The Doctrinal Belief of a Pre-Tribulation Resurrection. Is not spoken of in the Word of God. It was created by a sick and deranged woman

[Absolutely]

I clearly explained my point, that is what happen, the wicked were swept away, there is no disputing this at all. What Jesus is referencing is the flood, where the wicked are swept away, then Jesus say, "just like this so will be the coming of the Son of man. Two will be in the field, one taken one left...." Now you tell me what justifies the flip of who goes and who stays. This is just what the text says. With all due respect, you have to add to His word to get what you're talking about out of these word. I mean I don't understand how these facts can be argued. I get what you're saying they mean, My question to you is, "what in the text leads you to believe that it's the righteous removed and the wicked that stay?" I know you've always been told that, taught that, shown this from your most respected teachers around, I have too, but it's my position now that's is not what it says, and I'd like to understand "why" you do, please sir.

You are not listening.
Yes the wicked are swept away.

But you are oblivious that the boat HAD TO float BEFORE the people were "swept away" off HIGHER GROUND.

SO WHO LEFT FIRST?

BOTH WERE SWEPT AWAY.
Look, the boat did not sit there under water while the people stayed on the lowest ground.

The boat moved(floated) before those on hills and mountains perished.
Both were "swept away"

There is no "wicked taken first"

Besides you would have to argue that anyone saying that would need "one taken(wicked) and one left (righteous) it the start of the gt. (B 4 the flood)
You have no wicked taken AFTER the flood.
No righteous taken or left AFTER the flood. You do have the righteous returning from the heavens back to earth.....yep I agree.
Left at the start,boat floated first,and RETURNED post flood/trib.

None of that plays out as a picture of a postrib rapture when test fitted.
Now test fit pretrib rapture.

Fits like a glove

 

[Absolutely]

I clearly explained my point, that is what happen, the wicked were swept away, there is no disputing this at all. What Jesus is referencing is the flood, where the wicked are swept away, then Jesus say, "just like this so will be the coming of the Son of man. Two will be in the field, one taken one left...." Now you tell me what justifies the flip of who goes and who stays. This is just what the text says. With all due respect, you have to add to His word to get what you're talking about out of these word. I mean I don't understand how these facts can be argued. I get what you're saying they mean, My question to you is, "what in the text leads you to believe that it's the righteous removed and the wicked that stay?" I know you've always been told that, taught that, shown this from your most respected teachers around, I have too, but it's my position now that's is not what it says, and I'd like to understand "why" you do, please sir.

....at the start of the flood.
Add that in and "the wicked taken" is a complete nothing burger.
Does not fit either side.
Not plausable at all

 

[Absolutely]

Thank you so much brother for these words, I mean it. I honestly wondered after a few back and forth's, if I was out of line. I didn't feel like I was attacking anyone or being ugly, but I just kept getting bad responses, but then Jackson123, and cv5, then Whisper started just speaking with me and showed me there are folks here that are not so offended to the point they won't even comment to me anymore. I don't want that, and I know my view is by FAR the least popular among mainstream "Christianity", so I was very slow to even speak about this here.

The problem I face is that it says that if I don't share the truth then I hate those I don't tell, but I wish people would understand I'm also here to learn because my views have grow too much since my rebirth for me to stop seeking everyday. This is why I ask so many questions, and ask then over and over until I get them to think about it and answer,I love you guys and gals, all my brothers and sisters here and don't want to have problems with any of them. I could go on and on (and usually do), but what I'm trying to say is thank you so much for the encouraging words. They mean a lot and it was just when I needed to hear them praise Jesus name, Thank you brother, very much.

No you are not out of line at all
You are an example of a great man of God.
Character is greater than knowledge.

 

[Jimbone]

I am Sorry If my answere not satified you about third temple, but this response is to brother garee and he wasn't talk about third temple

If you want talk about third temple why I am not satified you, I am willing to hear from you for my

I don't know If It Will satified you or not, but I Will try he best from my limitation.

I just never even got a clear cut answer if you thought the Abomination of Desolation happens in Gods temple, it seemed you did until the end. I believe we ended in a semantics game about what constitutes "Gods temple", while I was saying "God must order it built", it was not what I thought made the building Gods temple, I bring it up because it completely contradicts Paul saying don't add to His word. God "ordering it built" is not what makes it His temple, but is 1000% necessary of course. I guess I need to add that what makes a temple, "Gods temple", is the fact that God dwells in it, of course, just like the times in the past. I'm saying all these things together with the fact that everything the temple pointed to and the very purpose for which it was created is fulfilled, in our Kings words "it is finished", that age is clearly over. To bring it back not only contradicts scripture, it also seems to defy any kind of rational or logic in general. It just makes no sense on any level when you give it some serious thought and read the words without coming to it with all the baggage. So these are the things you didn't clear up at all in my opinion, and not that that matters at all ultimately, it's just where He's led me.

 

[Jimbone]

....at the start of the flood.
Add that in and "the wicked taken" is a complete nothing burger.
Does not fit either side.
Not plausable at all

Okay... it's a "nothing burger" because you say? I don't understand what you mean it doesn't fit? The facts? You know what I think doesn't fit? A 3rd temple, a 2,000+ year gap between God bringing salvation and judgement on the covenant breakers, our Kings very clear words over and over and over about the time frame ALL these things would happen in. And did happen just when He said BTW. These things I just listed as not fitting are nowhere written. All I did was read that scripture and point out indisputable facts. God has ALWAYS displayed this pattern, the righteous will inherit the earth, the flood it was the wicked taken, in Sodom and Gomorrah it was the wicked burnt up. God's pattern is always taking out the wicked and saving the righteous in the world. I know you think this isn't the case BECAUSE of this false teaching of a "future whatever" and do not realize the power it is stripping away from our victorious King. We are not supposed to be hunkered down waiting for the world to go to hell, we are called to make disciples of ALL nations, that the whole world is going under Him, and if you believe this pre trib stuff you can't even believe these things are even possible yet. Man it throws a wet blanket on the evangelistic spirit in my opinion.

 

[Jimbone]

Wow ...test fit your theories folks.
So crystal clear Jesus used Noah and Lot to showcase his gathering BEFORE the flood...trib

But they were both on earth still. He took Enoch up, He took Elijah up, so I imagine if He was trying to show us how it would be why would He leave Noah and Lot here like that? It just doesn't fit as well as you think it does. Who was taken and who was left behind? Just saying.

 

[dunrite101]

I read that ..what is being talked about here and went seeking. What I found was a man that wrote hymns and was a preacher. He wrote about believers being caught up before the great tribulation. This was written in about 300-400AD. Then I watched on TV a Christian channel this man (forgot his name. Can see his face lol) that is gone home now. He on this show was talking about this same Hymn writer and showed the scrolls. And found even earlier scrolls from others talking about caught up PRE TRIB.

This DOES NOT prove PRE TRIB is right. But does prove that they did in fact talk preach about it.

I read that ..what is being talked about here and went seeking. What I found was a man that wrote hymns and was a preacher. He wrote about believers being caught up before the great tribulation. This was written in about 300-400AD. Then I watched on TV a Christian channel this man (forgot his name. Can see his face lol) that is gone home now. He on this show was talking about this same Hymn writer and showed the scrolls. And found even earlier scrolls from others talking about caught up PRE TRIB.

This DOES NOT prove PRE TRIB is right. But does prove that they did in fact talk preach about it.

 

[Jackson123]

I just never even got a clear cut answer if you thought the Abomination of Desolation happens in Gods temple, it seemed you did until the end.

It may make you believe that the abomination happen in AD 70, because after Jesus die oN the cross No temple need anymore, am I correct

Let talking about this part .

1. Base oN the premis after Jesus die oN the cross No temple need anymore

Mean after the year AD 33 the temple is not God temple anymore

So when Titus destroy the so call temple, It is not abomination, because by that time It is not God temple anymore.

If It is still God temple Titus Will die when he enter the Holies holy room.
That mean what Titus did is not abomination because that building is not temple of God anymore

2. Before Titus destroy the so call temple, the King of babylon do the same. Is that mean abomination happen twice?

 

[Jackson123]

It may make you believe that the abomination happen in AD 70, because after Jesus die oN the cross No temple need anymore, am I correct

Let talking about this part .

1. Base oN the premis after Jesus die oN the cross No temple need anymore

Mean after the year AD 33 the temple is not God temple anymore

So when Titus destroy the so call temple, It is not abomination, because by that time It is not God temple anymore.

If It is still God temple Titus Will die when he enter the Holies holy room.
That mean what Titus did is not abomination because that building is not temple of God anymore

2. Before Titus destroy the so call temple, the King of babylon do the same. Is that mean abomination happen twice?

I just Remember something

Temple of God is when God dweel in It

And when God dweel in It, only apointet priest allow go to holies Holy room or die

Titus not die so that temple is not temple of God anymore.

Base oN this premis temple of God never destroyed yet

Because what happen in AD 70 Titus destroyed a building that they think temple of God but It wasn't

 

[Jimbone]

It may make you believe that the abomination happen in AD 70, because after Jesus die oN the cross No temple need anymore, am I correct

Let talking about this part .

1. Base oN the premis after Jesus die oN the cross No temple need anymore

Mean after the year AD 33 the temple is not God temple anymore

So when Titus destroy the so call temple, It is not abomination, because by that time It is not God temple anymore.

If It is still God temple Titus Will die when he enter the Holies holy room.
That mean what Titus did is not abomination because that building is not temple of God anymore

2. Before Titus destroy the so call temple, the King of babylon do the same. Is that mean abomination happen twice?

See you are leaving out a HUGE part of this whole thing, the end of the "AGE", 70 AD was the end of the AGE not world. I find this is a major part of the whole story often omitted. The end of the Mosaic age, the end of the temple, of sacrifices, of the priesthood, all gone "then and there", just like He said, no surprise, all planned perfectly. How this doesn't fit so perfectly to you guys truly baffles me. I mean it's SO clear. Can somebody please at least say they can understand how "I" might think these things are obvious.

 

[Absolutely]

But they were both on earth still. He took Enoch up, He took Elijah up, so I imagine if He was trying to show us how it would be why would He leave Noah and Lot here like that? It just doesn't fit as well as you think it does. Who was taken and who was left behind? Just saying.

Noah was taken over a mile into the sky via the ark.
He CAME BACK AFTER the flood.
...as in the pretrib rapture.
Vivid,vivid picture of the pretrib rapture Jesus p as ints using Noah and Lot.

 

[Jimbone]

It may make you believe that the abomination happen in AD 70, because after Jesus die oN the cross No temple need anymore, am I correct

Let talking about this part .

1. Base oN the premis after Jesus die oN the cross No temple need anymore

Mean after the year AD 33 the temple is not God temple anymore

So when Titus destroy the so call temple, It is not abomination, because by that time It is not God temple anymore.

If It is still God temple Titus Will die when he enter the Holies holy room.
That mean what Titus did is not abomination because that building is not temple of God anymore

2. Before Titus destroy the so call temple, the King of babylon do the same. Is that mean abomination happen twice?

Dude after a reread of this and really taking a step back, look at you brother, you're so caught up in every "this" or "that" , that you're missing the Forrest seeing just trees. Stop. Breath. God gave His Spirit to guide us all to truth and peace, the peace only truth brings. Are we still waiting for something brother? What? He reconciled us back to himself, what's left to do? It is finished.

 

[Jimbone]

Noah was taken over a mile into the sky via the ark.
He CAME BACK AFTER the flood.
...as in the pretrib rapture.
Vivid,vivid picture of the pretrib rapture Jesus p as ints using Noah and Lot.

Really dude? So you're telling me Noah and his family EVER left the face of this earth? Is that what you're selling here as "proof" for a rapture? Man and I'm told my view doesn't fit.

 

[Absolutely]

Okay... it's a "nothing burger" because you say? I don't understand what you mean it doesn't fit? The facts? You know what I think doesn't fit? A 3rd temple, a 2,000+ year gap between God bringing salvation and judgement on the covenant breakers, our Kings very clear words over and over and over about the time frame ALL these things would happen in. And did happen just when He said BTW. These things I just listed as not fitting are nowhere written. All I did was read that scripture and point out indisputable facts. God has ALWAYS displayed this pattern, the righteous will inherit the earth, the flood it was the wicked taken, in Sodom and Gomorrah it was the wicked burnt up. God's pattern is always taking out the wicked and saving the righteous in the world. I know you think this isn't the case BECAUSE of this false teaching of a "future whatever" and do not realize the power it is stripping away from our victorious King. We are not supposed to be hunkered down waiting for the world to go to hell, we are called to make disciples of ALL nations, that the whole world is going under Him, and if you believe this pre trib stuff you can't even believe these things are even possible yet. Man it throws a wet blanket on the evangelistic spirit in my opinion.

"Wicked taken first" is so overworked.
It is a sloppy insert to explain away the "one taken/left"
That is the only purpose of that misapplied dynamic.
In the rapture,in the 10 virgin parable,and the gathering of rev 14, there is no "wicked taken first".
The reason it is a nothing burger is because the supposed wicked swept away at the flood has no bearing on anything.
It neither serves or disputes either side.
My observation or theory is in the obvious that people will retreat to high ground.
The boat had to float by people trapped on high ground.
To me it is just obvious.

 

[Jimbone]

"Wicked taken first" is so overworked.
It is a sloppy insert to explain away the "one taken/left"
That is the only purpose of that misapplied dynamic.
In the rapture,in the 10 virgin parable,and the gathering of rev 14, there is no "wicked taken first".
The reason it is a nothing burger is because the supposed wicked swept away at the flood has no bearing on anything.
It neither serves or disputes either side.
My observation or theory is in the obvious that people will retreat to high ground.
The boat had to float by people trapped on high ground.
To me it is just obvious.

So basically you don't like it so it doesn't count? Ummm not exactly rock solid brother, what am I missing that SOOO obvious about these FACTS. You don't like them so they don't count?

 

[Jimbone]

"Wicked taken first" is so overworked.
It is a sloppy insert to explain away the "one taken/left"
That is the only purpose of that misapplied dynamic.
In the rapture,in the 10 virgin parable,and the gathering of rev 14, there is no "wicked taken first".
The reason it is a nothing burger is because the supposed wicked swept away at the flood has no bearing on anything.
It neither serves or disputes either side.
My observation or theory is in the obvious that people will retreat to high ground.
The boat had to float by people trapped on high ground.
To me it is just obvious.

All this little piddly stuff you're question me on yet you're acting as if the difference of people being spiritually called away by God as Enoch and Elijah, is the same as God bringing Noah and Lot physically through the storms on earth is the exact same thing. Can you see now it's not. What this rapture would be doing is the Enoch and Elijah thing, so the example of Noah and Lot wouldn't be "bad" examples of this, they're not examples at all, just completely different things.

 

[Jackson123]

See you are leaving out a HUGE part of this whole thing, the end of the "AGE", 70 AD was the end of the AGE not world. I find this is a major part of the whole story often omitted. The end of the Mosaic age, the end of the temple, of sacrifices, of the priesthood, all gone "then and there", just like He said, no surprise, all planned perfectly. How this doesn't fit so perfectly to you guys truly baffles me. I mean it's SO clear. Can somebody please at least say they can understand how "I" might think these things are obvious.

I am sorry for my lack of understanding on what your point is.

If I am correct, you think AD 70 was the end of mosaic age.

But to me the end of mosaic age was about AD 33 when Jesus die on the cross.

By that time, no animal sacrifice needed anymore and mosaic age ended

 

[Jackson123]

Dude after a reread of this and really taking a step back, look at you brother, you're so caught up in every "this" or "that" , that you're missing the Forrest seeing just trees. Stop. Breath. God gave His Spirit to guide us all to truth and peace, the peace only truth brings. Are we still waiting for something brother? What? He reconciled us back to himself, what's left to do? It is finished.

Yep, we at peace with the Lord now. And not only us, in our generation, believer in aposttle generation was at peace with the Lord, they and us waiting for His second coming

 

[Jackson123]

See you are leaving out a HUGE part of this whole thing, the end of the "AGE", 70 AD was the end of the AGE not world. I find this is a major part of the whole story often omitted. The end of the Mosaic age, the end of the temple, of sacrifices, of the priesthood, all gone "then and there", just like He said, no surprise, all planned perfectly. How this doesn't fit so perfectly to you guys truly baffles me. I mean it's SO clear. Can somebody please at least say they can understand how "I" might think these things are obvious.

I forget to ask you a question

Do you believe after cross the temple in Jerusalem still the temple of God where mosaic law, like animal sacrifice must be done?

Do you believe the building that Titus destroyed at AD 70 is still the temple of God?

 

[just_truth]