For those who don't believe in earthly Rapture...

[Desert Snake]

The bible has been rewritten many times by a lot of people.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Desert Snake]

Explain how that indicates and earthly rapture without using your conclusion to prove your premise.

There was no conclusion given in the question.
neither rational, or skeptical.

 

[Desert Snake]

Another example of selective interpretation?

Is it? Is that an answer formed in the manner of a question?

 

[RationalSkeptic]

There was no conclusion given in the question.
neither rational, or skeptical.

Yes there was.

You are under the conclusion that an earthly rapture will take place and then try to prove your position by finding evidence that could point to it.

A rational person looks at the evidence and forms a conclusion based on it, not vice versa.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

You didn't answer my question.

I already have. How do you know if anything in the bible is true if it was been rewritten many times by different people?

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes there was.

You are under the conclusion that an earthly rapture will take place and then try to prove your position by finding evidence that could point to it.

A rational person looks at the evidence and forms a conclusion based on it, not vice versa.

You haven't addressed the actual question of the OP/ again, neither rational , skeptical, or even on topic.
Address the OP verses, and then you might have an argument. Right now, you aren't presenting anything.

 

[Desert Snake]

Is there anything in the Bible, that you don't think is made up?

My question

The bible has been rewritten many times by a lot of people.

Your non-answer

I already have. How do you know if anything in the bible is true if it was been rewritten many times by different people?

No, you didn't. You 'answered', with another question.
the question was..
Is there anything in the Bible, that you don't think is made up?

 

[RationalSkeptic]

You haven't addressed the actual question of the OP/ again, neither rational , skeptical, or even on topic.
Address the OP verses, and then you might have an argument. Right now, you aren't presenting anything.

Incorrect yet again.

You posted some verses and said "how do you explain this without believing in this?"

That verse is extremely vague and can be interpreted several ways such as representing who is going to become a follower of the messiah or not.

And coming from someone who believes in a book of myths without reason and against all reasons I do not consider you anywhere close to a judge on rationality and skepticism.

 

[Desert Snake]

Incorrect yet again.

You posted some verses and said "how do you explain this without believing in this?"

Correct.

That verse is extremely vague and can be interpreted several ways such as representing who is going to become a follower of the messiah or not.

And coming from someone who believes in a book of myths without reason and against all reasons I do not consider you anywhere close to a judge on rationality and skepticism.

You just made an arbitrary claim, and according to your own standard of debate, /which you don't follow/, now must provide proof of that claim.

 

[RationalSkeptic]

Correct.




You just made an arbitrary claim, and according to your own standard of debate, /which you don't follow/, now must provide proof of that claim.

I made a positive claim yes.

My proof is that I interpreted it differently from you.

Now can you please provide proof why it has to be interpreted your way?

Also if you continue to make unsubstantiated snide remarks I will consider those ad hominems and report them all duly.

 

[Desert Snake]

I made a positive claim yes.

My proof is that I interpreted it differently from you.

Now can you please provide proof why it has to be interpreted your way?

Also if you continue to make unsubstantiated snide remarks I will consider those ad hominems and report them all duly.

Haha, try presenting an argument.

 

[RationalSkeptic]

Haha, try presenting an argument.

I have.

My argument is that your loaded question is fallacious.

 

[wizanda]

NASB Translation
abandoned (1), allow (5), allowed (2), divorce (2), forgave (2), forgive (23), forgiven (23), forgives (1), gave...permission (1), leave (7), leaves (2), leaving (8), left (38), let (9), let...alone (6), let him have (1), neglected (1), neglecting (2), permit (6), permitted (1), permitting (1), send...away (1), tolerate (1), uttered (1), yielded (1).

Sorry yet that is really silly word analysis (Semantics)....

We've got one instance of it meaning abandoned, yet multiple of it meaning to forgive sins, and left; therefore normally we go with a majority understanding to find a meaning.

 

[2ndpillar]

Explain verses
Matthew 24:40-41

Dear jd,
Mt 24:40-41 is paralleled in Mt 13:30, which is more explicit. Those "taken" of Mt 24:40 are the same as the "tares" which are "gathered up". The tares are "gathered up" prior to "gather the wheat into the barn" (Mt 13:30). Your "rapture" is the gathering of the tares to be bundled and have them "burn up" (Mt 13:30).

 

[2ndpillar]

And the gathering the wheat to the barn, /assuming these verses are same in meaning/, isn't ''Rapture''?
Do you adhere to the concept of earthly Rapture, and if so, then the verse you provided supports that idea?
If you adhere to the earthly Rapture concept, then, how does not the gathering of the tares support that idea, when it is same in meaning,/rather supporting evidence/, to the verse you provided?

Dear jd,
The gathering into the barn follows the "gathering up" of the tares (Mt 13:30), and follows the resurrection of the "whole house of Israel" (Ez 37:12), which precedes "I will bring you into the land of Israel" (Ez 37:12). This prophesy is for the "whole house of Israel", and not for the "adulteress" (Hosea 3) bought for the equivalence of 30 pieces of silver/Christian church (Zech 11:7-8 & 13), which is the "flock doomed to slaughter" (Zech 11:7), which was "pastured" by the two shepherds, Peter (the worthless shepherd) of Zech 11:17, and Paul, the shepherd called "Favor" for his false gospel of grace (Zech 11:10).

The "tares" are the weeds which look like wheat, and will be gathered and bundled and burned up. They are characterized in Mt 13:41 as those "who commit lawlessness" which would identify them as followers of Paul. And no, Paul is a false prophet, who is dead, as are his disciples, and there is no "rapture" per se. And there is no "twinkling" for which those waiting for such will be dealt with harshly (Isaiah 28:15-20).

 

[Desert Snake]

So, most Christians are Hell bound, basically.
Am I supposed to know what ''twinkling'' means?

 

[2ndpillar]

So, most Christians are Hell bound, basically.
Am I supposed to know what ''twinkling'' means?

Dear jd,
You are expounding on "rapture" which is based on Paul's "twinkling" (1 Cor 15:52). Paul thought he would be made imperishable in a twinkling of an eye. He wound up dead instead.

If the "foreigner" wants to worship on "My Holy Mountain", then they must keep from "profaning the Sabbath", and hold "fast My covenant" (Is 56:6). It doesn't include following the false prophet Paul, for that is the "broad" "way" to "destruction" (Mt 7:13).

There is no hell as taught by most of "Christianity". There is the pit, where you are buried, and the lake of fire, where the suffering of the "wicked" ends, except apparently the false prophet and beast have a long engagement booked. (Rev 20:10)

1 Cor 15:52
.52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality

 

[savagewind]

If the "foreigner" wants to worship on "My Holy Mountain", then they must keep from "profaning the Sabbath", and hold "fast My covenant" (Is 56:6). It doesn't include following the false prophet Paul, for that is the "broad" "way" to "destruction" (Mt 7:13).

I thought the broad way means do whatever you want. Paul taught the opposite of that in my opinion.

 

[Desert Snake]

I thought the broad way means do whatever you want. Paul taught the opposite of that in my opinion.

That would change contextually, to whatever one thinks Jesus 'taught'.

 

[2ndpillar]

I thought the broad way means do whatever you want. Paul taught the opposite of that in my opinion.

Dear savage,
Paul was all things to all men. The "broad" "way" , allows Paul to do all things, for he teaches there is "no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus", which is absurd on the face of that notion. When one sins, they are cut off from God, and his son as well. Paul, unlike what he says, was not free "from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2), and he is dead to prove that point. For Paul, "all things are lawful for me" (1 Cor 6:12).