Are You Sure You Don't Want To Be Left Behind?

[DAII]

Of great interest , in Luke 17, is that Christ begins his remarks about taking and his judgment with these words:

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”

It would seem we are dealing with a spiritual reality in all of this.
Not something seen with human eyes - thinking out loud

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by DAII

Not sure the usage (not grammar) of multiple words somehow doesn't still convey judgment. Why not find other scripture to help unlock this one, Praxeas ... this has the classic makings of a WORD STUDY FALLACY ... http://www.studydesk.org/Hermeneutic...0Fallacies.htm

In Luke 17, where there are parallel statements made by Christ, about people being "taken" ... using airo and lambano again ... Still, it most definitely indicates a moment and taking in judgment ...

he is asked point blank: Where Lord?

The word for taken just can't mean judgment. Look at how the word is used...first it's definition

to receive near, that is, associate with oneself (in any familiar or intimate act or relation);

Mat 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,

The difference is, in the flood the group are taken to be with the Lord (relationship), they are destroyed from off the planet

In Noah's flood there are 2 groups, those that are taken into the Ark and those left behind to be judged.

but as I pointed out, the context is the angels reaping the earth and taking away (and by implication,leaving others behind) the elect

Luke 17 seems to be about the coming of the Son of man
Luk 17:20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
Luk 17:21nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
Luk 17:22 And he said to the disciples, "The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.
Luk 17:23And they will say to you, 'Look, there!' or 'Look, here!' Do not go out or follow them.
Luk 17:24For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.
Luk 17:25But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
Luk 17:26Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
Luk 17:27They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Luk 17:28Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot--they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,
Luk 17:29but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--
Luk 17:30so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

Some translations use the word "carcass" for body in verse 37. Doesn't sound like heaven ... and why continually make comparisons to the other judgments other than Noah ... like Lot's wife ... and Sodom and Gomorrah???

I don't think he was comparing angels to vultures particularly since the other verse says "The Elect"

It would appear the elect are gathered to see him mete out judgment ... which happens subsequently.

Then, like Noah, The Elect are removed from the judgment somehow.

The alternative is to force an interpretation ...

Context here is most definitely meting of judgment ... not "the rapture". Adding biblical witness to the Matthew 24 account ... and credence to Raven's interpretation.

The context shows two classes, those that are judged and those that are not.

Noah's account shows two classes. Those that are without and those that are gathered within.

[DAII]

No one has made "taken" and "judgment" to be synonymous ... Praxeas. Your word fallacy has ignored an entire passage in Luke 17 that deals with primarily judgment/punishment... with zero mention of the elect who are gathered in or angels ... and yeah we get the two groups, Prax.

I don't know where to start with you ... because history teaches me that this will lead to a circular rabbit trail.


Sufficed to say the word paralambano .... often translated as "received" in the NASB and KJV ... (is it not possible to receive judgment .... ?)

KJV (50) - receive, 15; take, 30; take away, 1; take unto, 2; take up, 2;

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/gr...gi?number=3880

Look how intimate and near this taking or paralambano is ...

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mt 4:8

and variations like prolambano have multiple meanings ...
to take before
to anticipate, to forestall
to take one by forestalling (him i.e. before he can flee or conceal his crime)
surprise, detect

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/gr...gi?number=4301

Dumbfounded, really ... and almost disappointed but if this proof text verse is that important to you to keep your rapture theology in tact ... HAVE AT IT.

Even if your choice is to deliberately ignore witness and context ... you stick with the word fallacy, good man. Wooden literalism ALERT.

Galatians 6:1
Brethren, even if anyone is caught (prolambano) in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.


Lambano ...
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/gr...gi?number=2983


This is almost too easy.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It has nothing to do with heritage, it's context and grammar...back to hermeneutics

Amen.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by DAII

No one has made "taken" and "judgment" to be synonymous ... Praxeas. Your word fallacy has ignored an entire passage in Luke 17 that deals with judgment ... with zero mention of the elect or angels ...

I don't know where to start with you ... because history teaches me that this will lead to a circular rabbit trail.

Sufficed to say prolambano has multiple meanings ...

to take before
to anticipate, to forestall
to take one by forestalling (him i.e. before he can flee or conceal his crime)
surprise, detect

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/gr...gi?number=4301

Dumbfounded, really ... and almost disappointed but if this proof text verse is that important to you to keep your rapture theology in tact ... HAVE AT IT.

Even if your choice is to deliberately ignore witness and context ... you stick with the word fallacy, good man. Wooden literalism ALERT.

Galatians 6:1
Brethren, even if anyone is caught (prolambano) in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.

This is almost too easy.

First of all, just because Luke 17 fails to mention the elect is no reason to take our magic markers and remove them from the text in math

I have not stuck with one thing and ignored another. I have examined the context of both Luke and Math and pointed out the differences grammatically

BTW the comparison wa not "taken" with "judgement", but "
to receive near, that is, associate with oneself
familiar or intimate act or relation)

to

to lift; by implication to take up or away

and to the noah event where the first thing that happend was Noah was entered into the Ark, separating him and his family from the sinners and the sinners are destroyed

but don't stop at Mat 24, continue on to Mat 25 where the 5 wise virgins are taken and the 5 foolish left behind.

BTW the first comparison was done by raven to compare those taken to those destroyed by the flood

[Falla39]

Proverbs 10:30 KJV

The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Proverbs 10:30 KJV

The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.

So you agree with Raven, too.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

First of all, just because Luke 17 fails to mention the elect is no reason to take our magic markers and remove them from the text in math

I have not stuck with one thing and ignored another. I have examined the context of both Luke and Math and pointed out the differences grammatically

BTW the comparison wa not "taken" with "judgement", but "
to receive near, that is, associate with oneself
familiar or intimate act or relation)

to

to lift; by implication to take up or away

and to the noah event where the first thing that happend was Noah was entered into the Ark, separating him and his family from the sinners and the sinners are destroyed

but don't stop at Mat 24, continue on to Mat 25 where the 5 wise virgins are taken and the 5 foolish left behind.

BTW the first comparison was done by raven to compare those taken to those destroyed by the flood

Here again is where you've linked a verb (paralambano) to only have a positive connotation by repeatedly giving a partial definition.

Raven, can speak of those in the field and mill being taken (in judgment) because Christ gives several other examples of other being taken in judgment (Noah, Lot's wife, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) yet your retort is that paralambano must have a positive connotation ...

seeking to solidify this with it meaning only a positive taking in relationship ...

quoting:

to receive near, that is, associate with oneself (in any familiar or intimate act or relation);

Mat 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,

The difference is, in the flood the group are taken to be with the Lord (relationship)

Yet ignoring other verses using the same verb where the receiving, or taking up, is not so positive but rather NEGATIVE.

Examples:

------------------------------------------------
Jesus taken to receive temptation

Mt 4:8 -
Again, the devil taketh him up (paralambano) into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Care to speak of an intimate relationship between the devil and Jesus?

--------------------------------------------------------

Jesus taken by soldiers to receive judgment:
Mt 27:27 -Then the soldiers of the governor took (paralambano) Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers

----------------------------------------------------

Jesus taken to receive punishment and crucifixion:

Joh 19:16 -
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took (paralambano) Jesus, and led him away.
--------------------------------------------------------

Very safe to say that one can be "paralambano"ed to receive judgement.

Truth is paralambano can be translated as received, taken up as a neutral verb that depends on who and what will be doing the taking or receiving.

When Jesus is asked where will they be taken ... speaking of those taken in the field and mill ... it does not pair up with the traditional dispensationalist view.

32Remember Lot's wife! 33Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left."[d]

37" Where, Lord?" they asked.
He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather

Praxeas, we can go in circles yet grammar and context ... hermeneutic betray your attempts to stay with a single or partial isolated meaning.

They're taken up to be judged and not to a very pleasant "place". I really don't like carcasses and vultures ... and if heaven has them ... I'm having second thoughts.

[Falla39]

Who was left behind when Noah's Ark began to float.
Who was left behind when rightous Lot got out of Sodom!
Who was left behind when the Israelites came out of Egyptian bondage.
Who was left behind when those who remembered Jesus words, fled to
the mountains, when they saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem.
Out of ten virgins, why did only five virgins go in. They were not ready!

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Who was left behind when Noah's Ark began to float. ... those left behind and not removed on the earth were saved - Noah and his family
Who was left behind when rightous Lot got out of Sodom! those left behind and not removed on the earth were saved - Lot and his daughters

Let's stick to the parallels given.