 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
philunderwood |
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Link |
who can satisfy wrote
| Quote: |
I simply won't take the time to deal with this any further as you have proven my point. Your claim against what I have offered is "circular reasoning." That is fine. Unfortunately, that is all you have based your own theory on as well. As I said, I won't waste anymore time pointing that out as anyone with a modicum of intellect can see it for themselves in your post. |
Honestly, this is typical of pre-trib rapture folks, at least on this board. It seems one of the things that keeps people in in the pre-trib rapture is that they don't want to deal specifically with all the arguments against it, or even search and find the arguments for it in sripture.
I specifically showed you how your reasoning is circular. Would you care to do the same with mine? I am just going with what the text of scripture says. There is nothing to indicate that the rapture is pre-trib and plenty of scripture that points to a rapture and resurrection when the Lord descends/returns/comes.
| Quote: |
I am with Bob Hodo on this one. It doesn't really matter what you believe concerning the rapture. I've said it before, Jesus made it clear that it was not an issue for us to worry about.
|
Jesus obviously considered it important that we know the seasons. Paul thought it important enough to warn the saints about the man of sin so they wouldn't think all those things had taken place before he was revealed.
I wonder how many self-professing Christians will be decieved by the man of sin because they heard it preached that they would never seen him because they'd be raptured out because they had walked down an aisle and repeated a few words in a church once.
Be that as it may, I do not believe that one has to have the same eschatological views as I do to be saved or to make it in the rapture. But I could see how the pre-trib rapture teaching could be a hindrance, particularly to nominal believers the evangelical movement has churned out over the years.
| Quote: |
My beginning this post was in answer to the skeptics, which have remained silent, that have asked for Scripture and reasons why we believe.
|
Who are the skeptics? The two most vocal non-pretrib people here, YoDude and myself have posted, with YoDude starting a new thread.
You still haven't shown me the reason why you believe in pre-trib in the first place. You did not point out a pre-trib rapture in Matthew 24, the passage which you said proves your position. If it does, show it. All you have done so far is show why you can still manage to believe in pre-trib after reading Matthew 24 if you already believe in pre-trib in the first place.
Well, what scripture is it that causes you to believe in pre-trib in the first place?
| Quote: |
They, like yourself, can only debunk this theory with "circular reasoning," while claiming that the Scripture is CLEAR about the rapture is post-trib. Once again I will say, you, and no one else, has made that clear with any Scripture you have written. To come to your conclusion, you have to "pretend" that other Scriptures don't mean what they say, and that others are tied together when putting them together brings other problems that none of you have been able to deal with.
|
Maybe you are thinking about another conversation, because this hasn't happened. You haven't shown me any scriptures that are difficult for the rapture-at-the-Second-Coming position. None at all.
Are you saying that not allowing you to fill in the blank with whoever you choose in 'he that letteth will let' is saying the scriptures don't mean what they say? That seems like a pretty weak argument. I can't think of anything else we have discussed.
You have not dealt with several issues.
Jesus said, '...I will come and receive you unto Myself...'
and NOT 'I will receive you unto myself, wait seven years, and them come."
Who do you interpret that passage?
Why don't you deal with the specific scriptures I have mentioned instead of accusing me of circular reasoning. If you want to back out of a conversation, that's fine. Just admit that you don't have time, or you are unable to deal with the arguments against your position. Don't pretend like you have dealt with them, or that you have presented some scripture that I have to pretent 'don't mean what they say.' You haven't even presented any scripture that indicates that the rapture will be pre-trib. If you can't explain why you believe what you believe on this issue, why do you believe it?
Giving reasons for how Matthew 24 could possibly fit in a pre-trib scenario is not explaining why you believe what you believe. You are skipping over the 'why' part and trying to make scripture fit into your pre-conceived eschatology.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
1/27/07 6:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| my two cents on tribulation |
Holzman |
pre tib, mid trib, post trib, no trib? which is it? When you trib, I trib, we'll all trib.  A great quote that I have to ive credit to david dixon
_________________
We are who God made us to be |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 694
1/27/07 9:17 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Link, link, link |
whocansatisfy |
Quote:
“Giving reasons for how Matthew 24 could possibly fit in a pre-trib scenario is not explaining why you believe what you believe. You are skipping over the 'why' part and trying to make scripture fit into your pre-conceived eschatology.”
I have never tried to use Matt 24 to prove a pre-trib rapture. I HAVE pointed out that it does not prove a post-trib position therefore it does not preclude the pre-trib view. You, along with everyone else from your position, have yet to answer the problems Matt 24 causes for your position on post-trib. Try answering those problems with mature intellect and not childish bandying about how weak someone else’s position is. Explain how it can possibly be talking about the church when everything in that passage deals with Jewish issues. Further, explain why you are NOT worshiping in a synagogue or temple on Saturday if you truly believe Matt 24 has anything to do with the church. Don’t go anywhere else, just deal with these problems. IF, you are ever able to address these issues with any sincere form of maturity and intellect, THEN we might have something to discuss. Ignoring these issues and passing them off as circular reasoning is merely immature. The point is, until you can justify the problems Matt 24 creates for your position, it does not prove your position much less deny another. Just because you say that the resurrection of Matt 24 is the same as the rapture of the church does not make it so.
Quote:
“1. I do not argue that the trumpets are the same. Get your posters straight.
2. I am not arguing that there is only one resurrection.”
So if you do believe in more than one resurrection and different trumpets, explain why you continue to insist that the passages we have dealt with are the same.
Quote:
“Jesus said, '...I will come and receive you unto Myself...'
and NOT 'I will receive you unto myself, wait seven years, and them come."
Man, you are really making a point here. lol And this PROVES a post-trib rapture?
Quote:
“Honestly, this is typical of pre-trib rapture folks, at least on this board. It seems one of the things that keeps people in in the pre-trib rapture is that they don't want to deal specifically with all the arguments against it, or even search and find the arguments for it in scripture.
I specifically showed you how your reasoning is circular. Would you care to do the same with mine? I am just going with what the text of scripture says. There is nothing to indicate that the rapture is pre-trib and plenty of scripture that points to a rapture and resurrection when the Lord descends/returns/comes.”
This is pure bunk! What IS “typical” is your “pat” response to people who disagree with you, ie., “Honestly, this is typical of pre-trib rapture folks.” And you claim to have answered all the questions against your argument. You are living in a dream world my friend. You claim you are going with what scripture says, but you have still not offered any scripture that proves your position. Again, everything you have offered hangs on supposition. It’s really amazing to me that you guys do the same thing you claim we do, but that’s alright for you. Lol
The point is, Matt 24 does not prove there could be no pre-trib rapture as it has nothing to do with the church. The context of that passage, with several others, will bear that out to anyone that wants to come to a sane understanding. Also, Paul’s teachings are where we get the idea for a pre-trib rapture when taken in context. Your argument against this is terribly weak. Believe me, I have an open mind about this, but the one thing you guys have failed to do is explain the problems your position has that prevent it from being believable.
Now, deal with II Thess 2 also. You have merely debunked the idea that the church can be the “he” Paul refers to without giving any solid evidence to prove your position or to tell us what the “he” is. There is too much evidence in Scripture that deals with the church separate from Israel. Wouldn't’t it make sense to say that since you have no CLUE who the “he” is, then you cannot form any solid base to take the post-trib stance. It is obvious that something is preventing the anti-christ from appearing. What is it? Either you or someone claimed that Paul’s mention of this in II Thess made your case for post-trib because IF the “he” is the church, then the church would be here hindering the anti-christ while he is at work. Where does that come from? Nonsense. Read the verses again. The church/he is preventing the anti-christ from appearing, not hindering him while he works. Verses 6-8 make that clear. Something prevents/hinders the anti-christ from appearing until the proper time. It can’t be the Holy Spirit as I’ve already explained and it cannot be governments. What else is there? It’s really not that hard folks. You claim we are “reading” things into Scripture, but you guys are much worse at that than anyone.
One more place that you stumble is claiming the rapture of the church is at the same time as the coming of the Son of man in Matt 24 without addressing another real problem with that. (This is why post-tribulationists have the greatest problem) If the rapture is at the end, as you claim Matt 24 states, then explain Luke 21:36 where Jesus said to watch and pray that we may be accounted worthy to escape. Escape what? What is so terrible that we need to escape it? You have us going through all of tribulation yet Jesus says that we are to keep ourselves worthy to escape. Furthermore, Paul says in I Thess 5:9-11 that God has not appointed us to this wrath, but to obtain deliverance through Jesus Christ so we can live with Christ. You want to talk about circular reasoning? This is where you keep going in circles. “Oh, we don’t know what Jesus said we could escape or who “he” is in Paul’s writings, but we know for a fact that the rapture takes place at the end of tribulation because Matt 24 makes that clear.” lol You have put a puzzle together while throwing out key pieces. What you have is make-believe with no Scripture to support it. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/27/07 9:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Quote: |
I have never tried to use Matt 24 to prove a pre-trib rapture. I HAVE pointed out that it does not prove a post-trib position therefore it does not preclude the pre-trib view.
|
Then, when you said you gave evidence for the pre-trib view, what in the world were you talking about? There was no evidence for pre-trib in your first post. There was arguments for trying to make Matthew 24 fit into pre-trib.
| Quote: |
You, along with everyone else from your position, have yet to answer the problems Matt 24 causes for your position on post-trib.
|
Maybe you have an argument in your mind that you alluded to in some post. Spell it out for me. I don't see how Matthew 24 causes any problem for the post-trib viewpoint. I don't see where you have spelled out anything that can be percieved as a problem. Like I said earlier, if Matthew 24 is about Israel, how does that argue for pre-trib? It doesn't. Can you show me otherwise? What verse in the passage presents a problem for post-trib if the passage is about Israel?
| Quote: |
Try answering those problems with mature intellect and not childish bandying about how weak someone else’s position is.
|
I realize debates like this can get heated up with rhetoric. Maybe I laid it on a bit to get someone to try to defend pre-trib earlier. But try to look at things from my point of view. Your posts seem condescending to non-pre-tribbers, painting with broad strokes. You act as if you have proved something when you haven't even made an identifiable argument for pre-trib. Here, you take a stab at my intellect and maturity. Consider the irony, here. How about if we both try to tone down the rhetoric.
Can you answer my question, the main theme of my posts. What is the actual passage of scripture that sets the time frame of the rapture before the tribulation in the first place? I am saying if you remove the pre-trib rapture presupposition from your mind, it is hard to get away from the idea that the rapture occurs along with a resurreciton at the return of Christ.
| Quote: |
Explain how it can possibly be talking about the church when everything in that passage deals with Jewish issues. Further, explain why you are NOT worshiping in a synagogue or temple on Saturday if you truly believe Matt 24 has anything to do with the church. Don’t go anywhere else, just deal with these problems.
|
First, explain to me why these would be problems for post-trib, or why these issues would set the time clock for the rapture 7 years before the Second Coming? If there are Gentiles in the church at the time of the return of the Lord, are we so ethnocentric to think that Christ, talking to a bunch of believing Jews, would have to give His teaching as if He were talking to a group of Gentiles?
What does keeping the sabbath have to do with anything? The 12 apostles probably kept the sabbath all their lives. They probably offered animal sacrifices. Paul was probably on his way to do that for a Nazarite vow, or at least pay the expenses for it. (He had had a haircut earlier in relation to a vow, perhaps removing the unvowed hair in Cenchrea to keep his hair from being too long when he cut it off in the temple along with an animal sacrifice.)
In Acts 15, though, we see that these things were not laid on Gentile believers, and we see elsewhere in scripture that by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in God's sight.
The passage does mention the Gospel being preached to all nations. The passage does mention the 'elect' and does not specify Israeli elect. If you argue that the passage 'is about Israel' does that mean that only Israelites will be among the elect who are gathered from the four winds?
Would you hold to the idea that there will be no Gentiles who believe during the tribulation, and that all the saints at that time are Hebrews?
| Quote: |
IF, you are ever able to address these issues with any sincere form of maturity and intellect, THEN we might have something to discuss. Ignoring these issues and passing them off as circular reasoning is merely immature.
|
No, it's not immature. It is staying on topic. I don't see the connection between sabbath observance and reading Matthew 24 as post trib, so I chose to skip the rabbit trail to keep the thread length down. If you still see a connection, please explain it to me if you wish me to address it further.
Also, could you explain how Christ's comment about the sabbath would mean that the time for the rapture is seven years before His return, not three and a half years, and not at his return (as other scripture seems to indicate.)
| Quote: |
The point is, until you can justify the problems Matt 24 creates for your position, it does not prove your position much less deny another. Just because you say that the resurrection of Matt 24 is the same as the rapture of the church does not make it so.
|
What problems? Also, I do not recall using the word 'resurrection' in that passage, though it makes sense. I would think more of the rapture when I read the four winds verse. There is a resurection at the rapture, sothe two or closely tied together.
Plus, I have not tried to make a strong case for the rapture at the end of the age from Matthew 24. I have made arguments primarily from Paul's epistles and the words of Christ Himself. All of which fit well with the rapture at the Second Coming.
| Quote: |
Quote:
“1. I do not argue that the trumpets are the same. Get your posters straight.
2. I am not arguing that there is only one resurrection.”
So if you do believe in more than one resurrection and different trumpets, explain why you continue to insist that the passages we have dealt with are the same.
|
Please clarify what you mean by 'the passage we have dealt with are the same.' Which passages? Yodude made the trumpet argument. I don't necessarily consider the trump when Jesus returns to be the last of those set of trumpets in Revelation like YoDude those.
| Quote: |
Quote:
“Jesus said, '...I will come and receive you unto Myself...'
and NOT 'I will receive you unto myself, wait seven years, and them come."
Man, you are really making a point here. lol And this PROVES a post-trib rapture?
|
I suppose you can laugh off the words of Christ if you want to. But this is what we DO HAVE in scripture. If that is all the scripture you had on the rapture and second coming, when would you think the rapture will take place? If all you had was I and II Thessalonians, when would you set the time clock? I'd go with the Second Coming. If all you had was this and Revelation, when would you set the time clock? Well, Paul tells us about a resurrection and the rapture at the same time, and Revelation puts the rapture there at the end, right after that passage about Christ's return. So that points toward the Second Coming.
So it all points to the Second Coming. Can you show me the piece of scriptural evidence that sets the clock for the rapture to seven years before the Second Coming? I just don't see it in scripture?
| Quote: |
This is pure bunk! What IS “typical” is your “pat” response to people who disagree with you, ie., “Honestly, this is typical of pre-trib rapture folks.” And you claim to have answered all the questions against your argument. You are living in a dream world my friend. You claim you are going with what scripture says, but you have still not offered any scripture that proves your position. Again, everything you have offered hangs on supposition. It’s really amazing to me that you guys do the same thing you claim we do, but that’s alright for you. Lol
|
This is more rhetoric than substance. Again, I ask, what arguments against my position?
Right before your quote, I listed a bunch of evidence that points toward the rapture and Second Coming occuring together. Would you care to address this point by point.
Btw, I listed several arguments earlier. Where did you address the II Thes. 1:7 issue? How will Paul and those Thessalonians receive relief at Christ's coming if they get rapture 7 years before? If the rapture occurs at the Second Coming this, makes sense. And if Paul has whatever saints are alive in mind, a rapture at the Second Coming makes sense as well. What doesn't make sense in light of that verse is pre-trib.
I have made arguments to show that the time for the rapture is at the Second Coming. I have shown my scriptures. Can you show any scripture that HINTS that the second coming is seven years before the tribulation? Is there some argument from an OT prophecy or something? Anything? I really want to know why people believe in pre-trib, because after studying the Bible, I can't see any reason for it other than preacher so and so said so.
| Quote: |
The point is, Matt 24 does not prove there could be no pre-trib rapture as it has nothing to do with the church. The context of that passage, with several others, will bear that out to anyone that wants to come to a sane understanding. |
Even if you argue the passage has 'nothing to do with the church' how can you get a pre-trib argument out of that? How does it argue against the rapture at the Second Coming? (like the Gospel being preached in all the world has nothing to do with the church?)
| Quote: |
Also, Paul’s teachings are where we get the idea for a pre-trib rapture when taken in context.
|
Maybe we are getting somewhere, here. Can you specifically show me the line of reasoning from Paul's writings that leads to pre-trib?
| Quote: |
Now, deal with II Thess 2 also. You have merely debunked the idea that the church can be the “he” Paul refers to without giving any solid evidence to prove your position or to tell us what the “he” is. There is too much evidence in Scripture that deals with the church separate from Israel. Wouldn't’t it make sense to say that since you have no CLUE who the “he” is, then you cannot form any solid base to take the post-trib stance. It is obvious that something is preventing the anti-christ from appearing. What is it? Either you or someone claimed that Paul’s mention of this in II Thess made your case for post-trib because IF the “he” is the church, then the church would be here hindering the anti-christ while he is at work. Where does that come from? Nonsense. Read the verses again. The church/he is preventing the anti-christ from appearing, not hindering him while he works.
|
Re-read my argument. I don't see where you get the idea in that quote above from what I wrote. If the church can't be gathered unto Christ until the man of sin is revealed, then it is illogical to think that the removal of the church will cause the man of sin to be revealed. Think about it.
The rapture can't take place until the man of sin is revealed.
You have the church as what is keeping the man of sin from being revealed. When the church is gone, if I understand you right, then the man of sin can do his thing in his temple.
The man of sin will never get to do his thing, since the church is keeping him from it, and the church can't be raptured until the man of sin is revealed. See the problem?
Paul has the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto him there together in the passage, too. That is something the Bible DOES SAY on the issue.
| Quote: | | Verses 6-8 make that clear. Something prevents/hinders the anti-christ from appearing until the proper time. It can’t be the Holy Spirit as I’ve already explained and it cannot be governments. |
I don't recall your 'it can't be the Holy Spirit' argument. Why can't it be governments?
| Quote: |
What else is there? It’s really not that hard folks. You claim we are “reading” things into Scripture, but you guys are much worse at that than anyone.
|
I haven't even put forth an opinion on the verse, except to say that yours doesn't fit, so how can you say I am 'much worse at that than anyone.'
| Quote: |
One more place that you stumble is claiming the rapture of the church is at the same time as the coming of the Son of man in Matt 24 without addressing another real problem with that. (This is why post-tribulationists have the greatest problem) If the rapture is at the end, as you claim Matt 24 states, then explain Luke 21:36 where Jesus said to watch and pray that we may be accounted worthy to escape. Escape what? |
Luke
21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
Being in a city full of violent soldiers hacking people up is not a nice thing to experience. Fleeing to the mountains (like lots of believers did during two sacks of Jerusalem, remembering Jesus' words), could keep people there from a lot of trouble. How is this an argument for a pre-trib rapture?
| Quote: | Furthermore, Paul says in I Thess 5:9-11 that God has not appointed us to this wrath, but to obtain deliverance through Jesus Christ so we can live with Christ.
|
God poured out His wrath on Egypt with Israelites in it. Did He spill the wrath on Israel at that time? I think not.
Do you believe that the tribulational saints are appoitned unto wrath, or are they appointed to obtain deliverance through Jesus Christ to live with Him?
And you haven't dealt with my argument that saints from OT up to the end are all part of the 'church.'
| Quote: |
You want to talk about circular reasoning? This is where you keep going in circles. “Oh, we don’t know what Jesus said we could escape or who “he” is in Paul’s writings, but we know for a fact that the rapture takes place at the end of tribulation because Matt 24 makes that clear.”
|
You obvious have not read my posts or cannot remember who said what. I showed you that the scripture we do have, pointing particularly to I and II Thesalonians and John 14, indicate the rapture/resurrection will occur at the Second Coming. I have not used Matthew 24 as my primary argument. Show me where I said that Matthew 24 makes a post-trib rapture clear? I would like to see the quote.
And that isn't circular reasoning. If you don't have any reason to set the rapture before the Second Coming, and scripture indicates that it is at the second coming, you have no reason to read the 'he who lets will let' verse in a way that argues for a pre-trib rapture.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
1/28/07 10:30 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Strict Constructionist |
whocansatisfy |
You asked:
"If Matthew 24 is referring to the Jews, since when are Jews persecuted for their faith in the Name of Jesus? They are the ones PERSECUTING the Name of Jesus!
The ELECT are HIS disciples, US. WE are the ones persecuted for His Name."
Read Revelation concerning the 144,000 Jews that are sealed with the seal of God. Though they are Jews, they will be preaching the name of Christ. Since they did not believe before-hand, many will believe then and come to a saving knowledge through Jesus Christ. So, yes, the Jews are the "elect" of Matt 24 that will be persecuted during tribulation for His name's sake and those who "endure" until the end shall be saved. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/29/07 9:45 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| One last time Link |
whocansatisfy |
Quote:
“Maybe you have an argument in your mind that you alluded to in some post. Spell it out for me. I don't see how Matthew 24 causes any problem for the post-trib viewpoint. I don't see where you have spelled out anything that can be perceived as a problem. Like I said earlier, if Matthew 24 is about Israel, how does that argue for pre-trib? It doesn't. Can you show me otherwise? What verse in the passage presents a problem for post-trib if the passage is about Israel?”
Let’s be clear on this one thing. Matt 24 does not “prove” pre-trib rapture of the church. I’ll give you that. My point is that it does not prove a pre-trib rapture is not taught elsewhere concerning the church. If Matt 24 is about Israel, anything concerning a rapture/resurrection within it deals with Israel, and or tribulation saints, not the church. If Matt 24 deals with Israel exclusively, then you cannot throw the church into the mix. That is your problem, one which you keep going back to. I understand how you have dispelled the pre-trib viewpoint and have no problem with whether you believe it or not. I do have a problem with your use of Matt 24 to make your point. You are mixing apples with oranges. To make your point stick, you have to deal with the issues I have raised concerning Israel as the subject in Matt 24. Until you do, your belief that the rapture/resurrection of Matt 24 is invalid. Yes, there is a rapture/revelation referred to in Matt 24. I have never disagreed with that. However, that does not suggest or mean that it is the rapture of the church. That is where you guys keep making an assumption that is wrong.
Quote:
“Please clarify what you mean by 'the passage we have dealt with are the same.' Which passages? Yodude made the trumpet argument. I don't necessarily consider the trump when Jesus returns to be the last of those set of trumpets in Revelation like YoDude those.”
Again, more of your double-talk. You said “1. I do not argue that the trumpets are the same. 2. I am not arguing that there is only one resurrection.” O.K. So either you believe in more than one trumpet blast and more than one resurrection or not. Which is it. To hold to one rapture of the church at the resurrection, AFTER the tribulation, then explain where the “other” trumpets come into play that you do not deny, and what “other” resurrection could there be? This is simply double-talk on your part. You claim that you have not argued against the trumpet passages or more than one resurrection, but state your belief on a post-trib rapture of the church. So where do the “other resurrections” you apparently agree with come into play? It’s really a simple question. Don’t ignore it by double-talk.
Quote:
“Re-read my argument. I don't see where you get the idea in that quote above from what I wrote. If the church can't be gathered unto Christ until the man of sin is revealed, then it is illogical to think that the removal of the church will cause the man of sin to be revealed. Think about it.”
More double-talk. WHO said the church can’t be gathered unto Christ until the man of sin is revealed? I didn’t. If you think I did, then it merely proves why you are having a hard time dealing with the Scripture. Paul made it clear that something was “hindering” the man of sin from being revealed, that the man of sin WOULD NOT be revealed until this “HE” is removed. But you come on here with double-talk as though you know what you are talking about? Please. Get it straight. Deal with the problem this causes you rather than trying to twist it up so no one understands what we are saying. WHAT will be removed BEFORE the man of sin is revealed? WHAT? To accept your post-trib rapture viewpoint of the church throws this verse completely out on its ear. If the church does not go up until the end of tribulation, what will be removed before the anti-christ can appear and fulfill Daniel’s last week of prophesy? Deal with that. We know you can’t unless you accept the church as being removed.
Something you guys just cannot come to grips with is the fact that God has a plan for the church different from that of Israel. We live under grace now. Daniel and Revelation make it clear that the tribulation will be different. Right now we believe even though we have not seen. Then, they will believe because they will have the Scriptures from Daniel and Revelation to show them where they were wrong and they will be living in that time. It will still require a measure of faith and grace from Jesus Christ, but it will cost most of them their lives.
Quote:
“You have the church as what is keeping the man of sin from being revealed. When the church is gone, if I understand you right, then the man of sin can do his thing in his temple.
The man of sin will never get to do his thing, since the church is keeping him from it, and the church can't be raptured until the man of sin is revealed. See the problem?
Paul has the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto him there together in the passage, too. That is something the Bible DOES SAY on the issue.”
You understand me correct in the first paragraph. You lose me in the second. I don’t see the problem, at least with what I wrote. The problem I see is your twisting. Who said the church can’t be raptured until the man of sin is revealed? Complete nonsense. Paul says that the man of sin cannot be revealed until something is removed which prevents him from coming to power. There is something that will never know who the anti-christ is before it is removed. THEN, the anti-christ will appear. Try to get it right.
Furthermore, Paul does not say that the Lord will return to earth here. The Bible DOES NOT say that. That is your inference/interpretation. You have to comprehend that Paul’s references to the church about the “coming of the Lord,” are not the same as those of the “day of the Lord.” He will come from heaven, in the clouds, to catch us away, but that does not mean He will come back to earth at the same time. It is your interpretation or lack of understanding that leads you to that conclusion.
Quote:
“I don't recall your 'it can't be the Holy Spirit' argument. Why can't it be governments?”
The “he” that is removed before the anti-christ appears cannot be the Holy Spirit as the Scripture never says He will be removed. Also, the Holy Spirit will continue to be at work drawing people to the truth during the tribulation. Neither can it be governments as the anti-christ will make war against and subdue governments. Really, lets think about it logically for one second. If the church is the body of Christ, how is it possible that God would allow the body of His Son to be present when anti-christ is in power and God Himself pours out His wrath?
Quote:
“Let me ask you a question.
Will God allow the 144,000 who have not defiled themselves to face the tribulation?
Will he allow the tribulational saints who do not take the mark of the beast or worship him, to endure the tribulation?
One of the arguments for pre-trib is 'God has not appointed us unto wrath."
But God hasn't appointed the tribulational saints unto wrath, either, has He? If he le'ts them endure the tribulation, why wouldn't he allow us.”
How can you ask such questions? Do you not have any idea of Scripture concerning the difference between the church and those who find themselves in the tribulation because they never received the truth of Christ during the church age? Yes, God will allow the 144,000 to face tribulation. They will be Jews, and they will receive the mark of God to protect them from tribulation just as other fellow Israelites were protected from the plagues of Egypt. The tribulational saints were not “appointed” to wrath but found themselves facing it because they never believed before. The reason they are “saints” is because they have turned to God during the tribulation. It’s really not that hard and a thorough study of Revelation and Daniel will show this to be true.
Again, your position for post-trib rapture of the church can only be reached by discounting all the verses that deal with Israel and the church separately. You are entitled to believe that but it doesn’t make it true. But don’t tell me that the Scripture makes your viewpoint clear. It does not unless you simply ignore the verses we have covered. I have said before and will say again, there is no scripture that says plainly that there will be a pre-trib rapture. Neither is there scripture to postulate a post-trib rapture of the church. Yes, we do have a rapture/resurrection at the time the Lord comes to set up His Kingdom, referred to as the day of the Lord, but this does not imply or even suggest that it refers to the rapture of the church. Your position leaves too many questions unanswered when studying the whole counsel of God.
Let me make one more thing clear. I do not believe in pre-trib rapture first, only to read it into scripture. It is from Scripture that I come to this belief, just as you have come to your belief by using Scriptural references concerning “resurrection at the Second coming” to entail the rapture of the church. Your Scriptures do not make that viewpoint clear, it is simply assumption/interpretation. Your belief further leaves many questions unanswered, some of which I have asked, where our belief at least points to Scriptures to answer those questions. I will agree that they do not point blank make the case, but then again, neither does your belief.
If you can explain from Scripture any possibility of who/what Paul was talking about that has to be removed before anti-christ can appear, then I’d like to hear it.
If you can explain from Scripture how Paul’s references to the “coming of the Lord,” when talking to the church, is the same as the “day of the Lord,” ie., when He comes back to earth, I’d be interested to hear it.
If you can explain from Scripture why John refers to the “Lamb” 27 times in Rev 4-22 but not once while dealing with the churches in the first three chapters, then I’d be interested to hear it.
If you can explain from Scripture why there is a marked change in God’s attitude toward humanity from that of mercy in Rev 1-3 to that of judgment in Rev 4-22, I’d like to hear it.
If you CANNOT explain any of this without double-talk and twisting, as you have already done, then I need nothing more from you.
I appreciate the time you have taken so far to discuss this with me, but until you can answer the questions I have put to you here and elsewhere there is nothing more to discuss. I have said it many times already and I’ll say it again. The timing of the rapture is not important IF you are in Christ, watching (looking) for His appearing. Proof? There really is none for either viewpoint. (Therefore my thread heading is misnamed, that wasn’t my intention) I have tried to give some explanation to the use of Scriptures that causes one to accept our position. This type of format does not lend itself to a thorough discussion though as this subject is too complex to cover all the material. All of you are correct in saying that there is no Scripture that “proves” pointedly our position. I too am correct to say that you have the same problem “proving” your position. To do so would be to answer the questions that I have asked that prove there is something unaccounted for to make your case. If you can do that, then I’m listening. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/29/07 11:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| WhoCanSatisfy..It is YOU who needs to answer a question |
Yo Dude |
You're very good at snide comments acting like everyone but yourself is a fool for not believing that pre-trib junk.
But you STILL have no shown a SINGLE scripture to indicate that:
1) There is more that one pre-millenial resurrection;
2) Where you even got the notion that there would be a pre-trib rapture.
It is YOU who has the 'splaining to do! So far, the more you argue, the more confused it all becomes. You are now arguing with arguments against arguments against arguments.
JUST ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WITH SCRIPTURE--and we'll have something more to discuss. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8631
1/29/07 1:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Strict Constructionist |
The strict Constructionis |
| Quote: | | Read Revelation concerning the 144,000 Jews that are sealed with the seal of God. Though they are Jews, they will be preaching the name of Christ. Since they did not believe before-hand, many will believe then and come to a saving knowledge through Jesus Christ. So, yes, the Jews are the "elect" of Matt 24 that will be persecuted during tribulation for His name's sake and those who "endure" until the end shall be saved. |
[/quote]
I find nothing Revelation that makes me think that the ones Jesus referred to in Matthew 24 as one day being persecuted are the 144,000.
You're really stretching things here. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
1/29/07 4:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Strict Constructionist |
whocansatisfy |
| The strict Constructionis wrote: | | Quote: | | Read Revelation concerning the 144,000 Jews that are sealed with the seal of God. Though they are Jews, they will be preaching the name of Christ. Since they did not believe before-hand, many will believe then and come to a saving knowledge through Jesus Christ. So, yes, the Jews are the "elect" of Matt 24 that will be persecuted during tribulation for His name's sake and those who "endure" until the end shall be saved. |
|
I find nothing Revelation that makes me think that the ones Jesus referred to in Matthew 24 as one day being persecuted are the 144,000.
You're really stretching things here.[/quote]
Strict, are you not reading what I wrote? My answer was in response to a question concerning the elect being "Jews" in Matt 24. Link made some remark about those persecuted for "His names sake," had to be the church. Not so. The things spoken by Christ in Matt 24 concern God's dealing with Israel during the end times. (Consider all the Jewish references that do not apply to the church today) If He chooses a group of people to represent Him in that time or any other, would they not be considered "elect?" We know from Revelation that 144,000 will be sealed as evangelists, if you will. The converts they make will also be a part of the "elect" of that time spoken of as being persecuted for His names sake. I don't see the difficulty. To declare that it means anything else requires one to answer the difficulties that arise with that view. I've asked for an answer to some of those difficulties and no one has yet to offer an explanation. Link has stated that whether he worships on Saturday has nothing to do with it. I think it does. If Jesus is dealing with the church and not Israel, then why do we not worship as Israel since He referenced these things Himself.
Don't tell me it isn't important. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be there. Because it IS there, we have some clue as to who and what is being discussed. Therefore, Matt 24 cannot be used to say a pre or mid-trib viewpoint is invalid or that it proves a post-trib stance. That is what you can call "stretching it." |
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/29/07 7:48 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: WhoCanSatisfy..It is YOU who needs to answer a question |
whocansatisfy |
| Yo Dude wrote: | You're very good at snide comments acting like everyone but yourself is a fool for not believing that pre-trib junk.
But you STILL have no shown a SINGLE scripture to indicate that:
1) There is more that one pre-millenial resurrection;
2) Where you even got the notion that there would be a pre-trib rapture.
It is YOU who has the 'splaining to do! So far, the more you argue, the more confused it all becomes. You are now arguing with arguments against arguments against arguments.
JUST ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WITH SCRIPTURE--and we'll have something more to discuss. |
Dude, if anyone is good at acting like everyone is a fool that doesn't agree with you, that would be you. In fact, I would be interested in how many on this board would agree, but that's a separate issue. I've already answered your questions and when I have the time I'll give you more Scriptures to trash. In the meantime, you have never dealt with the problems that your view creates. All you have done is refer to pre-tribbers in a derogatory manner. To claim that your view does not create problems is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand.
One final question dude, just how old are you? Personally I find your writings on the level of someone about 23-25 that lacks spiritual understanding. (And it has nothing to do with your stance on post-trib) If that is not the case, you have my apologies. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/29/07 7:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| WhoCanSatisfy... |
Yo Dude |
You said:
In the meantime, you have never dealt with the problems that your view creates.
Well, that's because my view doesn't create any problems. It is the most reasonable understanding of the scriptures. Matthew 24, Revelation, Daniel--all indicate the saints will be there.
You want to claim that "the saints" that are referred to are Jewish saints. Fine, but prove it.
Paul was talking to the Gentiles that the resurrection would not take place ("that day") except that wicked man of sin be revealed. Very simply, then, it would appear that the resurrection/rapture cannot take place without the anti-Christ FIRST showing up.
As for you continued nasty comments, I understand that you use them because you don't actually have an argument. I'm loving this thing called "being right." |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8631
1/30/07 12:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Bulldawgbishop |
If i am being honest...and sincerely...no offense intended just an honest observation after suffering through this entire thread...again.......all of you are talking in circles...it's as if none of you really has any information to seriously defend your point of view...I keep looking for solid scriptural evidence from either opinion and all i see is the ramblings of one denying the other. Only a few things are obvious to me.
1. Those claiming belief in a pre-trib rapture are really not sure how to prove it.
2. Those vehemently denying a pre trib rapture don't know how to prove their opinion either AND from what i see should just go ahead and admit they don't believe in a rapture period.
3. Finally...there is obviously no one who posts on this board who has the slightest clue about end times prophecy...and no I don't claim to either.
My wish is that someone with some actual knowledge of this issue would come and give some much needed insight into this issue...until then I guess we get to hear..Uh uh your wrong I'm right...Uh uh YOUR wrong I'm right...well prove it...I can't prove it I just know you are wrong....Please...spare us....get some real...REAL information...or please just agree to disagree....either way the most important issue is whether pre mid or post.....your house better be in order because one thing we can all agree on is that one way or another HE IS COMING......and sooner than any of us really think. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 755
1/30/07 12:59 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
TheoloJohn |
| Quote: | | 2. Those vehemently denying a pre trib rapture don't know how to prove their opinion either AND from what i see should just go ahead and admit they don't believe in a rapture period. |
All one needs is 1 Thess. 4:14-18 in order to "believe in a rapture period."
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so it is through Jesus that God will bring back with him those who have died.
1Th 4:15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have died.
1Th 4:16 With a shout of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of God's trumpet, the Lord himself will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
1Th 4:18 So then, encourage one another with these words.
The fact is, all theories as to the timing of the rapture agree in the resurrection of the dead in Christ, immediately after which we which are alive and remain shall be caught up (raptured) to meet the Lord in the air.
John
_________________
"Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006 |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2160
1/30/07 7:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
whocansatisfy wrote
| Quote: |
Link made some remark about those persecuted for "His names sake," had to be the church.
|
No I did not. You are confusing your posters again. No wonder that last post to me was arguing against things I had not said, as if I did. I have not had time to reply.
| Quote: | We know from Revelation that 144,000 will be sealed as evangelists, if you will. The converts they make will also be a part of the "elect" of that time spoken of as being persecuted for His names sake. I don't see the difficulty.
|
Where does the passage say anything at all about them doing evangelism?
And do they think they only evangelize Jews? If any Gentiles got saved, wouldn't that go against your assertion that Matthew 24 is ONLY about Israel?
| Quote: | | I've asked for an answer to some of those difficulties and no one has yet to offer an explanation. Link has stated that whether he worships on Saturday has nothing to do with it. I think it does. If Jesus is dealing with the church and not Israel, then why do we not worship as Israel since He referenced these things Himself. |
Could you explain in more detail why the comment about the sabbath has any bearing on whether the church is still on the earth.
Let us look at the churches in Acts. The Jewish Christians worshipped in the temple and were zealous after the Law, many of them at least. The Bible never tells Jewish Christians to stop keeping the Law. Jesus said the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
Paul did teach that by the works of the law no flesh is justified in His sight. Peter said that it is by faith in Jesus Christ that we are justified.
When Gentiles started becoming Christians, the issue arose as to whether the Gentiles should be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. The apostles and elders did not sense that the Spirit wanted them to lay this on the Gentiles. We read about this on Acts 15.
A more basic issue to address would be whether or not Jesus expected Christian Jews to keep the Sabbath in the first century. This has nothing to do with whether we are allowed to go to church on Sunday. I am a Gentile believer. God commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath.
Also, if OTHER JEWS were sabbath observers, fleeing on the sabbath might have been difficult for various reasons as well. Not that I am saying this was the reason for Christ's statement.
Jesus audience was or would be part of both the church and Israel. There is a part of the church that is not a part of Israel. There is 'Israel after the flesh' which is not a part of the church. Given this fact, why would a reference to the sabbath in the passage prove that the church is no longer on the earth? Also, notice the passage refers to the Gospel being preached to 'all nations.' The nations hearing the Gospel is in the passage.
Could you give your reasoning that connects this sabbath reference to the idea of the church being gone? Even if you do not see Gentile believers as the target audience, it does not mean they are not on the earth during this time.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
1/30/07 7:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Limited response |
whocansatisfy |
II Thess 2:1
Now we beseech you, brethren by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him.
2. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
From these two verses we have reference to two events. The rapture, (gathering together unto Him) and the day of Christ, or the time when He comes back to earth to establish His Kingdom.
Beseech simply means to implore or ask for earnestly. In other words, Paul is saying, “We implore you, by the coming of our Lord and our gathering together…” Paul is trying to get their attention by using a reference to the rapture of the church. “Listen to us intently!
Why? So that you will not be shaken in mind, or troubled by spirit that the day of Christ is at hand. If the rapture and day of Christ occur at the same time, ie., His second advent, then why would Paul make this distinction?
You can believe what you want, but this is ONE of the reasons we believe in a pre-trib rapture. No more proof than anything I’ve heard from the other side, but it does fit all the events that deal with the church, tribulation, Israel, etc.
In answer to Yo’s question, the rest of this passage does not place the church inside the tribulation. If you understand the difference, as referred to above, then it’s not hard to understand the rest of that verse declaring that the day of Christ, (His second advent) will not take place until the great falling away and the man of sin is revealed. Paul further makes this point as he explains “and now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And THEN shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume….”
I’ve already explained why we believe who “he” is and who/what it cannot be. If you want to skip over this to come to a rapture/resurrection post-trib view, you should at least make some attempt to explain this “problem” you have to uphold your view. So far I’ve heard nothing.
I do not claim to know it all or have all the answers. I have at least made some attempt to explain what we believe and why even at the risk of exposing myself to ridicule from some who have claimed to be Christians.
I have said it over and over, I personally don’t believe that it matters what you believe concerning this issue as long as you take your salvation seriously and are prepared to meet Him whenever He comes. (That would mean watching and waiting.) I have not ridiculed anyone for their belief. I have defended myself and explained that NO ONE has offered anything of any more substance than what I have. Therefore, any claim that it can only be one thing, post-trib, is simply preposterous. Some keep saying that this verse or that has the church in the tribulation, but nothing they have shown has done that. I understand that if you take something out of context you can come to any conclusion. Some of you will make the claim that that is what I have done. Maybe, maybe not. But don’t say that no one has given you any Scripture to defend our belief. We have, you just haven’t accepted it. I have no problem with that. My only problem is for you to say that it makes your point any better, especially without offering anything to solve the problems your view creates. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/30/07 10:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Link |
whocansatisfy |
The question concerning the Sabbath in Matt 24 has to do with the context of that chapter. The Sabbath is only one. There are other references that are Jewish in nature, like that of the Temple. Vs. 15, When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.)
Now something you guys keep dodging is the facts. You tell us that Matt 24 has the church in the tribulation, but you will not explain these Jewish references that you cannot attribute to the audience that He is speaking to directly. Yes, He is answering the disciples question, but His answer deals with Jewish fulfillment. This is PLAIN from vs. 15. He is speaking about the anti-christ, from the book of Daniel, standing in the Holy Place within the Temple.
Yes, you can say that the church will be here to see this event, but I do not believe that to be the case. Everything Christ spoke of in this chapter deals with Israel, not the church. If you understand the prophesy of Daniel, and God's dealings with their nation during this 7 year period, it is not hard to come to this understanding. All of this, taken in context with Paul's writings and Daniel's writings, can lead one to accept a pre-trib rapture of the church. One thing that it does not do is PROVE that the church will go through the tribulation.
On that note, whether it was you or another I cannot keep straight, but someone keeps going to post-trib because they only accept the verses they have used to mean a rapture at the resurrection and therefore it has to be post-trib. As I have stated before, post-trib is the most indefensible of all for one simple reason, which ON ONE has cared to explain away. Paul makes it clear that we are not appointed unto wrath, does he not? If he doesn't, then what is he referring to? What wrath? Anyone with a limited knowledge of Scripture understands what wrath he is talking about. Daniel and Rev spell it out very vividly. There will be a period of 3 1/2 years that God will pour out His wrath. If Paul is referring to the church in his reference to "we," then he is telling us that the church is not appointed for this period. Therefore, we cannot be here. One might make a point for mid-trib or pre-trib, but post trib rapture of the church does not fit into any prophetic word of the end-time anywhere in scripture. You or Yo and everyone else can keep saying, "Matt 24 has the rapture/resurrection at the end therefore we are there." But you have to answer this question, what wrath will we be exempt from or was Paul smoking something? |
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/30/07 10:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| More on II Thess 2 |
whocansatisfy |
What was the purpose of Paul's writing these verses in II Thess 2? Is it not clear that the church in Thessolonica was worried about something? What could they be worried about? Paul's words make it clear, they were worried that the "day of Christ" was at hand. In other words, they were worried that the rapture had taken place and they had missed it. If you don't believe that, then explain why anyone would worry about the day of resurrection and Christ returning if they did not believe in a rapture of the church beforehand? This is the most important issue of these verses that has yet to be addressed by anyone from a post-trib viewpoint.
Paul made the rapture clear in his first letter to this church. Therefore, they were looking for it. But from the time of his first letter until his second, some had begun to teach that they were past that and the day of the Lord was already at hand. If they never believed in a pre-trib rapture of the church, why would this bother them? Why wouldn't that thought excite them? After all, if the rapture is post-trib, and happens with the second advent of Christ to the earth, why wouldn't they be getting excited that they were already there?
To teach post-trib is to discount these facts altogether. If anyone has an intelligent explanation as to what the church was "worried" about other than their missing the rapture, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, this is just one of the so-called "proofs" of a pre-trib or mid-trib rapture. Post-trib is simply indefensible. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/31/07 10:10 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
Between preaching at night, raising a family, work, and graduate school applications, I haven't had a chance to respond to your earlier, long post as I would like. I will respond ot a few points.
| Quote: |
The question concerning the Sabbath in Matt 24 has to do with the context of that chapter. The Sabbath is only one. There are other references that are Jewish in nature, like that of the Temple. Vs. 15, When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.)
|
If you think there is something in Daniel that points to a pre-trib rapture, why didn't you mentioned it much earlier in the thread when you were asked for reasons for believing in pre-tribulational rapture.
Again, I ask you, what does the issue of the sabbath or Jewish things being mentioned in the chapter have to do with whether or not the church had been raptured.
Jesus told the apostles to pray that their flight be not on the sabbath day. Were these apostles part of the 'church' or non-church tribulational saints, in your understanding of things? His immediate audience was both 'church' and Israel. The Twelve probably kept the sabbath throughout the time frame of the book of Acts anyway, as did other Jewish Christians (to a certain extent, not that they all did it perfectly.)
Again, you haven't addressed the issue that Acts 15 seems to be based on the understanding that the Jewish Christians were keeping and would continue to keep (or at least try to keep) the Law of Moses.
You also have not explained why the fact that there is some "Jewish" stuff argues in favor of pre-trib. God cares about Israel even during what you might call the 'church age.'
| Quote: |
Now something you guys keep dodging is the facts. You tell us that Matt 24 has the church in the tribulation, but you will not explain these Jewish references that you cannot attribute to the audience that He is speaking to directly. Yes, He is answering the disciples question, but His answer deals with Jewish fulfillment. This is PLAIN from vs. 15. He is speaking about the anti-christ, from the book of Daniel, standing in the Holy Place within the Temple.
|
No one is dodging facts. There aren't that many people participating in this thread. I have dealt with your questions, and asked you to draw the dots you aren't connecting. What do references to Israel have to do with the idea of the rapture being pre-trib? You have neglected to answer the question. You have not shown how any of these things present a problem for the Biblical view that the rapture will take place at Christ's coming, and not seven years before it.
So what does that have to do with the church already having been raptured.
I am trying to guess your arguments. Some dispensationalists teach that there is a gap of 2000+x years in Revelation. Okay, I can see why they do that.
But what you are _assuming_ here is that what restarts the clock and starts Daniels calendar of weeks of years is the church leaving. Where is the scripture to back that up?
| Quote: |
Yes, you can say that the church will be here to see this event, but I do not believe that to be the case. Everything Christ spoke of in this chapter deals with Israel, not the church.
|
Do you believe that some Gentiles will be saved during the tribulation? If so, then you should include them in the 'elect' in Matthew 24. You will also have to let go of the idea that the passage is ONLY about Israel. Also, the chapter talks about the nations--the Gospel being preached to them.
You have not presented any reasoning for not considering Abraham, David, and any saints until the end of time to be a part of the 'church.' I have presented my reasoning for included them in the 'church' including the fact that the NT speaks of the 'church' in the wilderness, Hebrews 12, and other details tying Hebrews 12 to the OT saints as well.
| Quote: |
If you understand the prophesy of Daniel, and God's dealings with their nation during this 7 year period, it is not hard to come to this understanding. All of this, taken in context with Paul's writings and Daniel's writings, can lead one to accept a pre-trib rapture of the church.
|
Spell out specifically what about Daniel or Paul's writings leads you to believe in a pre-trib rapture.
| Quote: |
One thing that it does not do is PROVE that the church will go through the tribulation.
|
I have some details I would like to post later on the use of the 'coming' of Christ in the same books, in Pauline writings, etc. Suffice it to say for now that the Bible addresses comments to 'church' people about them experiencing the coming of Christ. The bible does not teach a Third Coming of Christ. We should not presume to teach that Christ is coming three, four, five, etc. times to earth. We should not presume to add resurrections that the scripture does not teach.
When I read the Bible, I see 'dispensation of grace' as meaning just that, not a time period. I also see 'wrath' as just that, not a time period. We are living it God's dispensing of grace. We are not appointed to His anger. Can bad stuff happen in the world. Yes. But we are not under God's anger. I don't see any reason to think that 'appointed unto wrath' means that we will leave before Christ's coming, and not at Christ's coming as the scriptures teach.
When Christ returns, the man of sin will face Christ's wrath. The saints will not.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
1/31/07 11:10 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Link |
whocansatisfy |
Many of the questions you keep going back to are answered in my last two posts concerning II Thess 2, I think. In those posts I give my reasons for believing in pre-trib. If you take the time to read them, I think you will understand what I'm saying.
So I'll only deal with the following here from your last post.
Quote"
"Again, I ask you, what does the issue of the sabbath or Jewish things being mentioned in the chapter have to do with whether or not the church had been raptured.
Jesus told the apostles to pray that their flight be not on the sabbath day. Were these apostles part of the 'church' or non-church tribulational saints, in your understanding of things? His immediate audience was both 'church' and Israel. The Twelve probably kept the sabbath throughout the time frame of the book of Acts anyway, as did other Jewish Christians (to a certain extent, not that they all did it perfectly.) "
If He is talking to them about the end-times, His reference is to temple worship. I don't see how this is so unclear. Since when do we worship in the temple? When has the church ever practiced Judaism? Yet Christ's references in Matt 24 are purely Jewish in nature. You cannot believe that He is talking about end-times AND the church in light of these verses. What is clear is that He is referencing the anti-christ and the abomination of the Temple. My point has been that if this is to include the church, why are we not practicing Judaism today? It is clear that Jesus is referring to it, yet you want us to believe that He's talking about the church going through these things. It just doesn't add up in my book.
I don't have time to go into detail about how the "church age," is separate from the tribulational saints. Yes, the 144,000 will "evangelize" the world. Yes, they will convert Jews and Gentiles alike. This does not make them a part of the church as we know it for they did not "believe" beforehand making them worthy to escape. They will be guilty of using hindsight, not for-sight. Jesus told Thomas that he saw and believed, but blessed are those who have not seen and still believe. I believe this has something to do with this whole issue. The church, (body of Christ) that started on the day of Pentecost, believed by faith. Except for the early Christians that were there and witnessed these events, the majority of the Church has not seen Christ but have believed anyway. For their righteousness BY faith they will be accounted worthy to escape the final 7 years of judgment. (Or at least 3 1/2)
Once these things that have been prophesied for centuries begin to fall in place, it will open the eyes of many who did not believe. Thousands will turn to Christ, but it will cost many of them their lives. 144,000 Jews will be sealed from these events, but not everyone else. The gospel will continue to be preached and their day of deliverance will come when they die or Christ comes back. The problem some have is mixing these two groups and events together. I think Paul and Christ made the differences clear. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/31/07 11:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
