Conclusion From Beware the Pseudo-Rapture Doctrine 4

[TheDivineWatermark]

the last day is not the last day

"The last day" is not merely "a singular 24-hr day" kind of day.

It certainly is "last" though.

Its duration is a very lengthy spans of time, with MUCH transpiring within it.





The following is just one example of what will go on during that very lengthy spans of time:

"because He has fixed [set / established] a day in which He will judge [fn]the world in righteousness [fn]through [in, or by] a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men [fn]by raising Him from the dead.”

(i.e. the MK age included in this spans of time ^ )

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ Notice the word "he will JUDGE the world in righteousness by a Man..."

[from BLB, under "Thayer's Greek Lexicon"... Strong's G2919 ("judge"-kjv)]

"6. Hebraistically equivalent to to rule, govern; to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment: Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30 (τόν λαόν, 2 Kings 15:5; 1 Macc. 9:73; Josephus, Antiquities 5, 3, 3; οἱ κρίνοντες τήν γῆν, Psalm 2:10; Sap. i. 1; cf. Gesenius, Thesaurus, iii., p. 1463f). "

[bold mine]

-- G2919 - krinō - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv) (blueletterbible.org)






This ["fixed / set / established A DAY"] is not referring merely to "a singular 24-hr day" kind of day.

(And it IS "the last day"... it's just not "a singular 24-hr day" kind of day)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

"6. Hebraistically equivalent to to rule, govern; to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment

And regarding this point ^ , I will again remind the readers that, the word "King" (re: Jesus) is used only TWO times in all of the epistles, and both of them are "FUTURE" (1Tim6:15, for one--"Which in his times he shall shew [future tense], who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" --See Rev19:16 and Rev17:14)

 

[Evmur]

Really? So do you think you really understand "the coming of the Lord"?

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

"Ten thousands" is the biblical equivalent of "millions". So how does the Lord come with millions of His saints when -- according to you -- they have not even been raptured, let alone placed in Heaven? Can any Christian in his right mind imagine one of the most bizarre scenarios that could ever occur? Fiery judgment raining down from Heaven while the poor saints try to dodge those missiles on their way to meet Christ?

There ARE 2 further comings. one in clouds of glory and great power to gather His saints and destroy the evil man of sin and one at the last day after the 1, 000 years to the resurrection unto judgement.

The Jews knew nothing about the church or her rapture so for the Jews there is but the one coming on the last day. This is the difference in understanding between Paul and t'other apostles.

Only Paul understood the rapture.

 

[presidente]

What the "two men" said in Acts 1, we AGREE on that He will "RETURN" (to the earth) in the same manner as they had SEEN Him traveling into Heaven... and His feet will touch the Mt of Olives... no one disagrees with this point (in this thread).

Pretrib has Jesus come half way down and return... with the very people (plus others) that these two men were addressing. Oh yeah, and then come back>

But if we read the Bible, it speaks of the coming of the Lord, but it doesn't say there are two events like this. Nor does it 'allegorize' the coming of the Lord to be some long 7-year period. Why not go all out and be a preterist if you are going to be so loose with the definition of the coming of the Lord.

Yes, but ON FIRSTFRUITS / His Resurrection Day-->He ASCENDED (UP to the Father) THAT DAY... and then He CAME BACK DOWN to spend some "40 days" [40 ="trial/judgment/testing" in scripture] before He then (again) WENT UP AGAIN in the later Acts 1 setting (this time, VISIBLY

This is very speculative theology. I'm guessing based on a comment made to Mary in John 20:17, which has also been translated 'do not cling to me.' Maybe you have some other verses in mind. This sort of thing is a rather speculative approach to scripture.

Show me actual scripture that says that Christ ascended before the actual ascension we see in Acts 1. I'd be curious to see that.

But it isn't proof of anything, because these men were talking to men who saw Jesus as He ascended to heaven, not stop in the clouds and come back for seven years.

It would help with communication if you could be a bit explicit about the point you are making and actually draw the conclusions. You often present something that isn't really good evidence for whatever conclusion you want to draw, then don't draw the conclusion. But I am guessing at the point you are trying to make=== that you think your theory that Jesus ascended all the way to heaven and came back down to earth again and then did so again in Acts 1, according to your theory, is supposed to be evidence that He will return half-way, then go up, then come down again. That's not the same thing happening twice (in reverse). There is no half-return in your scenario except for the pretrib rapture.

In your scenario the pre-trib rapture happens at an extra return of Christ not mentioned in scripture. And based on your incompleted, sometimes conclusionless previous posts, I gather that you think the references to the 'coming of the Lord' refer to a long time period comprised of several events that include the coming of the Lord. It is kind of like what preterists do with references to the coming of the Son of Man, in some cases references to the 'coming of the Lord' (depending on how 'full' they are). Kind of an allegorization of the phrase.

--and is how, as the "two men" said, He would "so come in like manner AS YE HAVE SEEN Him traveling into Heaven<--They did NOT say this regarding His 40-days-EARLIER ascension to the Father on FIRSTFRUIT / His Resurrection Day--Only MM was told... by Jesus Himself).

Show where you think Jesus said this, and we can discuss it.

But still that is not evidence for pre-trib. The return of Christ is in like manner to the Acts 1 event, even if you think there was a previous ascension event.

 

[presidente]

There ARE 2 further comings. one in clouds of glory and great power to gather His saints and destroy the evil man of sin and one at the last day after the 1, 000 years to the resurrection unto judgement.

The big question is, where do you get that FROM THE BIBLE. I read a reference to the coming of Christ in one passage and references to the coming of Christ in another, and I conclude they are talking about the same event. That's a reasonable way of interpreting scripture. Where do you get the idea that He comes back twice? It is not reasonable just to assume that is the case with no evidence whatsoever, and read it into the text.

One of the ways I see pre-tribbers arguing for this is to take verses and say, at the first return A, B,and C happens. See these verses. But at the return X, Y, and Z happens. So therefore, they argue, there are two returns of Christ.

But problem is, there is nothing about A, B, C that indicates they cannot happen at the same return as X, Y, Z.

Let me give you an example. I Thessalonians 4 teaches that the rapture happens at the coming of the Lord. But II Thessalonians 2:8 teaches that the lawless one will be destroyed at the brightness of His coming. So interpret that to happen at the same return of Christ, since I don't see any evidence at all in scripture for the pretrib theory Jesus coming back an extra time before the millennial reign.

What I suggest fits with II Thessalonians 1, which has the church (of the Thessalonians) receiving rest from tribulation, the tribulators being recompensed, judgment being executed on them that know not God that believe not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, when Jesus comes to be glorified in the saints. The lawless one being destroyed in 2:8 along with the judgment against them that obey not the Gospel in chapter 1 fits together. All this happens at one 'coming' of Christ. the passage does not really fit well with pre-trib.

What I am asking for you to do is to show us some scripture to justify saying there are two returns of Christ. That is different from coming to the scriptures with the assumption that Jesus returns twice and this scripture about 'the coming of the Lord' fits with the first return and this scripture fits with the second return.

What I am saying is that assuming that 'the coming of the Lord' (and similar wording)in the New Testament refers to two events--a pretrib return and a post-trib return-- is unreasonable unless there is some Biblical evidence to back that up. That is the Biblical evidence I am asking for. I would also ask @TheDivineWatermark and @cv5 for some actual scripture that teaches this or to justify their idea of fudging the meaning of 'the coming of the Lord' to refer to a time period.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I would also ask @TheDivineWatermark and @cv5 for some actual scripture that teaches this or to justify their idea of fudging the meaning of 'the coming of the Lord' to refer to a time period.

Again, as I said to you in a past post, "the coming of the Lord" is NOT a time-period... and I've never said so (nor has any pre-tribber here said such).

You are not reading (here) carefully, and thus are butchering the actual point having been made.






Also, I posed a question in Post #282 to try to garner discussion in the direction of explaining (per your request) a passage presenting the "pre-trib [aka "pre-DOTL"]" idea, but I've not seen anyone offer a "bite" on that post (including you):

Post #282 - https://christianchat.com/threads/c...pseudo-rapture-doctrine-4.208914/post-4997620





I don't really feel like addressing a passage when there are ZERO takers willing to answer my first question (posed in that post ^ ) as a starter to such a discussion (which you yourself have repeatedly requested. )

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The return of Christ is in like manner to the Acts 1 event, even if you think there was a previous ascension event.

That's EXACTLY what I said.



There's no argument here.

Pre-tribbers AGREE that His "RETURN" will be "IN LIKE MANNER AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM traveling into Heaven" (His feet will touch the Mt of Olives, upon said "RETURN"--that is, to the earth--Rev19 and Matt24:29-31/Isa27:12-13,9)... per what the "two men" stated in this very Acts 1 setting.







[again, they didn't say this regarding His EARLIER ascension ON FIRSTFRUITS / His Resurrection Day]



Again, biblically-speaking, the word "RETURN" (re: Jesus) speaks of His Second Coming TO THE EARTH

("when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" Lk12:36)

 

[Nehemiah6]

But if we read the Bible, it speaks of the coming of the Lord, but it doesn't say there are two events like this.

That is just nonsense. So please take a pad, draw two columns, and write out all the verses pertaining to the Second Coming of Christ vs all the verses pertaining to the Rapture. You have been repeating this nonsense over and over again, but the contrast between the Rapture and the Second Coming is quite dramatic.

 

[oyster67]

Jesus will return the way He left.

Agree.

Did he go up to the clouds

Yes, He did.

come back to the earth for seven years

?????????????????

go past the clouds again to heaven?

Yes, He did. That's a good point.
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.”

The Scriptures are definitely against "post-trib rapture". Looks like you are beginning to see the light, dear brother.

 

[Beckie]

"The last day" is not merely "a singular 24-hr day" kind of day.

It certainly is "last" though.

Its duration is a very lengthy spans of time, with MUCH transpiring within it.





The following is just one example of what will go on during that very lengthy spans of time:

"because He has fixed [set / established] a day in which He will judge [fn]the world in righteousness [fn]through [in, or by] a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men [fn]by raising Him from the dead.”

(i.e. the MK age included in this spans of time ^ )

Jesus the creator of days says this ...

Joh_6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Joh_6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh_6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh_7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Joh_12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

How do His Words fit your theology?

 

[oyster67]

Pretrib dictates:
The return of Jesus is not the retrun of Jesus,

The Bible dictates that Jesus takes His Church Bride to Heaven and brings her back with Him to rule and reign for 1000 years on Earth. You do agree, don't you? At this point, we are all aware of the Scriptures that I am alluding to.

It's ok if you don't see things exactly as I do. We should be ready either way.

 

[oyster67]

the scriptures calling for patient endurance.

The Church which has suffered tribulation for 2000 years

Good point. No need to sit under God's wrath during the time of Jacob's Trouble. The Church is not appointed unto God's wrath upon those who reject His Son.

some of the most faithful saints are excluded from the church.

Are you referring to those who rejected God's Son?

A convoluted mess. And you call post-trib nonsensical. Very funny.

I do think the post-trib rapture idea nonsensical, nonfunctional, nonbiblical. and a convoluted mess (but not funny at all.)

 

[presidente]

Again, as I said to you in a past post, "the coming of the Lord" is NOT a time-period... and I've never said so (nor has any pre-tribber here said such).

You are not reading (here) carefully, and thus are butchering the actual point having been made.

The thing is, from my perspective, you don't actually make your point. You post a bunch of stuff you think supports some kind of point that you don't usually actually make. Like I said, I guess at the point you are trying to make.

Also, I posed a question in Post #282 to try to garner discussion in the direction of explaining (per your request) a passage presenting the "pre-trib [aka "pre-DOTL"]" idea, but I've not seen anyone offer a "bite" on that post (including you):

Post #282 - https://christianchat.com/threads/c...pseudo-rapture-doctrine-4.208914/post-4997620

I am trying to stay on topic. You'd have to have some actual evidence that 'the day of the Lord' is a long period of time. Yom in Hebrew can last a long time. But so what? The idea that Jesus coming back lasts a long time is another issue. Not only are you trying to argue that the day of the Lord lasts a long time, but the implication is that the appearing of Jesus would have to last a long time, the parousia of Christ would have to last a long time. I'm thinking parousia, erkhomai, etc. Can these last a long time? There are a lot of words there that you would have to really 'stretch' the meaning of to last a long time.

What about erkomai conjugated as ἔλθῃ in II Thessalonians 2:10? How long does it take to come or go? Or appearing. Does it take seven years to appear. What about presenting oneself, or parousia. How long does that take? Why would these refer to a long period of time?

Does it make sense that verbs about Jesus coming, showing up, presenting/being present, etc. refer to something that takes 7 years? That doesn't make sense.

I apologize if I misrepresented your viewpoint about the coming of the Lord lasting seven years. If you do not believe that Jesus comes back twice and you are arguing that the day of Christ takes seven years, the idea that the coming of Christ is seven years long seems like a logical conclusion. But like I said, you don't explicitly state all the conclusions that you seem to be trying to argue for in your posts.

And it doesn't make sense that erkhomia or parousia refer to some kind of seven year process. That seems rather unreasonable.

I don't really feel like addressing a passage when there are ZERO takers willing to answer my first question (posed in that post ^ ) as a starter to such a discussion (which you yourself have repeatedly requested. )

Make a clear point--a conclusion, and relate it clearly to the topic at hand and maybe there could be some takers.

 

[presidente]

The Bible dictates that Jesus takes His Church Bride to Heaven and brings her back with Him to rule and reign for 1000 years on Earth.

Show us where the Bible says that, about taking the church to heave first. But that's not really the point of the thread. The thread is about pre-trib. Where does the Bible say that in order to take the church to heaven, the Lord would have to do it seven years before His coming?

 

[presidente]

Good point. No need to sit under God's wrath during the time of Jacob's Trouble. The Church is not appointed unto God's wrath upon those who reject His Son.

The book of Revelation mentions saints that overcome the Devil by the blood of the Lamb. Do you think these saints will be under God's wrath?

Is there any hint that God is angry at them in the book of Revelation?

 

[Evmur]

The big question is, where do you get that FROM THE BIBLE. I read a reference to the coming of Christ in one passage and references to the coming of Christ in another, and I conclude they are talking about the same event. That's a reasonable way of interpreting scripture. Where do you get the idea that He comes back twice? It is not reasonable just to assume that is the case with no evidence whatsoever, and read it into the text.

One of the ways I see pre-tribbers arguing for this is to take verses and say, at the first return A, B,and C happens. See these verses. But at the return X, Y, and Z happens. So therefore, they argue, there are two returns of Christ.

But problem is, there is nothing about A, B, C that indicates they cannot happen at the same return as X, Y, Z.

Let me give you an example. I Thessalonians 4 teaches that the rapture happens at the coming of the Lord. But II Thessalonians 2:8 teaches that the lawless one will be destroyed at the brightness of His coming. So interpret that to happen at the same return of Christ, since I don't see any evidence at all in scripture for the pretrib theory Jesus coming back an extra time before the millennial reign.

What I suggest fits with II Thessalonians 1, which has the church (of the Thessalonians) receiving rest from tribulation, the tribulators being recompensed, judgment being executed on them that know not God that believe not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, when Jesus comes to be glorified in the saints. The lawless one being destroyed in 2:8 along with the judgment against them that obey not the Gospel in chapter 1 fits together. All this happens at one 'coming' of Christ. the passage does not really fit well with pre-trib.

What I am asking for you to do is to show us some scripture to justify saying there are two returns of Christ. That is different from coming to the scriptures with the assumption that Jesus returns twice and this scripture about 'the coming of the Lord' fits with the first return and this scripture fits with the second return.

What I am saying is that assuming that 'the coming of the Lord' (and similar wording)in the New Testament refers to two events--a pretrib return and a post-trib return-- is unreasonable unless there is some Biblical evidence to back that up. That is the Biblical evidence I am asking for. I would also ask @TheDivineWatermark and @cv5 for some actual scripture that teaches this or to justify their idea of fudging the meaning of 'the coming of the Lord' to refer to a time period.

I am POST trib, it is more accurate to say two resurrections, the resurrection of the just aka the rap and the resurrection unto judgement. It is difficult to determine whether our Lord will be in Heaven [with us] or upon the earth during the 1, 000 years but since Paul teaches that when He comes to judge God will bring us with Him I assume He will be in Heaven.

Pre tibbers suppose during 7 years after the rap will come the marriage feast after which they say Christ returns, I think the marriage feast is 1, 000 years.

 

[oyster67]

Show us where the Bible says that, about taking the church to heave first.

Only for those who have to put up with this post-trib-rap fudge.

I think I know what you are looking for, though...

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.”

Revelation 19
5And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. 6And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. 7Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Where does the Bible say that in order to take the church to heaven, the Lord would have to do it seven years before His coming?

Revelation. The Church is not found anywhere on Earth in all of the tribulation period. We see her returning to Earth with Jesus at the end of the Trib (not going up.)

Jude also tells us that He returns with His Church Saints. There is no rapture event at the end of the Trib. Although there is a resurrection of Trib Saints after the Trib, they stay on Earth.

The book of Revelation mentions saints that overcome the Devil by the blood of the Lamb. Do you think these saints will be under God's wrath?

Many are Jews. They will be sheltered at the very end of the Tribulation.

Revelation 12:6 “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”

Other's will be beheaded for the name of Christ. They are counted as overcomers and will enter into God's rest.

Is there any hint that God is angry at them in the book of Revelation?

God's anger will be focused upon those who oppose and persecute His people.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Show us where the Bible says that, about taking the church to heaven first.

Are you simply obtuse or wilfully ignorant? Read, study, and digest John 14:1-3 and all related passages. It is simply annoying when someone says "Show us where the Bible says..." but refuses to do his homework.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I'm thinking parousia, erkhomai, etc. Can these last a long time? There are a lot of words there that you would have to really 'stretch' the meaning of to last a long time.

I've not stated that "[His] coming" (whether "parousia" or "erchomai") lasts a long time (as in, "coming and coming and coming and coming, continually coming..." as you are suggesting I'm saying)...

... but that those words, where used of Him, have a CONTEXT to be understood (in relation to what other things in said context);

just like the word "erchomai" is used (re: Him) in the following passages:


"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." - Micah 5:2 - "ex-erchomai" LXX

[and]

Zec 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. - Zechariah 9 (KJV) - Rejoice greatly, O daughter of (blueletterbible.org) - "erchomai" LXX

Mat 21:5
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. - "erchomai"




... but none of us "conflate" these two distinct contexts/settings into occurring at the same moment as each other simply b/c they use the same "come / erchomai" word regarding Him...; as opposed to when they actually occurred, some thirty YEARS APART.
(Though some have likely incorrectly ascertained them to be DIFFERING PERSONS, who knows.)






So, my point has always been, understand how each of these words are used in the contexts wherein they are found (re: Him); For example, in Luke 12:36 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" (context parallel to Matt24:42-51), we see that v.36, v.37, v.38 (2x), v.39, v.40 ALL use the word "erchomai" (re: Him)... But the people in this context are located on the earth when He "comes" THERE (even the "BLESSED" who are the "saved" ones; Same for Matt25:31-46--both the SHEEP / BLESSED and the goats / cursed of the nations are located on the earth when they are gathered before Him sitting on "the throne of His glory"--which is on the earth... "when He shall come"!)