Home » Culture & Society

Reader Feedback

From the lens Rapture Not Ready.

  • GetFactsnotHype May 16, 2011 @ 11:29 pm | delete
    I agree "Rapture Ready" is a hoax, and I do not believe in any of their 10 (ten) signs of the end of times. In fact the word "rapture" does NOT occur in the Bible.

    With that being said, I do not however exactly agree with this statement you have "The New Testament writers spoke of events which were at hand in their day. That means they could not be at hand in our day. One or the other must be true. Since at hand means near, then if those events were near in the apostles' times, (Romans 13:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Phil. 4:5; James 5:7,8; 1 Peter 4:7, 17; 2 John 2:18, 19; Revelation 1:1-3; 22:6, 10, 12), they could not be near in the 21st century"

    Although I can see where the confusion lies within most people - MORE THAN ONE scripture from the Holy Bible has a double-fold message, and CAN apply then and now both. There are many scriptures with a two-fold prophesy.

    But on the basis of the rapture and anyone spreading info about it - I can and do agree with you that it is false - from that standpoint. I have written 5 web pages here on Squidoo on Christianity Myths myself numbered 1-5 and about to start #6. Feel free to stop by.
  • Soundbyte May 17, 2011 @ 3:16 am | delete
    Thanks for your comments and I appreciate the fact that you recognize the "Rapture Ready" doctrine is a myth. On May 21st, we'll have more disappointed people for believing the hoax again. Others will blame Christianity for what these men blindly prophesy.

    Now to your point about double prophecies, since all the passages related to the end times, point to one event, and since every passage noted above is a time prophecy which speaks of events that were at hand in the first century, i.e. in the days of the Apostles and which you acknowledge, then you are absolutely correct that they cannot be at hand in our day.

    That is a major acknowledgment which too many are just too blind or unwilling to admit. But here's the problem. If you state that one of those passages has a double meaning, then it will force all of them to have a double meaning. What is the likelihood of that? Virtually nil.

    For a text to have a double meaning, we must have an inspired prophet, i.e. the word of God to tell us that the prophecy should be applied twice or more. Imagine how one could run wild claiming a prophecy has a double meaning. Let me give some examples:

    Suppose we were to say that the prophecy of Paul's departure was at hand (1 Tim. 4:7) has a double meaning. Then Paul would have to live and die twice, once in the first century (which he did) and he would have to be alive today to be about to die again. Is that believable?

    What if we say that the prophecy of Jesus' betrayer being at hand has a double meaning? It would mean that both Judas and Jesus would have to be alive on earth and about to betray and be betrayed again. Whose to say it's not if we allow for double-prophecy fulfillment at our own discretion?

    We could go on and on with such ideas but they would only result in more folly.

    Here's the problem in the words of Christ for those who just can't seem to accept the words of scripture.

    Jesus even had to chide his disciples for unbelief. "Then he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! (Lk. 24:25)

    So, let's analyze the double prophecy interpretation. If the prophecies are at hand today that means they are about to happen today and we should experience them before our generation dies. (That's what Jesus taught, Matt. 24:34).

    But if they have a "double meaning" then it means that they did in fact happen in the first century, otherwise it would not be a double meaning but a "single meaning." Now if they were in fact at hand in the first century, then they occurred then. That would be necessary for them to have a double meaning.

    But, according to Hebrews 9:28, Christ would only appear "once" at his second coming --then shall he appear a second time. Now if that has a double meaning, it would have to read he would appear a "third time" also. You see, there's no end to where such reasoning will lead.

    So, again, at hand means near, imminent, about to happen. If the event did not happen in the first century, then it was not at hand and the apostles were liars inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is an utter impossibility for God cannot lie.

    If they were not at hand, then "at hand" means not at hand. That destroys the double prophecy idea also. If at hand means "not at hand" then, it would likewise mean "not at hand" now, so again, the double prophecy theory falls on its own weight.

    One would also wonder, if "at hand" means "not at hand" what does "not at hand" mean? Moses recorded Balaam as saying, "I see Him but "not now; I behold Him, but not near: ..." (Num. 24:17). Balaam spoke this during the Exodus 1400 years before Christ's coming to destroy his enemies. That is a second coming passage. He said Jesus' coming was not near in Moses day.

    But later, Moses wrote that many years after Israel had settled in the land and after the Gentiles had come into the faith, the day of calamity would be at hand. (Deut. 32:35-36). Jesus and the apostles quote many of the texts in Deuteronomy and apply them to their day.

    Now here's the point. If 1500 years was too long a time for the coming of the Lord to be "at hand" then 1900 years plus be greater is likewise too long a time for Jesus' coming to be at hand. That again destroys the two-fold fulfillment concept.

    The fact of the matter is, Jesus came in the first century as he promised. That's why the "Rapture Ready" doctrine is a hoax, and any doctrine which teaches that Christ will return at any time in the future beyond his return in 70AD is likewise a hoax. Let us pray for those who will once again be misguided by Harold Camping's May 21st judgment prediction and those who are persuaded through the teachings of Family Radio's endtimes prophesying.
  • Soundbyte May 17, 2011 @ 3:20 am | delete
    Thanks for your comments and I appreciate the fact that you recognize the "Rapture Ready" doctrine is a myth. On May 21st, we'll have more disappointed people for believing the hoax again. Others will blame Christianity for what these men blindly prophesy.

    Now to your point about double prophecies, since all the passages related to the end times, point to one event, and since every passage noted above is a time prophecy which speaks of events that were at hand in the first century, i.e. in the days of the Apostles and which you acknowledge, then you are absolutely correct that they cannot be at hand in our day.

    That is a major acknowledgment which too many are just too blind or unwilling to admit. But here's the problem. If you state that one of those passages has a double meaning, then it will force all of them to have a double meaning. What is the likelihood of that? Virtually nil.

    For a text to have a double meaning, we must have an inspired prophet, i.e. the word of God to tell us that the prophecy should be applied twice or more. Imagine how one could run wild claiming a prophecy has a double meaning. Let me give some examples:

    Suppose we were to say that the prophecy of Paul's departure was at hand (1 Tim. 4:7) has a double meaning. Then Paul would have to live and die twice, once in the first century (which he did) and he would have to be alive today to be about to die again. Is that believable?

    What if we say that the prophecy of Jesus' betrayer being at hand has a double meaning? It would mean that both Judas and Jesus would have to be alive on earth and about to betray and be betrayed again. Whose to say it's not if we allow for double-prophecy fulfillment at our own discretion?

    We could go on and on with such ideas but they would only result in more folly.

    Here's the problem in the words of Christ for those who just can't seem to accept the words of scripture.

    Jesus even had to chide his disciples for unbelief. "Then he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! (Lk. 24:25)

    So, let's analyze the double prophecy interpretation. If the prophecies are at hand today that means they are about to happen today and we should experience them before our generation dies. (That's what Jesus taught, Matt. 24:34).

    But if they have a "double meaning" then it means that they did in fact happen in the first century, otherwise it would not be a double meaning but a "single meaning." Now if they were in fact at hand in the first century, then they occurred then. That would be necessary for them to have a double meaning.

    But, according to Hebrews 9:28, Christ would only appear "once" at his second coming --then shall he appear a second time. Now if that has a double meaning, it would have to read he would appear a "third time" also. You see, there's no end to where such reasoning will lead.

    So, again, at hand means near, imminent, about to happen. If the event did not happen in the first century, then it was not at hand and the apostles were liars inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is an utter impossibility for God cannot lie.

    If they were not at hand, then "at hand" means not at hand. That destroys the double prophecy idea also. If at hand means "not at hand" then, it would likewise mean "not at hand" now, so again, the double prophecy theory falls on its own weight.

    One would also wonder, if "at hand" means "not at hand" what does "not at hand" mean? Moses recorded Balaam as saying, "I see Him but "not now; I behold Him, but not near: ..." (Num. 24:17). Balaam spoke this during the Exodus 1400 years before Christ's coming to destroy his enemies. That is a second coming passage. He said Jesus' coming was not near in Moses day.

    But later, Moses wrote that many years after Israel had settled in the land and after the Gentiles had come into the faith, the day of calamity would be at hand. (Deut. 32:35-36). Jesus and the apostles quote many of the texts in Deuteronomy and apply them to their day.

    Now here's the point. If 1500 years was too long a time for the coming of the Lord to be "at hand" then 1900 years plus be greater is likewise too long a time for Jesus' coming to be at hand. That again destroys the two-fold fulfillment concept.

    The fact of the matter is, Jesus came in the first century as he promised. That's why the "Rapture Ready" doctrine is a hoax, and any doctrine which teaches that Christ will return at any time in the future beyond his return in 70AD is likewise a hoax. Let us pray for those who will once again be misguided by Harold Camping's May 21st judgment prediction and those who are persuaded through the teachings of Family Radio's endtimes prophesying.
  • LetGodBeTrue May 11, 2010 @ 6:04 am | delete
    American: You have answered your own question. You respond to the preterist positions by appealing not to the Scriptures but to church tradition and its "consistent view." I challenge any anti-preterist to look closely at preterism's sound hermeneutical and exegetical approach to the Bible before passing judgment. Church pews are filled with those who do not study to show themselves approved--~they are workmen needing to be ashamed for failing to rightly divide the word of truth! God does not hit us over the head to give us His truth. Bible study is hard work and requires dedication and diligence. Sadly, such attributes are missing in Christendom, and it is this lazy approach to God's Word that has contributed to the "consistent view" over the ages. God will not honor that. Those who come to the preterist view do so because of a willingness to "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). They come because of an insatiable desire for understanding no matter what precious, long-held, popular positions they have to relinquish in the light of biblical truths. If you would but look at the Scriptures instead of the "consistent view" of church history, you would discover that the things you have been taught to look for in our day are far behind us. In light of the clear teachings of the Bible, word up word and precept upon precept, it is futurism in all of its forms that is "ridiculous and makes no sense." Don't just "think about it." STUDY
  • chewytomato Mar 4, 2010 @ 12:09 pm | delete
    Keep preaching it my brother! American has got it WRONG! John said the Anti-Christ was already present in HIS day!
  • WandaShort Feb 28, 2010 @ 6:57 pm | delete
    Hi Mr. Bell! I am so blessed by your teachings! I listen to the Two Guys & a Bible every week and I am always challenged and spiritually fed! I have posted this link on my facebook page for Reaching Out Ministry too....blessings my friend!
  • Soundbyte Nov 11, 2010 @ 8:37 pm | delete
    Hi Wanda, It's been a while since I visited this page, but it's never too late to say thanks. Thank you for your support and encouragement. God Bless
  • Soundbyte May 20, 2008 @ 4:30 pm | delete
    American, may we have the "proof" versus the "poof" for a yet future tribulation or Rapture? Here's a challenge for you. Produce one passage from the New Testament with the subject of either "Rapture" or great tribulation that is, (a)yet future to us or (b) does not have an imminent first century time statement in the context. And, please, give it your best "American" try.
  • FollowsTheWay Jul 20, 2010 @ 10:35 pm | delete
    Not "American," but here you go (btw, I think the "rapture" is a hoax):

    Mat. 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

    22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

    -------------------------;
    No way this is early first century; can only be a time that has not yet occurred.

    Brother, there is so much biblical error on this web page it would take all day just to type the refutations. Repentance is your friend.
  • May 17, 2008 @ 11:17 am | delete
    Are you a Preterist? I am a little unclear by the info on this page. If so that is a shame you are being mislead by false doctrine. The historic church throughout all ages of Christianity has the consistent view that the world awaits a future Antichrist and future Tribulation including a Rapture or Harpazo or to be caught up. Now why would our great creator and God allow His people to be so mislead for so long? It's ridiculous and makes no sense! Think about it! Preterist have got it wrong!
  • LetGodBeTrue May 11, 2010 @ 5:59 am | delete
    American: You have answered your own question. You respond to the preterist positions by appealing not to the Scriptures but to church tradition and its "consistent view." I challenge any anti-preterist to look closely at preterism's sound hermeneutical and exegetical approach to the Bible before passing judgment. Church pews are filled with those who do not study to show themselves approved--~they are workmen needing to be ashamed for failing to rightly divide the word of truth! God does not hit us over the head to give us His truth. Bible study is hard work and requires dedication and diligence. Sadly, such attributes are missing in Christendom, and it is this lazy approach to God's Word that has contributed to the "consistent view" over the ages. God will not honor that. Those who come to the preterist view do so because of a willingness to "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). They come because of an insatiable desire for understanding no matter what precious, long-held, popular positions they have to relinquish in the light of biblical truths. If you would but look at the Scriptures instead of the "consistent view" of church history, you would discover that the things you have been taught to look for in our day are far behind us. In light of the clear teachings of the Bible, word up word and precept upon precept, it is futurism in all of its forms that is "ridiculous and makes no sense." Don't just "think about it." STUDY!
  • ephraim1946 May 1, 2008 @ 10:31 am | delete
    Although none of us have all the truth, it's refreshing to let the Scriptures speak for themselves instead of through religious earplugs. One of my favorite sayings is, "What do you believe and why do you believe it?"
  • John Kesler Feb 26, 2008 @ 12:26 pm | delete
    When Mr Bell gives a teleconference lesson it is like an advanced college course. No fluff. No wasted time. Just a n in-depth study of the Scriptures. Thank you Mr. Bell
  • Ed Grant Feb 19, 2008 @ 10:12 pm | delete
    Great lesson tonight!

by

Soundbyte

I love reading books, -religious, wealth creation, personal development, health and wellness,and real estate investing. I like music, am an amateur ba... more »

Feeling creative? Create a Lens!

Explore related pages

Related Tags