Rapture you say? Never mentioned in my Bible. But it was invented by a mentally ill young lady in the 1830’s. Beware Satans tricks.

These two videos total about 10 min. I believe they're a good, succinct explanation of the concept and explore the idea of pre/mid/post trib rapture.

Nothing gets Christians riled up like a discussion on the Rapture.  Rapture, no Rapture, Darbyism, Biblical, pre-Trib, post-Trib, pre-Wrath, only one Second Coming, and yada yada yada.

There are good arguments on both sides.  I just hope for the best and plan for the worst.  Work while it is light because darkness is coming.  When i'ts your time it's your time.  Stop sitting around waiting for "the moment" when  you could be doing things to grow the Kingdom.

Again, the assertion was the "Rapture" was in the Bible. It is not. Moreover, as I have shown the English word "Rapture" is only "there" after some intricate and creative efforts to find some "linguistically and semantically" common ground. "Rape" and "abduct" are also both part of the latin translation for harpazo, but you don't make the assertion that harpazo is "linguistically and semantically" related to those meanings, right? No, because while it would be "linguistically and semantically" correct, technically, it would not be reasonable. This is also the case when trying to get it to "Rapture" from rapio, which comes from harpazo

Finally, even if one were to agree that "Rapture" was present in the sense you and other Rapture adherents believe, the verse itself is not speaking in the context you need it to be. Look at what I, Cavsct, and others have posted about this verse.

That's all I am saying.

In what sense are you referring? I’m just talking about the event of being “caught up in the clouds” to meet the Lord spoken of by Paul in 1Thess 4:17. You’re the one presupposing theories that you disagree with and attributing to me. It’s a literal, specific event being described, I would dare you to argue differently, the question is, as you mentioned, the context of the discussion and when the event occurs. I’m open to different interpretations or theories, but to harp on the word “rapture” and the histories of different views is disingenuous and a straw man argument.

So you don't mean it in the John Darby sense, an event with dispensationalism as a necessity? You know, "Rapture", 1,000 years etc?

Of course you do, and we all know it here also!

Now you're trying to be as specific as possible, moving that goal post so far that it's about to fall off the field. THAT is disingenuous and a straw man.

I’m post mil..  the tares will be gathered before the wheat.  At lest that’s what the Bible says.  There will be ONE second coming.  And we will be judged.  Says that too.  As to the Church being the New Israel, I disagree with the wording.  God has always had His people.  Israel.  We were grafted in.  There is a continuous line.  The country by that name is just a country by that name.  Believers is what has always defined Israel.  People attribute a saving grace to a country that rejects the very God they claim protects them.  The line of the true Israel is unbroken.  And yes there will be a conversion of Jewish people.  God has one way.  Belief in Him.  No free pass because of blood lines.

I don’t, I’m not a Darby follower, not a Dispensationalist. The video I posted earlier is critical of this position. I’m a premillennialist, post-trib believer, so I’m sure you’d throw me in the same boat.

I’m not trying to be specific or misleading as you contend, I’m only pointing out that the main passage the provides the basis of what people would call the “rapture” is 1Thess 4:17, and that it is simply the “catching up” of believers who are alive in the air to meet the Lord. 1Cor 15:51-55 describes other details about the living believers being “changed” in this event. And there are other passages that refer or allude to it as well.

Whatever else you believe the word is implying has to do with theories about the Second Coming, the Church and a wide array of eschatological issues that go beyond the scope of these passages and aren’t limited to just Darby or dispensationalism, but are discussed in all denominations of Christendom.

It is incorrect at any level to draw a parallel between the Rapture in the Darbinian sense and its meaning as held by all other Christian groups. If you claim you don't know that, then perhaps this wasn't a topic best suited for your discussion. However, I know from past posts of yours that you do indeed understand this, so again, this newly articulated "nuance" is just perfidious.

think of the feeling we're gonna feel as we get yanked up, if we have any tiny fractions of time to realize whats happening tween when we are here and There!!! its gonna be like that gif of guy from guardian of the galaxy x1million, looooolz!!!

my question, in relation to rapture/end of age/signs, is the fig tree.  Jesus said something about bearing fruit right? the generation that sees the fig tree bear fruit will not pass away?  or that could refer to the millenium i suppose, ie, 144k witnesses converting folks, they are harvesting for sure, buuuuuuut.  what is israel doing now that "bears fruit" if they are not preaching Jesus and Him crucified? they looking to rebuild temple and none of htat says anthing about "fruit" in my mind, thats straight up 180 in wrong direction still, no?! what am i missing

pps, im mostly on board with a rapture, but, if it doesnt happen that way, we will figure it out soon, and then its only 7 years or death and it will all be over.....  my problem with rapture is folks get so much wrong since beginning of time, and hear we are, "counting on"  things happening the way theologians have interpreted it, but if theres things i know about humans 1; they dont learn, 2; we get it long alot.... sooooo,  i think we should be about our Daddys business and use words if we have to, lolz! (say preach Jesus, and use words if you have to. thats deep!)