Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

Pre-trib rapture proof.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Link
Whocansatisfy

Let me try to follow your reasoning here:

Because Jesus mentions the temple and says to pray that your flight not be on the sabbath day THEREFORE the rapture must be pre-tribulational.

I'm sorry. I just don't see the logical in your argument. When I was a kid, my sister kept using any argument she could think of to get a piano. My brother and I used to tease her, "Speaking of chocolate, can I have a piano." Your argument reminds me of that. Maybe you are leaving out some steps in your reasoning.

Jesus tells the disciples to pray that their flight not be on the sabbath day. One might draw one of two conclusions from this:


1. Travel on the sabbath would be forbidden by God's law.

OR

2. Travel on the sabbath would be difficult for some reason.


If number 1 is how you are interpreting this, I still don't see how you can squeeze a pre-trib rapture scenario out of it. Especially considering jesus was actually talking to apostles, if you go with number 1, then the logical conclusion is that Christian Jews from the time of Christ until the rapture are required to keep sabbath. There is no evidence for pretribulation rapture.

Read Acts 21 and 22. Christian Jews in the first century were worshipping in the temple and trying to keep the Law. Wouldn't you say that they are in the same dispensation as Christians are now? I don't see how you can get a pre-trib argument out of all of this.


Also, you are overlooking the fact that it might just simply be DIFFICULT to flee on the sabbath in the future. If Jews experience a revival of Judaism, it is possible that Israel could become strict about travel on the sabbath.


The fact that Jesus mentions the sabbath as evidence for pre-trib is weaker than the 'come up hither' argument or the 'not appointed unto wrath' argument. All of them pale in comparison with the plain facts that Paul says that the church will be raptured at the coming of Christ, and also that the man of sin will be destroyed with the brightness of His coming. A simple study of what Paul says will happen at the coming of the Lord is strong evidence against both pre-trib and mid-trib positions.

Doesn't it make sense to take the simple, straightforward teaching of Paul on the matter at face value? You haven't even made a solid argument for pre-trib.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/2/07 1:09 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Quote:

Quote:

Maybe he does not see the events of Revelation as completely
chronological, but sees the trumpet passage as starting early in
the timeline in Revelation and ending at the end of it.


Is this the best you can do? You claim you do not believe
something because "maybe we do not believe the events of Revelation are
chronological." Maybe you would like to explain what you believe
concerning the events of Revelation. One of the things that is obvious to
me is that it matters not if you view everything chronologically, the 7
trumpets in Rev happen no where near the end. (To make that claim requires
a much larger jump of faith than what the pre-trib view requires.)




First of all, I said maybe this was 'his' view not 'ours.' I am taking his
view into consideration, not promoting it as my own.

But I could see how it could conceivably fit. If you take the trumpet
passage as started at the beginning of the Tribulation, or some other point
before the Second Coming, and read the Seveth trumpet as occurring at the
Second Coming, it makes sense. I remember Mark Rutland explaining the book
of Revelation as several panoramas describing end-time events. It may make
more sense to interpret parts of it as separate ways of describing the end
times rather than seeing the beginning.


Quote:

Yet you accept references that have nothing to do with one another as
though it makes your case. It's simply poor interpretation and an improper
lack of rightly dividing the Word of Truth. If I am wrong about this, then
show me how you come to your position.


I have been planning on posting another thread to present the evidence for
rapture at the coming of Christ, but time constraints have delayed me.
Maybe I will go into a little of this now. This thread is about supposed
'proof' of pre-trib. I've been staying on topic by showing pre-trib can't
be proved.

What is poor interpretation is inventing different meanings for the same
phrases in Paul's writings. Paul speaks of 'the coming' of Christ, it
makes sense to interpret his reference to the Lord's coming as all
referring to the same coming.

I have offered you solid arguments from scripture. You ignore them. You
don't address them. Then you quote a comment like this, where I am just
commenting on someone else's view, and say my interpretation is poor. You
have yet to deal with the facts in II Thessalonians 1, which talks about
the saints receiving rest at the Lord's coming, and what will happen to the
wicked.


Let us look at Paul's references to the coming of the Lord.

I Corinthians
1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ:


Apparently, Paul expected the 'church of Corinth' to wait for the Lord's
coming. Not seven years before it.

[/b]I Thessalonians 3
3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before
God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his
saints. [/b]

Notice this happens at the coming of the Lord, not seven years
before it.


Here is a big piece of evidence.
I Thessalonians 4
4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are
alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which
are asleep.



This verse destroys the pre-trib position. Paul speaks of we who
are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord. Clearly Paul
does not have post-rapture saints in mind. He wasn't a post-rapture
saint. Neither were his readers. Paul makes it clear that the rapture
occurs at the COMING OF THE LORD.


This verse also demonstrates that the resurrection of the just occurs at
the COMING OF CHRIST.
I Corinthians 15
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they
that are Christ's at his coming.


II Thessalonians
Chapter 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.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the
son of perdition;


<skip>
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with
the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming:



Here we see that the man of sin will be DESTROYED AT THE COMING OF
CHRIST.

Let us compare some phrases from the verses listed above

-- "that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord
"
-- "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto
him,
"
-- "whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall
destroy with the brightness of his coming:


Clearly, it makes little sense at all to argue that 'the coming of the
Lord' means 'seven years before the coming of the Lord' whenever you want
it to when you read scripture, and that it means 'the Second Coming'
whenever you want it to when you read scripture. It makes more sense to
see Paul as being _consistent_ with his terminology _especially within the
same book._

Given that there is no one who can give any evidence for a pre-trib rapture
in scripture, there is certainly no reason to read two comings of Christ
into scripture. It is presumption to teach about raptures and
resurrections that God has not revealed will happen. There is no scripture
that indicates a pre-tribulational rapture and mass resurrection. Paul is
clear that the rapture will take place among those who "are alive and
remain unto the coming of the Lord[b]". This is from the rapture
passage. It happens at the coming of the Lord, not seven years before it.


Consider also II Thessalonians 1
7 And to you who are troubled [b]rest
with us, when the Lord Jesus
shall be revealed from heaven
with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming
fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the
gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


This is very clear. Paul is writing to the CHURCH. He says his readers,
along with 'us' receive rest when Christ is revealed. At the same time, we
see that He comes with vengeance on the disobedient. This is very
clear. Given all of Paul's arguments, it is hard to argue pre-trib after
this.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/2/07 1:28 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Whocansatify... whocansatisfy
Yo Dude wrote:
Are you implying that those two words--"last trump"--are insignificant? That Paul was just talking out of his head?

All I know is what it said. That's called SCRIPTURAL soundness. And you take me to task for taking the scripture at face value???

It's not about whether the trib is mid or post. The question on this thread is whether it is PRE. Unless you can show that the "last trump" does not, in fact, mean THE LAST TRUMP, then you have to hold that, since there are trumpets in the tribulation, that the last trump MUST, logically, be the last of those, or even LATER.

So there is no way the last trump sounds before the tribulation.

It's just not there.


To take a reference of Scripture and jump to another Scripture saying, "these are the same thing," without knowing the context of each is not sound scriptural reasoning. The phrase, "last trump," IS significant. I never said otherwise. My point with you is that it does not mean it is referring to the last of the 7 trumpets in Revelation. Unfortunately you cannot prove that it does. It is merely you assumption. If John made it clear that the 7th trumpet of Revelation was called, "the last trump," then you could easily make that assumption. He doesn't. You have applied that meaning simply because it is the last trumpet referred to in Revelation during the tribulation period. The problem, again, you have here is that by making that assumption, you have thrown out most of the book of Revelation that deals with events that take place after the 7th trumpet. Of course you cannot deal with that so you simply jump to another assumption and that is when the last trumpet sounds, it's all over. Sorry, that is not sound scriptural reasoning. Therefore, understanding the difficulties that your simple logic present, you have to come to a different conclusion. One that makes better sense, in my book. You have to study and understand what context Paul is talking about when he mentions the last trump. Paul did give us a clue. This last trump he calls the "trump of God." John's trumpets are referred to as the trumpets of angels. Seven angels who blow 7 trumpets. Not one mention of the trump of God. So there you have a problem with context.

I understand what you and Link are saying. I've looked all around this in order to make sure I have not missed something. I said it before, you won't find any one scripture to hang a pre-trib view on. But in light of all the Scripture we have, understanding context and purpose, it is not that hard to come to a pre-trib or at least mid-trib view of the rapture. The post trib view however that you have defended falls apart when you apply the facts of Scripture that we do have. You, Yo, of all people in this discussion has done the least to make your case. You have simply demonstrated a limited understanding of context while telling us, "Well, whenever the rapture takes place, we know it will be the last trump and the days will be shortened and therefore the tribulation will be over."

Come on, be real. You tell us that the last trump is the 7th trump and no matter whether it pre, mid, or post trib, when it sounds it's all over because the days were shortened. Sorry, you just have too much to answer to concerning that statement. Even IF the 7th trumpet was the same trumpet Paul mentioned, when it sounds there is a whole lot more of the book left to be fulfilled. The phrase, "the days be shortened," does not mean in any way, shape, or form, that the prophesies will not be fulfilled. Therefore, you are working hard to make a case for mid-trib rapture based upon your defense of "the last trump." If you cannot see that, we have nothing more to discuss.

Respectfully.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/2/07 2:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link, I don't have much time right now. whocansatisfy
But I'll deal with the Matt 24 issue one more time. I respect your position and understand completely what you are saying. I acknowledge that I am not the best one to defend my position and on a message board such as this, it is slow going at best.

You keep referring to the fact that Matt 24 does not make a case for pre-trib rapture. True. The problem we seem to be having is that while Christ refers to a "gathering of the elect," you and others make the claim that it is proof of post-trib rapture. (BTW, there is a rapture, but of what?)

The simple problem with this is that this reference to "gathering elect" does not prove a rapture of the church, unless you hold to one rapture in the N.T. If you hold to one rapture, then you have more problems for the 7th trumpet in revelation raptures the 144,000 (man-child), from earth and then there is the rapture of the two witnesses on another occasion. We know there is a rapture, or gathering at the end of all the tribulation saints. So why can we not accept a rapture of the church?

I think the problem some people are having is keeping scripture in context. That is critical in my thinking. That is why I refer to Matt24. No, it does not "prove" that there is a pre-trib rapture of the church. The point is, it does not "prove" any kind of rapture of the church.

That is the problem we have with Matt 24. Look at the context. Jesus was asked when the things He had been talking about would take place and what would be the sign of His coming. He then begins to expound on the signs of the last days. To answer one of your questions, Jesus was talking to Christian Jews who were part of the church. But notice He mentions nothing about the end-times in connection to the church. As I've already pointed out, every reference is to Jewish tradition.

Now, I know you have to take a leap of faith, but we have to do that with all of the Word of God, right? I mean, come on, does it not require faith to believe that the blood of Jesus will wash your sins away? So travel with me on this, while He is talking about the signs of His coming, He never mentions anything in connection with the church, or His body. Everything is Jewish. We know from other text that the Jewish nation will be destroyed and come back into existence. That has already happened. They were scattered and in fulfillment of prophesy they have been and are returning to Israel. Further, we know that the temple will be rebuilt and temple worship will be re-instituted, therefore we can conclude that Matt 24 deals with the end-times concerning Israel.

Does this prove pre-trib rapture? No. Again, when talking about the rapture being pre-trib or post-trib, we are talking about the church. There is nothing in Matt 24 to prove any kind of rapture of the church. Why? You have to understand the context and references of "elect," and to what subject Jesus is referring to.

Can we come to this conclusion with Matt 24 alone? No. Consider also that in the first three chapters of revelation, Jesus refers to the church or churches 19 times but not one time in the rest of Revelation until chapter 22. Why? Why is the church suddenly not discussed any further?

Rev 4:1 makes it clear that what takes place in the following chapters must happen "after these things." What things? The things he was just told in the first three chapters. The things concerning the church.

Then throughout the book, not ONE reference to the church. If there was nothing concerning the church in the first three chapters of Rev., then I might be convinced to believe that Rev. concerned the church to. But it is emphatically clear, whether you understand all of Revelation or not, that the church is never mentioned again. I don't see how that is not clear to anyone. You have three chapters dedicated to the churches, the body of Christ. Then all of a sudden John is told that what he is about to see must happen "AFTER," these things. Not before, not during, not sequentially, but after. You might not have a clear verse to hang pre-trib doctrine on, but I believe you have plenty of Scriptural context to prove this issue.

This is all I have time for this week. I'll check in to any responses, but I do not plan to deal with this any further at this time unless someone has a legitimate question. If you don't agree, that is fine but I don't plan to debate argument anymore. I have given you some of the reasons and Scriptures that can be used to come to this conclusion. In context they make a pretty convincing case. I have yet to see anything other than "this verse says this," while not explaining the context of the verse that is considered to make ones claim. Link, you did a good job at providing Scriptures about the trumpets, and the words "coming of the Lord," but unless context is addressed, it really doesn't make your case.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/2/07 2:54 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post ChurchAhMahGod
I was seriously going to stay away from this thread... but I have to respond on this one issue.

The church is not mentioned again in the book of REVELATION? After Chapter 4:1?? Have you read Revelation?

The prayers of the Saints are in Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3.

Revelation 11:18 is listed as the time when God is to give REWARD to His saints.

Revelation 13:7, the Beast makes war with the Saints.

Revelation 13:10, talks about the faith and patience of the Saints.

Revelation 14:12, talks about the faith of the Saints keeping the commandments of Jesus.

Revelation 16, Revelation 17, and Revelation 18 talks about the shed blood of the Saints, the whore Babylon being drunken on the blood of the Saints...

Revelation 19 talks about the Saints being clothed in white.

Now explain to me how any other time when someone references the SAINTS, it's a reference to the people of God... but in Revelation, we make it something else... "Oh, it's the 144,000... it's those saved after the Rapture..."

Regardless of how it is - there WILL be Christians in the Tribulation; whether new Christians or enduring Christians, they will be present. You can't talk about the ABSENCE of the church unless you can explains the dozens of passages about the SAINTS.
Friendly Face
Posts: 208
2/2/07 5:14 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post whocansatisfy
ChurchAhMahGod wrote:
I was seriously going to stay away from this thread... but I have to respond on this one issue.

The church is not mentioned again in the book of REVELATION? After Chapter 4:1?? Have you read Revelation?

The prayers of the Saints are in Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3.

Revelation 11:18 is listed as the time when God is to give REWARD to His saints.

Revelation 13:7, the Beast makes war with the Saints.

Revelation 13:10, talks about the faith and patience of the Saints.

Revelation 14:12, talks about the faith of the Saints keeping the commandments of Jesus.

Revelation 16, Revelation 17, and Revelation 18 talks about the shed blood of the Saints, the whore Babylon being drunken on the blood of the Saints...

Revelation 19 talks about the Saints being clothed in white.

Now explain to me how any other time when someone references the SAINTS, it's a reference to the people of God... but in Revelation, we make it something else... "Oh, it's the 144,000... it's those saved after the Rapture..."

Regardless of how it is - there WILL be Christians in the Tribulation; whether new Christians or enduring Christians, they will be present. You can't talk about the ABSENCE of the church unless you can explains the dozens of passages about the SAINTS.



Maybe you would like to explain why the "saints," as you refer to them, are referred to as the church in Rev 1-3 but saints elsewhere. If they are the same, why are they never referred to as saints in the first three chapters? It's just not possible that they could reference two different types of people though, right?
So you don't think it possible that the reference to "saints" in Rev. is merely to point out their difference from those who are of the world. That they are of Christ? Why is it that you have to assume that since they follow the Lord during the tribulation their mention in the Scripture proves that the church is still around? You might want to study that subject a little deeper before assuming they are the same.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/2/07 11:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Whocansatisfy

Members of the church are consistently called saints throughout scripture, so I don't see how the fact that the tribulational saints are called 'saints' is an argument for the pre-tribulation rapture.

If there is no hint from scripture to cause us to presume a pre-trib rapture, then there is no reason to take the lack of mention of the word 'church' in the later chapters of Revelation as an argument for a pre-trib rapture.

One of the uses of 'church' is for actual congregations that meet together (as opposed to another usage in the later Pauline epistles for the heavenly church that includes saints live or dead.) In the beginning chapters of Revelation, John is told to address literal churches, congregations of believers. Later in the book, he is looking at believers from a global perspective, not just in one particular city that could meet together and be 'a church.' That should be enough to expect a change in terminology.

Also, in times of intense persecution, it may be difficult for believers to gather together much as churches. Paul addresses several brethren toward the end of Romans, but he saluted only one 'church' that gathered in Priscilla and Aquilla's house.

Considering the fact that there is plain scripture showing us that the church will be raptured at the coming of Christ and that the man of sin will be raptures at the return of Christ, reading pre-trib rapture into Revelation just because 'church' isn't used in the later chapters seems extremely unjustifiable.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/3/07 12:44 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link whocansatisfy
Members of the church are consistently called saints throughout scripture, so I don't see how the fact that the tribulational saints are called 'saints' is an argument for the pre-tribulation rapture.

Care to share the Scriptures you refer to?

If there is no hint from scripture to cause us to presume a pre-trib rapture, then there is no reason to take the lack of mention of the word 'church' in the later chapters of Revelation as an argument for a pre-trib rapture.

The problem you have Link is that you assume there is no "hint" from Scripture. I've given you several "hints," so that is really an inaccurate statement. As for the lack of the word "church" you will have to study the context of the book to come to any kind of conclusion. Not trying to be "sticky" here, but you just haven't offered anything to make your point stick other than "you don't see how."

Considering the fact that there is plain scripture showing us that the church will be raptured at the coming of Christ and that the man of sin will be raptures at the return of Christ, reading pre-trib rapture into Revelation just because 'church' isn't used in the later chapters seems extremely unjustifiable.

Again, you fall into assumption from a lack of context. From where I sit, I separate the term "coming of the Lord," when Paul is talking to the church, from "the day of the Lord," which refers to His return to earth. Your view does not account for that possibility so you simply lump them together. To separate them opens the door to Paul's references and Jesus' reference to "being counted worthy to escape," and "we're not appointed unto wrath." If these do not count as "hints," I don't know what does.

I've gone through many of the problems that post-trib causes. So far I've seen nothing but "the bible is clear that the rapture happens at the resurrection." I really don't understand how anyone can make that claim in light of all the evidence that there is more than one resurrection. Beginning with Christ and culminating with the resurrection of the tribulational saints, they comprise the "first resurrection." (I know, some of you will have a hard time swallowing this one, but show me how it isn't so.) The second resurrection takes place at the end of 1000 years. I hope we can all agree with that. When you understand that the "first resurrection" refers to the resurrection unto life and the second a resurrection unto death, then you get the picture. Jesus was the firstfruits of the first resurrection, was he not? We know the tribulation saints will be resurrected also. But then the 144,000, or man-child, will be raptured during the 7th trumpet, this is somewhere in the middle of events in Rev. This is a rapture separate from anything any of you have dealt with and cannot seem to account for. Then there will be a resurrection of the two witnesses. So which of these rapture/resurrections represent the church? Where is the rapture of the church among all these resurrections and raptures? One thing that is most clear, you cannot link all these separate events together as one. Therefore, if you can admit to more than one actual resurrection in the "first resurrection" unto life, and you acknowledge that there is more than one rapture referred to in the Scripture, then WHY can you not accept a pre- or mid-trib rapture of the church? Of all that has been discussed, the one thing you can say is certain is that there is more than one rapture and one resurrection. Even if the church is raptured at the end, there are still others to account for. With that being the case, how can anyone hold to the belief, "The Scripture is plain that the rapture occurs at the resurrection?" Context my friends. Keep it in context.

Blessings.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/3/07 1:51 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Whocansatisfy wrote
Quote:

The problem you have Link is that you assume there is no "hint" from Scripture. I've given you several "hints," so that is really an inaccurate statement.


No you haven’t. There is nothing in any of the passage you have presented that hints that a rapture will take place 7 years before the tribulation. The fact that Jesus mentioned the Sabbath in Matthew 24 has nothing to do with a pre-trib rapture. You haven’t explained the connection if you think it does. The fact that John in Revelation refers to specific congregations as ‘churches’ in the early part of Revelation, and refers to believers all throughout the world as ‘saints’ later in the book is not a hint of a pre-tribulation rapture either. Where is the passage that indicates that the time frame of a rapture will be before the man of sin appears?

Quote:
As for the lack of the word "church" you will have to study the context of the book to come to any kind of conclusion. Not trying to be "sticky" here, but you just haven't offered anything to make your point stick other than "you don't see how."


I have just pointed out that you have not shown any evidence to support your conclusion. Care to show what specific contexts you are referring to? There is nothing in the context that indicates a pre-tribulation rapture. That is the point. You can try to side-step this by vaguely claiming that the ‘context’ supports a pre-trib rapture, without ever actually being able to show anything specific in the context that supports the idea.

Quote:
Again, you fall into assumption from a lack of context. From where I sit, I separate the term "coming of the Lord," when Paul is talking to the church, from "the day of the Lord," which refers to His return to earth.


I just showed you that Paul tells us that at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the church will be raptured. This is very clear from the rapture passage.

I Thessalonians 4
4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout….

It is clear here that the Lord descends at his coming here. Paul does not make these into two events. Paul, addressing the church, speaks of those who will be alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord.

We also see that, at his coming, Christ destroys the man of sin

II Thessalonians 2
2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Paul says that the day of the Christ can’t occur until the man of sin be revealed.

Here is pretty good evidence that Paul expected the church to experience the day of Christ, from a passage written to a church:

Philipians
1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

As if that weren’t enough, here is a clencher:

Philippians 1
1:10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ.

Below, we see that Paul connects the day of Christ to the concept of ‘as a thief in the night.’ Usually, we hear another passage about that about the rapture. Paul makes it clear that this happens on the day of Christ.


I Thessalonians 5
5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
<snip>
5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Paul expects the church in Thessalonians to experience the day of Christ, not get raptured out 7 years earlier. Paul expects the good work done in the Philippian church to continue until the day of Christ, not 7 years before it. Paul wanted them to be sincere and without offense until the day of Christ, not 7 years before it.

Quote:

Your view does not account for that possibility so you simply lump them together.


Paul speaks of the rapture of the church as occurring at the coming of the Lord. He talks about the destruction of the man of sin at the coming of the Lord. Look at the verses above, and see that Paul expects the church to continue on until the day of Christ. The day of Christ cannot occur until the man of sin be revealed. It is all fairly straightforward in Paul’s writings.

So would you have me believe that ‘coming of the Lord’ means ‘7 years before the coming of the Lord’ in one verse, but means ‘the actual coming of the Lord’ in other passages? Would you expect me to believe the same thing regarding the day of Christ? That’s a rather schizophrenic way of reading scripture, isn’t it? That is the type of reading necessary to get pre-trib rapture.

Quote:

To separate them opens the door to Paul's references and Jesus' reference to "being counted worthy to escape," and "we're not appointed unto wrath." If these do not count as "hints," I don't know what does.



This is the first time I recall your mentioning ‘being counted worthy’ to escape, at least in a post directed to me, I have not finished all your activity with YoDude since the Internet slowed down due to Jakarta flooding yesterday. That is the strongest argument you have so far. Of course, there are other explanations that fit, that Philadelphia will be exempt from some of the difficulties that will come upon the world, or that the church therein will be for some reason, or that all the saints there would be killed off before that time. Is there even a church in that part of Turkey now?
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/3/07 4:06 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link whocansatisfy
My friend, you still miss the point. Matt 24 does not point out a pre-trib rapture of the church, as you've constantly declared, because the church is never mentioned or spoken to in the passage. So, yes you are right while being wrong.

Then you keep on about the rapture has to happen at the Second coming. You reference Paul as making this clear. Let's look at it.

I Thess 4:16-17, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17, Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

Now here is your HINT Link. Look carefully. The Lord descending is a reference to the fact that to come and meet us in the clouds, He has to descend from His heavenly home. That is all we can make of that passage. Furthermore, he says we shall be caught up! Up where? Again he makes that clear, in the clouds. Why? To meet Him in the AIR! Hint hint?

Now where do you get a second advent of Jesus Christ from this? You merely assume that is what Paul is talking about. No where does Paul say He is returning to earth at that time, but he does say the Lord will catch the church away. He comes down in the clouds to greet us as we are caught up to meet Him. I know you guys want to make your theological position stick, but you can't do it with this. If anything, the best you can come up with is Paul makes it clear that the church will meet the Lord in the air. It says nothing, nothing to indicate that this is His second advent. Context my friend, context.

Now consider Paul's next letter to Thessolonica. Chapter 2:1-3
"Now we beseech you, brethren by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him." (Paul has already talked about this in the verses above, right? So he opens with saying, "listen intently, carefully consider the importance of this, it's just as important as our gathering together.) vs2. "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."

What is the day of Christ? It is His second advent! Not a return in the clouds. You have two events here. Paul then continues to explain that anti-christ has to be set up before the Lord can return to earth to destroy him. But notice also that his message is of comfort. It is not, "get ready because all hell will break loose, but you will be o.k." He goes on telling them in vs 6 that they already know what is withholding the anti-christ from appearing. Yes, there is a spirit of iniquity already at work, but anti-christ cannot appear until he that hinders him from appearing is removed.
No, we don't have the words that Paul talked to them personally about so this can be confusing to someone who does not do his homework. But it is clear that Paul's message to them was that they didn't have to worry that the anti-christ was already there (it's not hard to understand why they thought that for there are those today who claim that anti-christ was Nero.) because they understood what?, perhaps they understood that they would be gone before those events took place.

You don't have to believe it Link, but don't tell me the hints are not there. Context and understanding of surrounding events are what help us to understand the intent. That, with all the other things I have pointed out. For instance, Jesus own words in Luke 21:36, which is the first reference to a rapture, "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these thing that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."

I know the arguments about how the Lord delivered the three Hebrew children through the fire or Noah through the flood. But the word escape does not hold to the same context as "delivered from or through." If your house is on fire and you are trapped, then suddenly someone comes and helps you to escape, what happens? You get out of there! Escaping a burning house is not the same as being delivered from the fire within the house. For those who talk about reading things into Scripture and stretching, this is a perfect example. Jesus is the first to tell us that he will rapture us.

More "proof?" John 14:3 "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." Again, there are post-trib believers who "stretch" this to make a claim for the second advent. But notice there is no mention of that anywhere. It is merely an assumption that since He said, " I will come again," it has to mean the second advent. I do not think you or anyone else can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. Notice Jesus words, "to receive you unto myself that where I am, there ye may be also." Where is Jesus? On earth? In the sky? No, He is in heaven with His father. Jesus Himself is the first one to teach us of a rapture by tellling us He will return, in the clouds, to catch us away to be with Him.

So here you have "hints." All over the Word. From Jesus to Paul to John the Revelator. Hints that He is returning, not to earth, to catch us away to be with Him so that WHEN HE DOES return, we will be with Him. I really don't see the problem, but you believe what you will.

As I've said umpteen times, to make the post-trib position stick, you have to assume much more than pre-trib or mid-trib positions. Keep it in context and it all falls together.

Think about it. You claim a post-trib rapture, at the end of tribulation and have even used the "last trumpet," reference to defend your position if I'm correct. If you haven't, then you still haven't accounted for that little discrepancy. But the fact remains, if you hold to "the last trump of God," to mean the 7th trumpet of Rev, then you have killed your theory of pre-trib altogether. To hold on to it requires such a stretch of imagination that it is simply impossible to consider. It would mean throwing out most of the book of Revelation and we know we cannot do that no matter what we believe, right?
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/3/07 1:11 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post whocansatisfy, settle the argument..... chappy
Whocansatisfy… Settle your argument once and for all and give us patristic evidence! Prove the generation directly after the Apostles believed in a dispensational eschatology and settle this controversy. If you can’t then you prove your exegesis is not that of the early church and you need to make your speculations known as such instead of infallible proof that demands acceptance or anamatha.

-Chappy
New Member
Posts: 14
2/3/07 3:03 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post ChurchAhMahGod
Well, if you're gonna stir up a mess, do it right. Laughing

There has been repetitive citing of Matthew 24, which would seem logical, as it points to the future. However, most of the events (if not all of them) could be justified in historical record of the fall of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. There is some question as to whether this passage even points to end-times events at all.

Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) perpetrated the abomination which causes desolation in 165 BC. Titus did so in 70 A.D. I'm not sure that trying to convince a post-tribber of the efficacy of pre-trib doctrine is possible by utilizing the Matthew 24 passage. I, for one, while not stating my specific position, hold the prophecies of Matthew 24 as FULFILLED... if not in FULL at least IN PART.

Look at the whole dialogue of the Matthew 24 passage. Jesus brings up the destruction of the Temple... an event which would occur in less than 50 years. The disciples ask Jesus TWO QUESTIONS in response to that statement by Jesus, and He answers both.

The first question was, "When will these things be?" meaning the destruction of the temple. That's the reference to the destruction of the Temple and the abomination which causes desolation. He answers that in the first portion of Matthew 24. The second question was, "What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?" He answers that in the remainder of Matthew 24. Two distinct questions; two distinct answers.

Matthew 24 could be viewed as a panoramic view of the Jewish people from the time after Jesus' death across time to the end times.

He gives them prophecies for the immediate future. And most can receive part of it. We have absolutely no problem believing that the prophecies of "not one stone left on another" was fulfilled in A.D. 70. Why could not other portions of this prophecy have been fulfilled then as well?

Everything spoken through verse 22 was for their immediate future, and point to A.D. 70, and the destruction of the Temple by Titus.

After that point, verse 23 and beyond; these are the events which lead up to the end of the world, and to His coming.

Imagine this with me; we have an entire generation which has built personal doctrine on the necessity of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. The main reason for this doctrine is the idea of the abomination of desolation. But if this has already happened in history (Antiochus IV or Titus), and this is NOT an end-times event, then Antichrist could show up, and never be recognized, because "Hey, there's no temple yet!!"

To say that God has to fulfill this prophecy THREE TIMES would be like saying we need another Virgin Birth. The prophecy is fulfilled. It doesn't need to be fulfilled again.

So the repetitive citing of Matthew 24 might not have the same efficacy as would other passages.
Friendly Face
Posts: 208
2/3/07 5:58 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
whocansatisfy wrote
Quote:

vs2. "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."

What is the day of Christ? It is His second advent! Not a return in the clouds. You have two events here. Paul then continues to explain that anti-christ has to be set up before the Lord can return to earth to destroy him.



I showed you good scriptural reasons to believe that the church will continue to the 'day of Christ.'

I have also shown you where Paul teaches that the rapture will occur at the 'coming' of the Lord, and that the destruction of the man of sin will occur at the 'coming' of the Lord.

Weak conjectures on 'not appointed unto wrath' are no justification for disregarding Paul's plain teachings.

Btw, about the trumpets, I already told you two or three times that I did not make that argument, and you keep acting like I did. You wrote,
[/quote]
You claim a post-trib rapture, at the end of tribulation and have even used the "last trumpet," reference to defend your position if I'm correct.[/quote]

Are you calling me a liar? I find this a bit rude. All you have to do is run a 'find' search on every page of this thread and see what I said about this. Finally, I did make a comment, but I pointed out that this was not my argument. Don't put words in other people's mouths.

Since the seven trumpets is an apocalyptic vision, I don't think the 7th trmpet is necessarily the last one that will ever be sounded.

You are also overlooking the obvious when you say,

Quote:

But the fact remains, if you hold to "the last trump of God," to mean the 7th trumpet of Rev, then you have killed your theory of pre-trib altogether. To hold on to it requires such a stretch of imagination that it is simply impossible to consider.



At first, I said holding that the 7th trumpet was the trumpet of the rapture would be a mid-trib view. This was YoDude's (and perhaps another poster's) view, not mine.

But when I say you are overlooking the obvious, you are overlooking the fact that some people do not see the book of Revelation as completely chronological. What I mean is, it is possible to interpret chapter 11 as not occuring after chapter 10 and before chapter 12. If one interprets the first trumpet as occuring early in the tribulation and the last trumpet as occuring at the end, this could make sense. Again, I am not endorsing this view. I just saw how it was worth studying while participating in this thread.

For me though, I just think it makes a lot more sense to get a clear understanding of eschatology from Paul's writings, and use that as a framework to interpret apocalyptic literature like Revelation, with all the visions, monsters, and symbols.

The odd thing is, even with all the ways Revelation can be interpreted, you can't even show where the pre-trib rapture/resurrection takes place in the book. You can't show any other passage that really gives a good case for it. Even with all the arguments you do have, don't they fit just as well with mid-trib as they do with pre-trib, or even better?

You talk about context and the whole counsel of God's word as a basis for believing in pre-trib, but you can't show the specifics from the word to back it up. Could it be that you just believe in pre-trib so much, that you assume the answer must be in there somewhere in 'the whole counsel', even if you can't find it? Well, you are responsible to God for your beliefs, and your teachings if your spread them. If you can't see where the Bible backs up your views on this, why promote the views?
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/4/07 6:09 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link whocansatisfy
Quote:
"I showed you good scriptural reasons to believe that the church will continue to the 'day of Christ.'

I have also shown you where Paul teaches that the rapture will occur at the 'coming' of the Lord, and that the destruction of the man of sin will occur at the 'coming' of the Lord. "

I'm sorry Link but I must say that you have proved nothing with your Scriptures. You have merely quoted a few verses and told what you believe. Then you are asked questions and even get into the debate of trumpets and without explaining the problems these verses cause the post-trib, you simply respond by saying "I have said I don't hold to those views," So you have really done little to make your point other than declaring that Paul makes something clear that apparently isn't clear at all. On the same token, I can say that I have showed you good scriptural reasons to believe that the church will not be here to the day of Christ. We will instead come back WITH Him. Notice, if you will, you have done nothing to answer the questions posed to you concerning Paul's reference to the church being "caught up," etc. As I have already pointed out, Jesus, Paul, and John make a good case for a pre-trib rapture of the church. You just have to stop confusing separate events that are mentioned in the Bible.

I've given you all the Scripture that you need along with the information to explain the reasoning behind the belief. You can ignore it if you want or say it isn't there. That's nothing to me. But don't say that no one stepped up to defend our position. That just wouldn't be so, would it? Either way, I'm through. If you are right, maybe one day I'll be able to help you or you help me face the difficulties that the tribulation will cause us. If I am right, no apology is needed. You are already forgiven. Wink
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/5/07 12:26 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Link Link
whocansatisfy wrote:
Quote:
I'm sorry Link but I must say that you have proved nothing with your Scriptures. You have merely quoted a few verses and told what you believe.


No I haven't I have shown you what the scriptures say. Again I post:

"I showed you good scriptural reasons to believe that the church will continue to the 'day of Christ.'

I have also shown you where Paul teaches that the rapture will occur at the 'coming' of the Lord, and that the destruction of the man of sin will occur at the 'coming' of the Lord. "


How do you get past that? The rapture occurs at the Lord's coming. The destruction of the man of sin occurs at the Lord's coming.

Quote:

Then you are asked questions and even get into the debate of trumpets and without explaining the problems these verses cause the post-trib, you simply respond by saying "I have said I don't hold to those views,"


Why don't you spend a little more time on my posts. Like I said, I don't believe the last of the 7 trumpets has to be 'the last trump.' YoDude argued that, and it is rude of you to continue to imply that this was my argument.

Secondly, I did show how this viewpoint does not conflict with the return of Christ at the second coming (historic premillinealism, as some call it.) If you view the trumpets passages as describing a time frame that occurs at the beginning of the tribulation or some other point in the past, and ending after the tribulation, the passage makes sense. Many people interpret the book of Revelation as a series of visionary experiences, and not as a chronological play-by-play description of events. Are the parables of Christ in Matthew 13 meant to be taken as a chronological list of events?

Quote:

So you have really done little to make your point other than declaring that Paul makes something clear that apparently isn't clear at all.


Paul's writings look pretty clear. What isn't clear is how you arrive at a pre-tribulation rapture viewpoint.

Quote:

On the same token, I can say that I have showed you good scriptural reasons to believe that the church will not be here to the day of Christ.


You can say that , but it wouldn't be true. What is your argument? That because Jesus mentioned the Sabbath in Matthew 24, therefore the church won't be here during the tribulation? That argument doesn't hold any water.

Quote:
We will instead come back WITH Him.


I don't recall your making an argument from this verse in this thread, not directed at me at least. I think I know the verse you are talking about Considering the context though, which is in a verse just before the coming of Christ. The Indonesian translation I have on my PC says that God is going to gather together those are asleep in Jesus with Him.

Quote:

Notice, if you will, you have done nothing to answer the questions posed to you concerning Paul's reference to the church being "caught up," etc.


Would you please refresh my memory. I believe I have answered everything you have addressed to me that I could see was an argument for pre-trib. Honestly, some of the things you have written don't seem to have any connection, like Christ mentioning the sabbath. What questions are you referring to?

I recall your asking why i believed in a rapture, and I told you that it comes from the Latin for being 'caught up.'

Quote:

As I have already pointed out, Jesus, Paul, and John make a good case for a pre-trib rapture of the church.


You say you have, but where are those good arguments? What is the case from Jesus, that because Jesus mentioned the sabbath, that the rapture is before the tribulation. If the apostles were keeping sabbath (or trying to) after the ascensions, which is likely, that would seem to destroy your entire line of reasoning on this. Many Jewish Christians tried to keep the law. If Jewish Christians, or even just the Israeli unbelievers, try to keep sabbath inthe end times, they you have no case. That is enough reason to pray that it not be on the sabbath day. If the Jews really kept the sabbath, they might close the gates, not have any buses running, etc.

Quote:

You just have to stop confusing separate events that are mentioned in the Bible.


What is confusing is taking the same words from Paul and interpreting them one way when it suits your interpretation and another when it suits your interpretation. For example, if you take the 'coming of the Lord' and make it refer to the coming of the Lord in one verse, but make it refer to 7 years before the second coming in another.

Quote:
I've given you all the Scripture that you need along with the information to explain the reasoning behind the belief. You can ignore it if you want or say it isn't there. That's nothing to me. But don't say that no one stepped up to defend our position.


You just haven't made any convincing arguments. In the past two posts, you've alluded to a couple of arguments you can make, from verses that can be interpreted other ways to line up with what Paul is saying. I can see a reason for reading verses to line up with Paul. What I can't see is what is the impetus for a pre-trib rapture. Even with the arguments you have made, why is this an argument for pre-trib and not mid trib?
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/5/07 6:41 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Link whocansatisfy
Link wrote:
whocansatisfy wrote:
Quote:
I'm sorry Link but I must say that you have proved nothing with your Scriptures. You have merely quoted a few verses and told what you believe.


No I haven't I have shown you what the scriptures say. Again I post:

"I showed you good scriptural reasons to believe that the church will continue to the 'day of Christ.'

I have also shown you where Paul teaches that the rapture will occur at the 'coming' of the Lord, and that the destruction of the man of sin will occur at the 'coming' of the Lord. "


How do you get past that? The rapture occurs at the Lord's coming. The destruction of the man of sin occurs at the Lord's coming.

Quote:

Then you are asked questions and even get into the debate of trumpets and without explaining the problems these verses cause the post-trib, you simply respond by saying "I have said I don't hold to those views,"


Why don't you spend a little more time on my posts. Like I said, I don't believe the last of the 7 trumpets has to be 'the last trump.' YoDude argued that, and it is rude of you to continue to imply that this was my argument.

Secondly, I did show how this viewpoint does not conflict with the return of Christ at the second coming (historic premillinealism, as some call it.) If you view the trumpets passages as describing a time frame that occurs at the beginning of the tribulation or some other point in the past, and ending after the tribulation, the passage makes sense. Many people interpret the book of Revelation as a series of visionary experiences, and not as a chronological play-by-play description of events. Are the parables of Christ in Matthew 13 meant to be taken as a chronological list of events?

Quote:

So you have really done little to make your point other than declaring that Paul makes something clear that apparently isn't clear at all.


Paul's writings look pretty clear. What isn't clear is how you arrive at a pre-tribulation rapture viewpoint.

Quote:

On the same token, I can say that I have showed you good scriptural reasons to believe that the church will not be here to the day of Christ.


You can say that , but it wouldn't be true. What is your argument? That because Jesus mentioned the Sabbath in Matthew 24, therefore the church won't be here during the tribulation? That argument doesn't hold any water.

Quote:
We will instead come back WITH Him.


I don't recall your making an argument from this verse in this thread, not directed at me at least. I think I know the verse you are talking about Considering the context though, which is in a verse just before the coming of Christ. The Indonesian translation I have on my PC says that God is going to gather together those are asleep in Jesus with Him.

Quote:

Notice, if you will, you have done nothing to answer the questions posed to you concerning Paul's reference to the church being "caught up," etc.


Would you please refresh my memory. I believe I have answered everything you have addressed to me that I could see was an argument for pre-trib. Honestly, some of the things you have written don't seem to have any connection, like Christ mentioning the sabbath. What questions are you referring to?

I recall your asking why i believed in a rapture, and I told you that it comes from the Latin for being 'caught up.'

Quote:

As I have already pointed out, Jesus, Paul, and John make a good case for a pre-trib rapture of the church.


You say you have, but where are those good arguments? What is the case from Jesus, that because Jesus mentioned the sabbath, that the rapture is before the tribulation. If the apostles were keeping sabbath (or trying to) after the ascensions, which is likely, that would seem to destroy your entire line of reasoning on this. Many Jewish Christians tried to keep the law. If Jewish Christians, or even just the Israeli unbelievers, try to keep sabbath inthe end times, they you have no case. That is enough reason to pray that it not be on the sabbath day. If the Jews really kept the sabbath, they might close the gates, not have any buses running, etc.

Quote:

You just have to stop confusing separate events that are mentioned in the Bible.


What is confusing is taking the same words from Paul and interpreting them one way when it suits your interpretation and another when it suits your interpretation. For example, if you take the 'coming of the Lord' and make it refer to the coming of the Lord in one verse, but make it refer to 7 years before the second coming in another.

Quote:
I've given you all the Scripture that you need along with the information to explain the reasoning behind the belief. You can ignore it if you want or say it isn't there. That's nothing to me. But don't say that no one stepped up to defend our position.


You just haven't made any convincing arguments. In the past two posts, you've alluded to a couple of arguments you can make, from verses that can be interpreted other ways to line up with what Paul is saying. I can see a reason for reading verses to line up with Paul. What I can't see is what is the impetus for a pre-trib rapture. Even with the arguments you have made, why is this an argument for pre-trib and not mid trib?



Link, I'm simply amazed at the way you keep going back to a moot point (Sabbath) to prove your position then tell me I have not given you anything to make a claim for pre-trib. Let me re post what is just a few posts above to make my point.

Quote:
"
My friend, you still miss the point. Matt 24 does not point out a pre-trib rapture of the church, as you've constantly declared, because the church is never mentioned or spoken to in the passage. So, yes you are right while being wrong.

Then you keep on about the rapture has to happen at the Second coming. You reference Paul as making this clear. Let's look at it.

I Thess 4:16-17, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17, Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

Now here is your HINT Link. Look carefully. The Lord descending is a reference to the fact that to come and meet us in the clouds, He has to descend from His heavenly home. That is all we can make of that passage. Furthermore, he says we shall be caught up! Up where? Again he makes that clear, in the clouds. Why? To meet Him in the AIR! Hint hint?

Now where do you get a second advent of Jesus Christ from this? You merely assume that is what Paul is talking about. No where does Paul say He is returning to earth at that time, but he does say the Lord will catch the church away. He comes down in the clouds to greet us as we are caught up to meet Him. I know you guys want to make your theological position stick, but you can't do it with this. If anything, the best you can come up with is Paul makes it clear that the church will meet the Lord in the air. It says nothing, nothing to indicate that this is His second advent. Context my friend, context.

Now consider Paul's next letter to Thessolonica. Chapter 2:1-3
"Now we beseech you, brethren by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him." (Paul has already talked about this in the verses above, right? So he opens with saying, "listen intently, carefully consider the importance of this, it's just as important as our gathering together.) vs2. "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."

What is the day of Christ? It is His second advent! Not a return in the clouds. You have two events here. Paul then continues to explain that anti-christ has to be set up before the Lord can return to earth to destroy him. But notice also that his message is of comfort. It is not, "get ready because all hell will break loose, but you will be o.k." He goes on telling them in vs 6 that they already know what is withholding the anti-christ from appearing. Yes, there is a spirit of iniquity already at work, but anti-christ cannot appear until he that hinders him from appearing is removed.
No, we don't have the words that Paul talked to them personally about so this can be confusing to someone who does not do his homework. But it is clear that Paul's message to them was that they didn't have to worry that the anti-christ was already there (it's not hard to understand why they thought that for there are those today who claim that anti-christ was Nero.) because they understood what?, perhaps they understood that they would be gone before those events took place.

You don't have to believe it Link, but don't tell me the hints are not there. Context and understanding of surrounding events are what help us to understand the intent. That, with all the other things I have pointed out. For instance, Jesus own words in Luke 21:36, which is the first reference to a rapture, "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these thing that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."

I know the arguments about how the Lord delivered the three Hebrew children through the fire or Noah through the flood. But the word escape does not hold to the same context as "delivered from or through." If your house is on fire and you are trapped, then suddenly someone comes and helps you to escape, what happens? You get out of there! Escaping a burning house is not the same as being delivered from the fire within the house. For those who talk about reading things into Scripture and stretching, this is a perfect example. Jesus is the first to tell us that he will rapture us.

More "proof?" John 14:3 "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." Again, there are post-trib believers who "stretch" this to make a claim for the second advent. But notice there is no mention of that anywhere. It is merely an assumption that since He said, " I will come again," it has to mean the second advent. I do not think you or anyone else can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. Notice Jesus words, "to receive you unto myself that where I am, there ye may be also." Where is Jesus? On earth? In the sky? No, He is in heaven with His father. Jesus Himself is the first one to teach us of a rapture by tellling us He will return, in the clouds, to catch us away to be with Him.

So here you have "hints." All over the Word. From Jesus to Paul to John the Revelator. Hints that He is returning, not to earth, to catch us away to be with Him so that WHEN HE DOES return, we will be with Him. I really don't see the problem, but you believe what you will. "


Again, I don't care if you believe it or can see it or smell it or whatever. But there is much to point to a rapture separate from the Second coming. In fact, there are more than one rapture to occur before the second coming, so your idea of a rapture merely at the second coming simply does not hold water. (Again, if you don't know the different raptures referred to, you need to back up some more and read about it as I've already dealt with it.) You, on the other hand have NOT proven anything with your Scriptures. Your claim is that the Scriptures are clear that the rapture takes place at the Second advent. You have not shown that to be the case anywhere. The only reference of gathering at the second advent is a reference to the gathering of tribulational saints as has been dealt with already. You want to make the leap from Jesus and Paul's teaching regarding "escaping wrath," that we are part of that final rapture or gathering. Sorry, you just haven't done that. The only reason you have of going back to Matt 24 is to make the denial that Jesus was not just talking to the Jews. Why? Because if He was, then the reference He made to the Second coming would have nothing to do with the church. Accept it or not, but there is NO reference to the church in Matt 24 nor most of Revelation after the period of the churches is dealt with. You want a "hint" about rapture in the book of Rev? Rev 4:1. "After these things." What things? The things concerning the churches. The events of Rev from chapter 4 to near the end does not deal with the church anywhere. Again, all references, just like Matt 24, deal with Jewish things. It's there if you care to read it.

You continue to claim that you may or may not take Rev chronologically. That is good because there are portions that are withing other portions. A careful study will bear that out. One thing I want to point out though is that you cannot have the last trumpet sounding near the end just before the Second advent whether you agree with chronology or not. Let me explain. After the 7th trumpet is sounded, the anti-christ appears. He causes the world to take the mark of the beast, right? Much of what is written after the mention of the seventh trumpet happens during the timing of that trumpet or as a part of that trumpet. But here is your proof that the trumpet does not happen at the end. Rev 16:2, "And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which HAD THE MARK OF THE BEAST, and upon them which worshiped his image."

Now, I don't care whether you take chronology or not, you cannot have a vial being poured out upon those with the mark of the beast who himself is not introduced until AFTER the 7th trumpet. In other words plain and simple, the seven trumpets take place before the vials, not as a part of it.

Now, where does that leave your believe in a post-trib rapture of the church? It's simply shot in the foot! Even though you have said you do not hold to Yo's view of the 7th trumpet and that of Paul's "last trump," you cannot continue to claim the church will not be raptured before the end of tribulation. If so, you still have to account for the "gathering together" during the 7th trumpet. For the last time, of all the positions out there, post-trib is the most indefensible of all as there is absolutely NO Scripture to support it without disregarding the facts that are presented and mixing separate events together.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/5/07 11:27 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
In response to who must satisfy

If Christ descends and the saints meet Him in the air, that does not mean
that Christ and the saints will not come down to earth together. There are
great armies with Christ when He returns to earth. We know that holy angels
will be with him. Paul tells us that the saints will meet Christ in the
air.

My point is that Paul calls this the 'coming' of the Lord. He says that he
man of sin will be destroyed at the coming of the Lord. You used the term
'The Second Advent.' That is your terminology, not mine. Mine terminology
is to use 'coming' consistently with the way Paul uses it. In your own
eschatology, you should call 'The Second Advent' 'The Third Advent'
instead, because you have three comings. Scripture only speaks of two, and
you have presented no reason to assume a third one. It is presumptions to
interpret Paul's writings the way you do, inventing extra comings of Christ
without any scriptural evidence to cause you to do so. I notice when you
quote the rapture passage, you start at verse 16 instead of 15

I Thessalonians 5
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are
alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them
which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ
shall rise first:


You argue that when Christ descends and the saints meet the Lord in the
air, that He will only stay in the air. What is your scriptural basis for
your argument. Paul tells us that this happens at Christ's _coming_.

It makes sense for Christ to come 'in the air.' There are plenty of
scriptures about Jesus coming from heaven. In Acts, the angels told the
disciples that Jesus would return as they saw Him leave. Jesus went up
into the sky and was received into heaven. Jesus coming back from the
heavens, coming with clouds, etc. is something all of our eschatologies can agree with. It is not some kind of argument for pre-trib.

I Thessalonians 2:10
10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even
Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Here is a good verse that associates Christ coming from heaven with
judgment of the wicked. Oh yes, and it also mentions the church receiving
'rest' or 'relief' at the coming of Christ. That sure sounds like the
Biblical second coming. And I sure haven't seen you comment on this
passage, which I have referred to numerous times.

II Thes. 2
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In
flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


There you go, the rapture at the Lord's coming, and the Lord coming in the sky. Revelation also has Jesus coming from heaven and the judgment of the beast. Paul says that the man of sin will be destroyed at the brightness of Jesus coming. So Paul has the saints being raptured at the coming of the Lord, when the Lord descends from heaven with a shout, and the man of sin being destroyed at the Lord's coming.

You gave a list of ways of trying to read these passages to be pre-trib,
assuming that because Christ descends and the saints meet him in the air,
that this is not the real second coming. That's not a 'hint.' That is
eisegesis. Christ gives the saints rest when he is revealed from
'heaven.'

Quote:

The only reason you have of going back to Matt 24 is to make the denial
that Jesus was not just talking to the Jews. Why? Because if He was, then
the reference He made to the Second coming would have nothing to do with the church. Accept it or not, but there is NO reference to the church in
Matt 24 nor most of Revelation after the period of the churches is dealt
with.



No, I have not denied that Jesus is talking to the Jews. Why don't you
read my posts before responding to them? As I have pointed out over and
over, you can't show any logical connection between the idea of this
passage being addressed to Hebrews and the pre-trib rapture. So what if it is addressed to Israelite followers of Jesus? How does that argue for
pre-trib?

As I have pointed out, the passage mentions the 'nations' and the
'elect.' You allow for the idea of Gentile saints during the
tribulation. So, there you have it. The passage mentions Gentiles. So
while the passage is addressed, immediately to Jews (as are nearly all of
Jesus' sayings) the passage does mention Gentiles.

Of course, none of this is really relevant to the issue at hand. If you
argue that the passage is written to sabbath-keeping Jews who believe in
Jesus, that is not an argument for pre-trib. There is just no logical
connection.

The book of Matthew only mentions 'church' twice. The word 'church' is
very rare in the Gospels.

You have not addressed my argument that Abraham, etc. are all part of the 'church' and you cannot justify excluding the tribulational saints from the church.

You argue that the lack of mention of the word 'church' after Revelation 4
as being evidence of the rapture. That is not a hint of pre-trib. That is
eisegesis. The book refers to specific congregations that gather together
as 'church' and believers throughout the world as 'saints.' Believers all
throughout the world do not assemble as 'churches' or
'congregations.' Look at every use of the word 'church' in Revelation and
you will see that it is used for 'churches' on the city level, and not for
the church universal anyway. The book does not use 'the church' to refer
to all of the saints alive at one time, or all saints through history in
any reference. This is a reasonable distinction in word usage. It is not
an argument for pre-trib.

Quote:

Now, I don't care whether you take chronology or not, you cannot have a
vial being poured out upon those with the mark of the beast who himself is
not introduced until AFTER the 7th trumpet. In other words plain and
simple, the seven trumpets take place before the vials, not as a part of
it.


As they used to say when I was in 8th grade, DUH..

If the book of Revelation is not chronological then the 7 trumpets DO NOT
NECESSARILY HAPPEN BEFORE THE VIALS. That is the point about it not being
chronological. If trumpet one happens at the beginning of the 7 year
period and the 7th trumpet happens at the end, then you don't have a
conflict here.

Quote:

Now, where does that leave your believe in a post-trib rapture of the
church? It's simply shot in the foot! Even though you have said you do not
hold to Yo's view of the 7th trumpet and that of Paul's "last trump," you
cannot continue to claim the church will not be raptured before the end of
tribulation. If so, you still have to account for the "gathering together"
during the 7th trumpet.



What Bible are you using? MY BIBLE DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A RAPTURE
AT THE 7TH TRUMPET. Could you please show me what verse of scripture you
are referring to. Are using 'The Message' or some other questionable
translation?

If you are talking about YoDude's argument that the 7th trumpet is the last
trump, that is YoDude's argument. He was making a mid-trib argument, not a
post-trib argument.


Quote:

For the last time, of all the positions out there, post-trib is the most
indefensible of all as there is absolutely NO Scripture to support it
without disregarding the facts that are presented and mixing separate
events together.


Believing in the rapture at the second coming is the logical conclusion
derived from reading Paul's references to the 'coming' of Christ as
referring to the same thing. It is also clear that the journey of the
saints will occur at 'the day of Christ.' I interpret passages about this
as referring to the same events. These interpretations are based on a
plain reading of scripture, without __presuming__ to interpret a phrase to
mean one way in one verse, and another way in another verse, just to make verses fit with a preconcieved eschatology.

Most of your arguments for pre-trib are really poor eisegesis. You argue
that Matthew 24 is about Israel and mentions the sabbath, but cannot show
how this logically supports the idea of pre-trib. You argue that there is
no reference to the church after Revelation 4, and that this is an argument
for pre-trib. But it makes sense that we would not see references to 'the
church' in a section of a book dealing with believers globally, but not
with individual city churches.

You accuse me of mixing separate events together. Yet you offer no
sensible reason for presuming that Paul means different things when he
talks about the coming of Christ in His epistles. II Thessalonians 1 is
pretty clear that the church receives relief and the wicked are punished at
the same time, at the coming of Christ.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/6/07 7:49 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link whocansatisfy
eisegesis? Sorry Link, but I'm having a hard time with using my time to explain anything Scriptural to someone who doesn't know how to spell exegesis much less understand what it means.

Exegesis simply means "critical analysis, interpretation." Nothing wrong with it, and much of the Scripture requires a "careful" exegesis or you end up where you are.

I'm only going to explain a few key points to you as you keep responding, which leads me to believe that you are "on the border," of what you believe. If not, you will not convince me or your position with the Scriptures and interpretation of those Scriptures that you have used. For the most part, you have merely stated a viewpoint based upon the use of words we have from the KJV. You want to insist that when Paul talks to the church about "the coming of our Lord," that he HAS to be referring to the Second Coming, ie., the return to earth every time. You have done nothing to prove that except to denounce someones "eisegesis." The reality is that you are just as guilty of exegesis, no matter how flawed it may be. Think of this subject this way. When the Lord comes in the clouds to catch the church away, He is "coming" regardless of where He is going. Just because He is coming to catch us away does not imply or mean that He is returning to earth at that time. That would be the Second coming, or advent. So there is nothing to stop Him from coming in the clouds as many times as He wills, but He will not return to earth until "the second coming." So there is not a "third coming" as you like to keep spelling out and the fact that there is not does not negate our belief in pre-trib rapture.

You then asked about a rapture after the 7th trumpet. Have you not read anything I've written, or do you just keep responding with the same lame argument? I've already dealt with this but for the sake of clarification, one last time, I'll tell you again. Read it for yourself though. Rev. 12:5, which takes place at the sounding of the 7th trumpet, tells about the "manchild" delivered by the woman. The woman is Israel, and the manchild are the 144,000 sealed with the seal of God. Verse 5 says that ..."and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." Pretty plain, isn't it? What does rapture mean? Ahh, oh, yea, "caught up." So here is just one more reference to a rapture. Where are they caught up to? Unto God! Now, in Rev 14:1-5 we see them in heaven, and notice that this is "BEFORE" the vials are poured out on earth.

Again, you have not read my posts, so if you do not read this one, don't bother to respond. If you don't accept this, that's alright, don't respond. If you truly have a question, then I'll be glad to continue. Otherwise....

You then say rather "smart-like" that IF the 7th trumpet happens at the end and the vials, etc., happen in between that time, then there is no problem. Oh yes there is and here is where you have not done a careful exegesis yourself. I mentioned it above in one of my last posts, but you apparently didn't read it. Check it out one more time. We know that ALL of Rev is not chronological because there are portions that happen within other portions. That is plain. What is also plain is that there are divisions and when those divisions occur, it says so. When you read, "after these things," etc., then what happens next happens after what has been previously written. One such thing is the 7 trumpets and the vials. Proof? The revelation of anti-christ does not take place until after the 7th trumpet. I think that is pretty clear no matter how you exegete. Then in Rev. 16 has the first of the vials being poured out and it affects them which have the mark of the beast and those who worshiped him. Now, you cannot have a vial being poured out upon someone who is not there, right? But here you have proof that the first vial is poured out AFTER the 7th trumpet. Therefore it is not a hard stretch to imagine that the second vial, etc., is poured out afterward too.

Now those are the facts and you cannot get around it with, "it's not chronological." While that is true with certain portions, it is not true of these events. Therefore, if there is a "rapture" after the 7th trumpet, and that trumpet happens BEFORE the vials, and the vials happen before the Lord's Second Advent, then you begin to get an accurate picture of events.

When you can come to terms with this, then we can talk.

Be blessed.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/6/07 10:53 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Again, to argue that the 'trumpets' is in Revelation in a list of chronological events, you assume that the book is chronological. You seem to be missing point. Of course, John saw one thing after another. But if the last trumpet occurs at the end of the age, and the vision backtracks to show events from a different perspective, what in the passage conflicts with this interpretation?

Also, I was accusing you of eisegesis-- reading ideas into the text. I was not 'accusing' you of exegesis. My point is that you weren't exegeting.

I am on a mailing list of a retired Greek professor who is a church elder and bible teacher who also knows Hebrew. He's been writing academic writings for decades, so his works are a bit hard to understand in places.

The following excerpt offers some textual evidence that when Christ will 'bring with Him' the saints, he will gather them together. It compares the text of Thessalonians to Greek usage in the Macabees as an example of Greek usage with these words. This was written by Bill Thurman, former head of the classics department at UNC Asheville.

<<Now we beseech you, brethren, by ((in our kind of English: 'concerning' or 'regarding')) the coming ((a being present, as opposed to being absent, which would imply a having arrived)) of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by ((in our kind of English: 'concerning' or 'regarding')) our gathering together unto him, 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 ((This coincides with the concept of what a day of the son of man, or one of his days, must mean, as in Luke 17)) is at hand ((really 'has set in')). Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away ((anoctacia = apostasia 'defection' in the sense of 'mutiny' 'rebellion')) come first and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called god or that is worshipped, so that he, as god, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth ((restrains)) that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work. Only he who now letteth (( = restrains, since the Greek verb signified blockage. It does not predicate permission, but restraint.)) will let ((restrain)), until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked ((i.e. wicked one, or evil individual)) be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, even him, whose coming is after the working of satan ((= opponent, adversary, not a proper name, but referring to a specific individual, as would 'the enemy' or 'the evil one'.)) with all power and signs and lying wonders and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.>>

One of the key proofs that none of the church will ever gather with their Messiah until the end of the reign of the man of sin lies in a rational study of 1st Thessalonians 04, as compared to 2nd Thessalonians 02.

But those who gave the world the 'Prophecy Study Bible' have in their minds nullified Paul's statement by changing the import of the word anoctacia = apostasia 'falling away' in 2nd Thessalonians 02,03:
<<Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.>>

Can they find any place in the Greek scriptures where the unqualified word anoctacia = apostasia has the sense of a neutral or relatively innocent departing? I doubt it. In 'the LXX' it most regularly has a sense like 'defection' 'rebellion' 'mutiny'. Let them do a little homework in a Hatch and Redpath concordance. Even Scofield disagrees with them here.

The expression anoctacia = apostasia conveys the concept of defection, rebellion, or mutiny, and definitely not an invisible removal of christians from this planet. Even Cyrus Scofield knew that it meant apostasy. When it has any import of departure, the normal intended sense denotes defection, in a pejorative sense.

In both of his letters to the Thessalonians Paul revealed the timing when believers would join with, be gathered unto, or be assembled at the Messiah. The wording in the two places proves quite close, but the English sometimes obscures it.

The a3ei = axei ... cuv = syn ... 'will bring ... with ...' in 1st Thessalonians 04,14 probably conveys more of gathering or bringing together than it does of locomotion, or so-called coming.
The a3ei = axei ... cuv = syn ... 'will bring ... with ...' is a hard syntax to instance, but it probably should not be felt to differ from cuva3ei = synaxei ... cuv = syn ... The noun cuvagwgh = synagoge 'concurrence' 'gathering' 'assembly' would then correspond to the predication in 1st Thessalonians 04,14:
<<For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.>>

If so, it would be virtually equivalent to enicuvagwgh = episynagoge in 2nd Thessalonians 02,01. Compare the language in 2nd Maccabees 02,07, quoting Jeremiah as having said:
<<... until G_d gathers ((cuvagagh = synagage)) the assemblage ((enicuvagwghv = episynagogen)) of his people.>>
This, in its Greek form, uses virtually the same two expressions in the same clause, so to speak, in the same breath, and has G_d as its subject and the gathering of his people as its object.

Therefore Paul's thought would not be that they would already be up in heaven with the Father, and that he would be heading a procession down to earth. He had a view quite contrary to the popular concept of their migrating from distant heaven to earth as if colonizing. Paul rather featured them as asleep. At the last shofar, the Father will first awaken the sleepers and then gather them as well as those already wide awake. Together both the living and the deceased will be transported into the lower atmosphere to welcome their Messiah. Thereupon as a united front they will descend from the atmosphere to assume the governance of this planet. The stone will have struck the image, but by divine, not human, force.

----end quote from Dr. Bill Thurman
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/6/07 11:38 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Your proof lacks substance Link whocansatisfy
Link wrote:
Again, to argue that the 'trumpets' is in Revelation in a list of chronological events, you assume that the book is chronological. You seem to be missing point. Of course, John saw one thing after another. But if the last trumpet occurs at the end of the age, and the vision backtracks to show events from a different perspective, what in the passage conflicts with this interpretation?



Link, you say say that I assume the book is chronological. Yet you ASSUME that it isn't. Show me how it doesn't work chronologically. Show me any evidence that the events are completely layered within one another. Then show me how you have a vial being poured out on those who follow the beast before the beast is introduced.

Furthermore, if you truly discount any chronology of Rev., I mean ANY, then explain how you get around three raptures that we know of. That of the manchild, the two witnesses, and the tribulational saints. Poor exegesis says that they all occur at the same time. Just not possible.

I've already dealt with Paul's writings and you have done nothing but assume that he is talking about the same subject. Apparently your friend does too. Neither you or your friend has shown or acknowledge the change in subject within II Thess. We beseech you concerning the coming of our Lord together, that you are not shaken by anything you have heard as though THAT day, what day?, the day of Christ is at hand.

You really have to ask yourself a question here Link. Why were they worried? That the Lord had come to earth and set up His Kingdom? I mean, why would anyone worry about that if He is going to set all things straight? So why were they worried? They were obviously worried about something and Paul was addressing their fears. So what you and others would have us believe is that he COMFORTED them by telling them, "Don't worry because all hell is going to break loose before the Lord returns! You didn't miss a thing. Just wait, if you think it is bad now, it will get worse, so take comfort." Do you really believe that? Really?
I know things got bad for them and it was possibly that fact that some had started teaching what some of you want to teach today. That because things were so bad, the Lord had already come or was about to come. Now, if they believed that they were going through the tribulation before the rapture, then why would they be fearful if they thought things were bad enough for that to take place at any moment? If they really believed the church was going through this torment, then they should have been excited, Jesus is coming! If that was the case, then Paul would have been telling them, "don't get so excited because it is not what you think, the end is not yet." But that isn't what he said.

If Paul is not telling them that things will get worse before the Lord comes back, then how is that comforting? From his words, it is obvious that he is telling them that they need not fear that the Day of Christ is at hand because the man of sin has to be revealed first. He had already told them in his previous letter how they were going to escape beforehand and here he is telling them that they didn't miss it. Jesus also told them that they should pray that they be accounted worthy to escape. I don't see any problem believing that the early church believed they would be raptured. If they didn't, then there would be no cause for Paul to write to them addressing their fears in II Thess.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/6/07 1:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.