Documentary—7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I started watching this and it starts off with some stuff about Margaret MacDonald, a 12 year old girl to whom the pre-trib theory supposedly can be be traced. I did some research and this is patently false. From what I remember this video seemed pretty good at the time but I'll have to watch it again. I used to like the preacher who preaches in it but have seen some other videos of his that leave a lot to be desired.
I didn't think it was a game. I was being 100% serious. I don't believe anything in the Bible unless it's plainly stated or described. I'll take it you don't have a verse that satisfies the question. Hence why pre-trib rapture is difficult to believe in.
There's a verse that plainly states Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one. It's easy to use a minimum of two-three verses to prove this.
John 1:1;14
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
1 John 5:7
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
There's a verse for that.
Colossians 2:9
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
There's a verse that plainly states Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one. It's easy to use a minimum of two-three verses to prove this.
John 1:1;14
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
1 John 5:7
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
There's a verse for that.
Colossians 2:9
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
but as in the days of Noah were,so also will the return of the son of man be.for as in the days of the flood,they were eating drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,and did not know until the flood came and took them away, so shall the return of Jesus be.[No tribs 4 them]
They go from Margaret MacDonald straight to Scofield and don't even mention Darby, LOL.
They do make some good points though. For example: in Revelation 7, the 144,000 are sealed; then, in v. 10: "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands."
These aren't just Jews, but are "from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages." And who are they? v. 14 answers that question: "And he said to me, 'These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation.' "
But wait, I thought, according to the pre-trib theory, the only ones God deals with after the pre-tribulation rapture are the Jews.
They do make some good points though. For example: in Revelation 7, the 144,000 are sealed; then, in v. 10: "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands."
These aren't just Jews, but are "from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages." And who are they? v. 14 answers that question: "And he said to me, 'These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation.' "
But wait, I thought, according to the pre-trib theory, the only ones God deals with after the pre-tribulation rapture are the Jews.
^ To say, "according to the pre-trib theory, the only ones God deals with after the pre-tribulation rapture are the Jews" is to completely misunderstand the "pre-trib" viewpoint.
DURING the trib years (FOLLOWING "our Rapture") it will be the [then] believing remnant of Jews/Israel (having now come to faith) who will be the ones DOING the "INVITING" [of the "guests" (i.e. Gentiles / nations)] TO the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom age (aka "the wedding FEAST / SUPPER," aka the "G347 - meal")
DURING the trib years (FOLLOWING "our Rapture") it will be the [then] believing remnant of Jews/Israel (having now come to faith) who will be the ones DOING the "INVITING" [of the "guests" (i.e. Gentiles / nations)] TO the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom age (aka "the wedding FEAST / SUPPER," aka the "G347 - meal")
[ @ResidentAlien 's Post #138] ...you'd said, "Apostasia can mean departure, but not in a spatial sense, as in a departure from one place to another"
Do you mean:
--it is not EVER used in such a sense?
--it is not used IN SCRIPTURE, elsewhere, in such a sense?
If I am recalling rightly, Flavius Josephus used the word "apostasia" in the sense of "the departing of a boat from a dock" (and didn't he live between 30-100ad?--the general era of the language we're talking about here...);
and it was used elsewhere (same general era) in the sense of "the departing of a fever"
... so both of these are in the sense of a "spatial / geographical" KIND of "departure".
____________
Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon says that "apostasia" is a "LATER FORM FOR apostasis"... and that "apostasis" (that entry) has as its meaning "departure" (among several listed).
So that's "apo stasis" (an "away from... standing" or, "a standing away from [from a previous standing]" or "departure"--Then see "stasis / stasin" [i.e. minus the prefix "apo"] as used in its ninth occurrence, in Scripture--at Hebrews 9:8-9a--and compare it to its eight other occurrences and how THEY are used/defined, to see the distinction between those 8 occurrences and its 9th occurrence and how it is used)
Do you mean:
--it is not EVER used in such a sense?
--it is not used IN SCRIPTURE, elsewhere, in such a sense?
If I am recalling rightly, Flavius Josephus used the word "apostasia" in the sense of "the departing of a boat from a dock" (and didn't he live between 30-100ad?--the general era of the language we're talking about here...);
and it was used elsewhere (same general era) in the sense of "the departing of a fever"
... so both of these are in the sense of a "spatial / geographical" KIND of "departure".
____________
Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon says that "apostasia" is a "LATER FORM FOR apostasis"... and that "apostasis" (that entry) has as its meaning "departure" (among several listed).
So that's "apo stasis" (an "away from... standing" or, "a standing away from [from a previous standing]" or "departure"--Then see "stasis / stasin" [i.e. minus the prefix "apo"] as used in its ninth occurrence, in Scripture--at Hebrews 9:8-9a--and compare it to its eight other occurrences and how THEY are used/defined, to see the distinction between those 8 occurrences and its 9th occurrence and how it is used)
You guys are hopeless as pe being able to understand God's holy word. This is why is why you can't just base scriptures off select verses. You come to one that confuses you, and all of the sudden you are down the rabbit hole. The whole Bible points to a pre trib rapture. The Church comes back with Jesus in Rev. 19, while the Beast is still on this earth, but you DODGE ALL THAT in your mind because of other passages like this you don't not understand.
There are two Resurrection, the first is the righteous people of faith, the second is the dead without faith. You are the one who assumes the first resurrection can only be held at the exact same time, YOU DO THAT, the same types who assume the 70 weeks have to be consecutive, even though it can't be because the prophecies that were said to come to pass before the 70th-week ends haven't come to pass. Likewise, God has a bride in Israel he married long ago, Jesus has a bride in the Church he will marry during the 70th week in Heaven. He even tells us there are many mansions in his Father's house, and that he will come back and receive us to himself [for the wedding].
Those resurrected in Rev. 20:4 are the Martyrs who die during the 70th week, not the Church who are in Heaven. They are the Wheat, not the Barley. Maybe studying harder would help. The bible tells us to STUDY to show ourselves approved.
There are two Resurrection, the first is the righteous people of faith, the second is the dead without faith. You are the one who assumes the first resurrection can only be held at the exact same time, YOU DO THAT, the same types who assume the 70 weeks have to be consecutive, even though it can't be because the prophecies that were said to come to pass before the 70th-week ends haven't come to pass. Likewise, God has a bride in Israel he married long ago, Jesus has a bride in the Church he will marry during the 70th week in Heaven. He even tells us there are many mansions in his Father's house, and that he will come back and receive us to himself [for the wedding].
Those resurrected in Rev. 20:4 are the Martyrs who die during the 70th week, not the Church who are in Heaven. They are the Wheat, not the Barley. Maybe studying harder would help. The bible tells us to STUDY to show ourselves approved.
That would be you, you are wrong on might never everything you utter. And you will answer to God for it. Nothing that happens in this world that God will not Judge. You aren't even close to having any type of Escholtolical understandings.
You run along now because you sure can't rebut anything I post, it's way above your level because I actually study and pray for answers I don't follow other men's understandings.
You run along now because you sure can't rebut anything I post, it's way above your level because I actually study and pray for answers I don't follow other men's understandings.
-
1
- Show all
Hello DivineWaterMark,
ResidentAlien is simply saying and which I agree with and have also posted many times, that the word apostasia translated as departure cannot mean to depart up into the air to meet the Lord. If one uses the word as in "That Day will not come until the departure occurs" then the word 'departure' must retain the meaning of the Greek word from which it came, which is "leaving from a previous standing" of one's faith. The other useable translated words are 'defection, revolt, forsake, etc. The word is only used twice, the other place being in Acts 21:21 which says:
"Now they have been informed about you, that you teach all Jews among the Gentiles apostasy from (the Law of) Moses, telling them not to circumcise the children nor to walk in the customs."
So in the scripture above, the word is used in regards to Paul teaching the Jews to turn away from physical circumcision and the law of Moses.
The reason for this is that, some have attempted to use 'departure' in 2 Thess.2:3 to mean to depart up into the air in order to satisfy the gathering of the church.
However, when reading the entire scripture, it would make it to basically say and I'm paraphrasing:
Our departing to be gathered to the Lord, will not take place until we depart to be gathered to the Lord.
ResidentAlien is simply saying and which I agree with and have also posted many times, that the word apostasia translated as departure cannot mean to depart up into the air to meet the Lord. If one uses the word as in "That Day will not come until the departure occurs" then the word 'departure' must retain the meaning of the Greek word from which it came, which is "leaving from a previous standing" of one's faith. The other useable translated words are 'defection, revolt, forsake, etc. The word is only used twice, the other place being in Acts 21:21 which says:
"Now they have been informed about you, that you teach all Jews among the Gentiles apostasy from (the Law of) Moses, telling them not to circumcise the children nor to walk in the customs."
So in the scripture above, the word is used in regards to Paul teaching the Jews to turn away from physical circumcision and the law of Moses.
The reason for this is that, some have attempted to use 'departure' in 2 Thess.2:3 to mean to depart up into the air in order to satisfy the gathering of the church.
However, when reading the entire scripture, it would make it to basically say and I'm paraphrasing:
Our departing to be gathered to the Lord, will not take place until we depart to be gathered to the Lord.
Most of your comment was just hot air and no substance, so let me sort through that for you.
1. I take it you're saying that the marriage supper of the lamb occurs pre-trib per Revelation 19. That doesn't make sense since that would exclude members of the church such as the two witnesses and the tribulation saints. No member of Jesus' church is excluded from His supper. You've got that wrong.
2. Revelation 20:4 is specifically for saints who were martyred during the great tribulation.
The first resurrection does occur until after 1,000 years according to Revelation 20:5.
I see Revelation 20:4 as the bonus resurrection. It's a reward for those who were martyred in the great tribulation. The rest of the dead do no resurrect until after the 1,000 years are complete.
Bottom line, the resurrection is post-trib, the rapture is post-trib, the return of Christ is post-trib.
3. Spend more time with useful commentary. Only about 1% of your comment was useful.
1. I take it you're saying that the marriage supper of the lamb occurs pre-trib per Revelation 19. That doesn't make sense since that would exclude members of the church such as the two witnesses and the tribulation saints. No member of Jesus' church is excluded from His supper. You've got that wrong.
2. Revelation 20:4 is specifically for saints who were martyred during the great tribulation.
The first resurrection does occur until after 1,000 years according to Revelation 20:5.
I see Revelation 20:4 as the bonus resurrection. It's a reward for those who were martyred in the great tribulation. The rest of the dead do no resurrect until after the 1,000 years are complete.
Bottom line, the resurrection is post-trib, the rapture is post-trib, the return of Christ is post-trib.
3. Spend more time with useful commentary. Only about 1% of your comment was useful.
-
1
- Show all
In your example, you're using "TO TURN away from" where "TO TURN" (as you have it) is a VERB (as is, "TO FORSAKE").
But "apostasia" is not a VERB here, it is a NOUN.
Thus, Acts 21:21 would be saying "[that you/Paul] teach A DEPARTURE from Moses" ("a standing away from [a previous standing]"); where "FROM MOSES" is added to the word to tell "WHAT KIND" of "departure," since it is not inherent in the word ('apostasia') itself!
"Departure" is indeed the basic meaning of the word "apostasia".
CONTEXT determines WHAT KIND of "departure" is intended (and in our 2Th2:3 verse the definite article is used, so in this case "THE departure"--one PREVIOUSLY referred to in the context; and one ALREADY-KNOWN unto the recipients of the letter--those two are the PURPOSE of the definite article, which is not ordinarily required with this word, and isn't used with it in Acts 21:21)
No, it would NOT be making it say that (if you are speaking of the WORDING in VERSE 3, which we are speaking of)...
What you are bypassing is the info Paul is telling about in VERSE 2 (about the false conveyors "PURPORTING" something FALSE that Paul does not want them incorrectly being persuaded is TRUE: "[purporting] that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"--it WASN'T! And here's WHY (he says, continuing into VERSE 3...):
...instead of what you'd put, it would say this...
"[3] the earthly-located tribulation judgments [which we know AS the seals, the trumpets, and the vials unfolding OVER TIME] will not be present, if not shall have come THE Departure [v.1's Subject--our RAPTURE-EXIT] *FIRST*..."
Verse 3 is not saying (as many suggest it would be saying): "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM [IN THE AIR] will not take place until OUR RAPTURE/THE DEPARTURE [IN THE AIR] takes place FIRST," ...NO!
...instead, Verse 3 is saying "THE EARTHLY-LOCATED TRIB [that the false conveyors purport IS ALREADY HERE (v.2)] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE [our Rapture IN THE AIR (v.1)] FIRST..."
...see the difference between what *you* are suggesting it would say, and what we are suggesting it says?? Completely different ideas being expressed (DUE TO the INTERVENING [and entirely DISTINCT] Subject IN VERSE 2, which v.3a picks up and STARTS OFF with... "3 that day" [in italics; v.3a] is NOT referring to verse 1's Subject, see...)
But "apostasia" is not a VERB here, it is a NOUN.
Thus, Acts 21:21 would be saying "[that you/Paul] teach A DEPARTURE from Moses" ("a standing away from [a previous standing]"); where "FROM MOSES" is added to the word to tell "WHAT KIND" of "departure," since it is not inherent in the word ('apostasia') itself!
"Departure" is indeed the basic meaning of the word "apostasia".
CONTEXT determines WHAT KIND of "departure" is intended (and in our 2Th2:3 verse the definite article is used, so in this case "THE departure"--one PREVIOUSLY referred to in the context; and one ALREADY-KNOWN unto the recipients of the letter--those two are the PURPOSE of the definite article, which is not ordinarily required with this word, and isn't used with it in Acts 21:21)
No, it would NOT be making it say that (if you are speaking of the WORDING in VERSE 3, which we are speaking of)...
What you are bypassing is the info Paul is telling about in VERSE 2 (about the false conveyors "PURPORTING" something FALSE that Paul does not want them incorrectly being persuaded is TRUE: "[purporting] that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"--it WASN'T! And here's WHY (he says, continuing into VERSE 3...):
...instead of what you'd put, it would say this...
"[3] the earthly-located tribulation judgments [which we know AS the seals, the trumpets, and the vials unfolding OVER TIME] will not be present, if not shall have come THE Departure [v.1's Subject--our RAPTURE-EXIT] *FIRST*..."
Verse 3 is not saying (as many suggest it would be saying): "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM [IN THE AIR] will not take place until OUR RAPTURE/THE DEPARTURE [IN THE AIR] takes place FIRST," ...NO!
...instead, Verse 3 is saying "THE EARTHLY-LOCATED TRIB [that the false conveyors purport IS ALREADY HERE (v.2)] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE [our Rapture IN THE AIR (v.1)] FIRST..."
...see the difference between what *you* are suggesting it would say, and what we are suggesting it says?? Completely different ideas being expressed (DUE TO the INTERVENING [and entirely DISTINCT] Subject IN VERSE 2, which v.3a picks up and STARTS OFF with... "3 that day" [in italics; v.3a] is NOT referring to verse 1's Subject, see...)
^ No, "[OUR] episynagoges-NOUN [UNTO HIM]" (v.1) is what corresponds with "THE Departure-NOUN" (v.3b) Paul is speaking of.
I'm not saying "TO GATHER" (used elsewhere) is not a verb, though (same with "harpazo / harpagēsometha / caught up / SNATCH" also being verbs)... See what I mean?
I'm not saying "TO GATHER" (used elsewhere) is not a verb, though (same with "harpazo / harpagēsometha / caught up / SNATCH" also being verbs)... See what I mean?
[ @ResidentAlien 's Post #151] "I'm with you, it only talks about the rapture once, in v.1."--RA
To be clear, I am not saying the PASSAGE in its entirety only refers to our Rapture-event once;
I'm saying that VERSE 3 only refers to our Rapture-event once, not TWICE, as you suggest "it would be saying" (per our saying "he apostasia" means "THE Departure," i.e. OUR RAPTURE [IN THE AIR]," in THIS CONTEXT, per v.3's wording... and in view of its CONTEXT)
--"[v.3]...THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*..." (is IN RELATION [sequentially] TO the other entirely DISTINCT thing referred to earlier in this verse, at v.3a "that day")
To be clear, I am not saying the PASSAGE in its entirety only refers to our Rapture-event once;
I'm saying that VERSE 3 only refers to our Rapture-event once, not TWICE, as you suggest "it would be saying" (per our saying "he apostasia" means "THE Departure," i.e. OUR RAPTURE [IN THE AIR]," in THIS CONTEXT, per v.3's wording... and in view of its CONTEXT)
--"[v.3]...THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*..." (is IN RELATION [sequentially] TO the other entirely DISTINCT thing referred to earlier in this verse, at v.3a "that day")
HELPS Word-studies
646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."
Since the other translated words are 'defection, revolt and forsake' if you go with the word 'departure' it must retain the same meaning as the Greek word apostasia which is 'leaving from a previous standing.' Therefore, you cannot use the translated word 'departure' to mean anything else other than a departure from a previous standing in faith. You of all people who are always posting with Greek word definitions and examples, should know this.
Simply put, you can't make the word 'departure' mean whatever you want it to mean. As in my last example, you can't make it mean to depart up into the air to meet the Lord. It just can't be used that way. Anyone who knows Greek would tell you that.
646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."
Since the other translated words are 'defection, revolt and forsake' if you go with the word 'departure' it must retain the same meaning as the Greek word apostasia which is 'leaving from a previous standing.' Therefore, you cannot use the translated word 'departure' to mean anything else other than a departure from a previous standing in faith. You of all people who are always posting with Greek word definitions and examples, should know this.
Simply put, you can't make the word 'departure' mean whatever you want it to mean. As in my last example, you can't make it mean to depart up into the air to meet the Lord. It just can't be used that way. Anyone who knows Greek would tell you that.
That last one "fits" what I'm saying ^ .
And this is what I already explained in my Post #170
You've added the idea "IN FAITH" [/"FROM FAITH"] whereas this is not being in reference in this 2Th2:3 context.
[and again, "forsake" is a VERB, so not what this NOUN word is saying]
I am surprised that you think one can place the word/idea "rapture" into verse 3 IN TWO PLACES, as though this is what we are suggesting v.3 is conveying
(...when we are NOT suggesting that at all! "That day" v.3a refers back to the Subject OF VERSE 2! not back to the DISTINCT SUBJECT of v.1 [which v.3b's "THE Departure *FIRST*" indeed refers to!]--"that day" v.3a refers to "THE DAY OF THE LORD [earthly-time-period of JUDGMENTS unfolding]" that the false conveyors were PURPORTING "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"... like saying "the Trib has started!" Paul is saying "NOT!" [v.3] ONE THING must take place "*FIRST*" ["THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*" before that time period of judgments unfolding can "be present" to play out upon the earth (with its "man of sin" IN HIS TIME)!])
I didn't.
It means "DEPARTURE," it does NOT mean "DEPARTURE from Moses" (otherwise, "from Moses" would NOT have been added to the text of Acts 21:21 to tell just "WHAT KIND" of "departure" was meant, there
).
I explained that, again, in Post #170... PLEASE SEE the definition of "STASIS / STASIN" (Apo Stasis WITHOUT the PREFIX "apo"!) and how it is used in the first 8x (of 9x)... but then in its 9th occurrence means something ENTIRELY DISTINCT from the other 8x (related to our discussion here, and the word under discussion!)
And this is what I already explained in my Post #170
You've added the idea "IN FAITH" [/"FROM FAITH"] whereas this is not being in reference in this 2Th2:3 context.
[and again, "forsake" is a VERB, so not what this NOUN word is saying]
I am surprised that you think one can place the word/idea "rapture" into verse 3 IN TWO PLACES, as though this is what we are suggesting v.3 is conveying
(...when we are NOT suggesting that at all! "That day" v.3a refers back to the Subject OF VERSE 2! not back to the DISTINCT SUBJECT of v.1 [which v.3b's "THE Departure *FIRST*" indeed refers to!]--"that day" v.3a refers to "THE DAY OF THE LORD [earthly-time-period of JUDGMENTS unfolding]" that the false conveyors were PURPORTING "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"... like saying "the Trib has started!" Paul is saying "NOT!" [v.3] ONE THING must take place "*FIRST*" ["THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*" before that time period of judgments unfolding can "be present" to play out upon the earth (with its "man of sin" IN HIS TIME)!])
I didn't.
It means "DEPARTURE," it does NOT mean "DEPARTURE from Moses" (otherwise, "from Moses" would NOT have been added to the text of Acts 21:21 to tell just "WHAT KIND" of "departure" was meant, there
).I explained that, again, in Post #170... PLEASE SEE the definition of "STASIS / STASIN" (Apo Stasis WITHOUT the PREFIX "apo"!) and how it is used in the first 8x (of 9x)... but then in its 9th occurrence means something ENTIRELY DISTINCT from the other 8x (related to our discussion here, and the word under discussion!)