Raf

No. That was my point. There are Biblical concepts whose words are not used in the Bible. "Advent" and "Ascension" are clear examples. Umm, I said LATIN. Not Greek. And it's not a stretch to suggest that the noun form of a word is related to its verb form. The words "caught up" in the Latin Vulgate are the word "rapiemur," from which we derive the English word "rapture," which can also be used as a verb (or, more accurately in this case, a past participle, ie, "we which are alive and remain shall be raptured together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air"). First of all, it's not being "misused." "Caught up (past participle, not a verb)" implies "rapture (noun)" much the same way "he was baptized (past participle)" implies "there was a baptism (noun)" and yes, much the same way "I am believing (present participle)" implies "I have faith." Wierwille used a Biblically correct term, I agree. But to say that "rapture" is a Biblically incorrect term is false. Not just provably false, but proven false (unless you want to argue that no words derived from the Latin may be used in discourse, in which case I would respectfully but adamantly disagree). It's not an unbiblical term. Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate, and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of "gathering together" mentioned in scripture. They gave this answer in the Revelation tapes you listened to, and I just gave an answer here. Backatcha, brother. P.S. Once again, to make it clear, I am not trying to defend dispensationalism or a pre-trib rapture here. I'm isolating my comments to one point and one point only, that the word "rapture" is not unbiblical.

Steve, You're entitled to your views on what the Bible does and does not teach, but the word "rapture" is indeed a Biblical word. It's the latin form of the word "caught up." Saying "the rapture" is not a Biblical word is similar to saying "the new birth" and "advent" are not Biblical terms. Maybe they're not in the King James, but the concepts are certainly there. (I'm not trying to defend pre-trib or dispensationalism at this point: only noting that the word "rapture" is not unbiblical).

I know this isn't what you had in mind, but... ;)--> AHHH, AUTUMN IN FLORIDA!

Mike again misses the point: YOU MEAN WE HAVE TO DIG UP A 1978 ISSUE OF THE WAY MAGAZINE TO FIND OUT WHAT JESUS CHRIST IS DOING TODAY?!?! Three books on the life, death and person of Jesus Christ, as well as eight books on various other subjects, and none of them cover what Jesus Christ is really doing today; we need to find a 1978 Way Magazine? Sheesh! :)-->

Ditto.

Actually, we don't know that. Book simply doesn't say.

I say that there is such a thing as a false conversion. It takes place when a person SAYS "Jesus is Lord" but doesn't mean it. I call it the difference between profession and confession. Wierwille (or rather, Kenyon) called it the difference between mental assent and believing. Whatever you call it, it's the difference between meaning something and just saying something. "Jesus is Lord." Anyone can say it. But not everyone who says it, means it. I don't pretend to know who does or who doesn't. But I can guarantee you there are tons of people who think Jesus is their Lord, but he's not, because it's a mere profession and not a true confession of the heart. Of those, Jesus said they would come to him and say "Lord, Lord," and he will reply that he never knew them. Strong words, but I think they prove that there are people who THINK Jesus is their Lord, but don't really believe it. Speaking of "Left Behind," one of the most believable characters in the first (awful) movie is the pastor, who sits in church after the "rapture" and prays about what a hypocritical fool he was. "I knew Your message. I knew Your Word. I stood RIGHT HERE! And I PREACHED IT! And I was GOOD! But they're gone. They're gone. Ah, but knowing and believing are two different things."

You know, this is EXACTLY (and I mean danged near word for word) what Kirk Cameron's character does with another character in the (awful) movie, "Left Behind II: Tribulation Force."

Dave, I think Steve is trying to say that posting links to articles is all Jeff does. I think Jeff is a great guy. If he wants to just post links, that's fine with me. I'd rather hear his own words too. But if he doesn't want to do that, it's up to him. It does leave him open to the criticism, though. Jeff, I share your struggle.

Count me in.

Silly? Oh, you mean the acronym! Coooool!

Could you be a tad more specific?

Now THIS, I think, bears repeating... It's amusing to me that people who would not accept these qualities in a candidate for dog catcher excuse them in a person who claims to speak for Jesus Christ.

Mike, Here's what I wrote: I'm not aware of you ever denying what Wierwille did. Minimizing it, yes. Downplaying it, yes. Misrepresenting it, yes. Mischaracterizing it, yes. Excusing it to your idolatrous ends, yes. But never denying it. So your rebuttal is unnecessary.

Mike, listen to me. Lean in real close... Idolatrous pigswill!!! Thank you for playing.

Here's a scenario for you to consider: God and Jesus Christ are face to face. God talks to Christ directly, tells him everything he needs to know. I mean, you don't even KNOW how ridiculous you sound! That God would need to send Jesus to the future to read PFAL instead of JUST TELLING HIM TO HIS FACE!

Too true, Rascal. People can praise Wierwille to the skies, but let someone point out that the emperor had no clothes (pun intended) and all of a sudden it's "waaaaah, stop talking about a man after he's dead..." You know what? Everytime anyone denies what Wierwille did, they call his accusers LIARS while they live. I agree and will say again that the value (and/or lack thereof) of what he taught stands independently of his character.

You are a master all right: a master of misrepresentation. For your information (twit), the objection was not due to the feeling that Jesus is all-knowing, but rather to the feeling that 2000 years of direct connection with God and being seated at His right hand requires a supplemental education to be found in your flawed orange book. That you should think Jesus ever had something to learn from PFAL reveals (as if it needed revealing by this point) the sad depth of your idolatry.

Since, however, PFAL was not given by revelation, but is the flawed work of a flawed man, it's only logical that honest people would be able to weed out the good from the bad in it and come out the better.

If being on gscafe has taught you nothing else, it should have taught you this: Although you were there, there was plenty that you did not witness. Same goes for me.

Getting better at that dodging and distracting bit aren't you. The point: YOU said, citing a well known Wierwillism, that the gospels are for our learning. But the problem with that is that the word for "learning" in the verse Wierwille quoted is the same word as "doctrine," so the gospels, according to the Bible (the same authority Wierwille was relying upon to make his statement in the first place), are for our doctrine. Naturally, anything in any book of the Bible that's not specifically addressed to us is not to be carried out by us (unless you've made a habit of accepting sister Phoebe into your church lately). (And Urbanus). "For our learning" creates the false impression that the teachings of Christ are not for the Church, when many are specifically to the church: this is a truth you will NEVER understand or accept because your idolatrous devotion to PFAL and your inability to go beyond it. A shame, really.

Of course, Wierwille failed to note that the word "learning" in "for our learning" is the same word as "doctrine" in II Timothy 3:16.

Mike, This is real simple. I don't trust you. You say you were "hurt." Delicious. How? Wierwille wasn't nice to you? Awww, how sad. At least he didn't drug you and have his way with you. I am more repulsed by the evil you spew to justify his abuse of our sisters in Christ than any vague abstraction of "hurt" you felt at not being appreciated by the man you idolized. I do feel great sympathy for the things you lost in your life, some of which you have shared and some of which has been wrongly and inappropriately thrown in your face by people who know you personally. You don't know how many private e-mails I've sent to moderators and others here indicating that something said to you was a cheap shot. I won't say how many times that's happened, but it has. Nonetheless, the key here is the one thing I responded to in your post: not that you have a basic understanding of what the Bible says about sex; not that you have or have not experienced a certain amount of pain in your life, but that you claim not to downplay any hurt that happened in TWI. You DO downplay such hurt. You do it when you claim Wierwille resisted more than he succumbed, as though HE were the one being sought after by miles of willing seductresses. I don't care how much Bible he taught (for which I am grateful), he was a predator who abused our sisters in Christ for his own lusts. Go ahead, portray me as cruel and heartless. Coming from you, I consider that high praise, because I do not respect your opinion or assessment of ANY of the motives of my heart.

It should also be noted, Oldiesman, that your failure to observe these Christian doctrines and qualities in the 1970s does not mean that they were not present. It only means that you did not observe them. Giving Wierwille credit for the presence of these Christian qualities today is ridiculous. They were present long before Wierwille and will continue to be so long after his name and memory are forgotten. Please correct me if I'm misreading you.

You're one to talk.