and the cloud also has to be literal since they were outside and He went up toward the sky. And the angel tells them He will come back the SAME WAY as He left them. Where's the metaphor in this? It's an event that actually happened and it foreshadows another event that will actually happen as described.
GDR writes:
Firstly they understood that heaven being up was a metaphor for God’s space so they would say that He ascended.
Where do you get this idea from the scripture? If anyone would have trouble with the idea of God's space in some abstract sense, or another dimension, it would be the early church. We sophisticates are more likely to metaphorize the literal stuff.
Again, you have the wrong reference anyway since there isn't any reference to the ascension in the Letters to the Churches in Revelation that I know of, or perhaps you can show me.
As far as the cloud is concerned that simply meant the presence of God.
And I have to ask again what scriptural source do you have for this idea?: Actually clouds often refer to crowds of people or of angels. I think Wright is just making it all up out of whole cloth because he can't stand the literal reading, it's tooo "primitive" for him or something.
All through the OT God is spoken of as being in a cloud. For example in the exodus God led them in the day from a pillar of cloud. Also in the exodus story it tells of God being in a cloud at the top of Mt. Sinai and Moses descending. As Moses descended from a cloud , (sometimes it’s smoke), they talked about Jesus ascending into God’s presence as represented by a cloud.
But in ALL these cases it's a LITERAL cloud that the people could actually SEE. YOU may metaphorize it into another dimension in which God lives, and WRIGHT may do that, but those people didn't, they simply saw a cloud from which God spoke and the disciples saw a cloud into which Jesus disappeared. Literal clouds. WE know heaven is a separate dimension but why do you insist THEY did? In all cases a literal cloud was seen, and from what the angel said Jesus will also return from heaven in a literal cloud.
AbE: By the way I know I'm skipping around and haven't responded to earlier comments. It's not by plan, it's just that I respond to what comes to hand, or something I have a ready answer for, and I hope I can get back to the others but I don't know if I'll be able to.
I suggest that it is fine to do our best to understand everything else, (it is really interesting IMHO),but it isn’t what we hang our hat on.
When it comes to the Rapture, which would be a Christian's last moment on earth forever, in our earthly form, we are certainly to be expecting the event so we'll be ready for it. Ignoring it is not being ready for it. We are TOLD not to be caught by surprise, as by a "thief in the night." The event wikll be like that to all those who don't believe and aren't expecting it, but we are told to be ready.
I know I already answered this but I keep puzzling over how you or Wright could call the literal reading of the Ascension a w21st century mindset. The LITERAL reading mind you. The reading that says Jesus went UP and was received into a CLOUD. Thinking of this as something the disciples actually saw Jesus do, rise UP into the air into a cloud after which He was no longer seen, THAT you call a 21st century mindset? Certainly they would understand that He went into an invisible realm somehow, that is sort of symbolized by the cloud, but the cloud would have been a real cloud that they really saw with their eyes, and Jesus would have literally risen UP into it. Same with the cloud on Mt. Sinai. God spoke from the cloud. a literal cloud the people could see, but it would have been understood that God Himself is invisible and dwelt in an invisible heaven. What they understood is what we understand, but somehow you and Wright want to take away the real visible rising up of Jesus and the real visible cloud in both scenes? Why? The angel said jesus would return in the same way that He went. Why would you expect anything other than His coming down from a cloud as He rose up into a cloud? What is it about this literal reading that you and Wright object to?
There has to be a Day of the Lord. It's been prophesied throughout the Old Testament. And the Church is not present in any of the Book of Revelation between Chapter three and Chapter nineteen when Jesus returns. There are plenty of biblical reasons why we believe what we believe. Wright is imposing too many of his own assumptions on a text that doesn't support them.
I agree that there will be a day when this world is renewed. I haven’t the faintest idea when and whether this happens collectively for all of creation, or whether it happens individually at the end of this life. I don’t know but I tend towards the latter whereas Wright tends towards the first.
Also, in most cases the Day of the Lord was not in reference to the end of this world as we now know it, but it was the day that The Jewish people prayed and hoped for, when Yahweh would return and establish an earthly kingdom after defeating Israel’s enemies. It did take on a new understanding for Christians later.
There is no biblical reference to a Day of the Lord by that description. The Day of the Lord throughout scripture, especially through the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ekekiel, Joel and even in the New Testament in a few places, is a time when the wrath of God is poured out on the earth. If you search any searchable Bible on it you'll get these various descriptions of great destruction. Here is one:
Isa 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
This "Day" is prophesied in many places as I said, clearly meaning a time of great destruction of the earth though there are no clear clues to when it will come or how long it will last. It hasn't come yet though and it certainly doesn't seem to be something that would happen separately to individuals.
In this scenario I've come to accept, it has become synonymous with "The Great Tribulation" described by Jesus in various places, the time when God's wrath is so severe that if He hadn't cut it short no one would survive it. It is this Great Tribulation that occurs in the seven-year period that follows the Rapture, which is why it's called the "Pre-Tribulation Rapture" in this system. It is the wrath of God that is released when Jesus opens the seals of the scroll of judgment starting in Revelation 5 I think, the first judgments being represented by the "four horses of the apocalypse" of Revelation 6. The series of judgments on the earth continues through Revelation 18, all that being the period when we see no mention of the Church which fits with the idea that the Church has been Raptured, having been promised that we will not have to endure God's wrath that is coming.
During this period many people will be saved, however. They are described as a great multitude waving palm branches before the throne of God in Revelation 7, but they are not the Church. They are believers who will live earthly lives in their fallen nature during the Millennium that begins with Jesus' Second Coming.
So, the Day of the Lord described by many of the prophets of the Old Testament is God's final judgment on the earth before Jesus returns. There are some descriptions that raise questions about the timing but the predominant references fit this scenario of the seven year period after the Rapture.
Anyway, Wright, and you, seem to leave this necessary event completely out of your end times theology. Even most of the Book of Revelation.
™ Version 4.2