Post # 31 and Post # 35
Can't be post trib, See post # 31, This would mean we know the hour the lord returns. Also see post # 35, If this is post trib, Jesus has no one left to rule
One of those posts is not a pretrib post, and I responded to the other one. As far as your objection goes, if pre-trib is true, one could count from the day the planes fell down and the buses crashed when the Christian pilots and bus drivers were taken up and know the day. One day, we will know the day anyway, when we see Jesus comes. It hadn't been revealed back in the first century when Jesus knew that.
The rapture is God catching us in the sky.
His return is boots on ground,
I do not know what kind of footwear the Savior may or may not wear. But otherwise, that sounds like an argument for pre-trib. I Thessalonians 4 puts the rapture occuring as the Lord returns, at the parousia. See verse 15.
If a Roman ambassador or emperor came for a 'parousia' visit, does it make sense that he wouldn't come to town, just go outside the city, then run off with the people who come to greet him and escort him into the city? Why would that be called a 'parousia.' He has to go there for it to be parousia, right?
Which coming, His rapture, or his return to earth? Again, 2 different events. If Jesus rapturs us at his second advent, there is no one alive to enter the thousand year reign (again post 35)
Honestly, I don't know what your argument is supposed to be here. I do not know your version of pre-trib. The one I was taught had some unbelieving survivors from Jerusalem who hadn't gone to battle against Christ. It allowed for previously Israelis to survive as mortals, too.
How can we delivered fro the wrath to come, and yet participate fully in the wrath of God immediately following his return to earh as king. Postrib has us not delievered from wrath, but participating fully on Gods wrath on mankind
You are assuming the tough times that the saints will face during the tribulation is 'the wrath to come.' Paul says we are not appointed unto wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.
So which is it for the tribulational saints who overcome the Devil by the blood of the Lamb and the word of His testimony. Are they appointed unto wrath, or to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus' Christ? Pretribbers take a phrase out of that verse, out of context.
Also, God was able to pour out wrath on Egypt without spilling it on the saints.
All should be translated in light of the things in Post 31 and 35. Because post trib is impossible. Even 1 thess 1 refutes post trib, because it has us participating in Gods wrath.
It is kind of frustrating talking with pre-tribbers like yourself, honestly, because you are like a broken record. You repeat really weak arguments-- like taking a verse about wrath out of it's clear context, and ignore the didactic passages of scripture.
I would like to see you actually deal with the issue of the parousia. Since the rapture happens at the parousia (I Thes. 4:15), and the man of sin is destroyed at the brightness of the parousia (II Thes. 2:8) how can pre-trib be true? Pretrib has Jesus coming back, then the man of sin coming into power, right? I've never heard of a pretribber not thinking the beast was the man of sin.
There are actual clear teachings of Paul on this. Not all the details are there, but enough to not fit with pre-trib. Then there is no scripture that puts the rapture before the tribulation. It's assumed, and pre-tribbers find little tiny clues that require assumptions-- like the not appointed unto wrath argument, or allegoricalizing 'come up hither'-- when there is direct teaching of scripture that disqualifies pre-trib as being reasonable. The only attempt I've seen at trying to show where the Bible actually places the rapture before the tribulation-- or a scenario consistent with that-- involves redefining the apostasia to be the rapture. Other than that, I've never seen anyone even show a verse or passage that sets the timing before the tribulation.
Then there is the gathering of the saints that is clearly after the tribulation in Matthew 24. Paul calls the rapture the gathering in II Thessalonians 2:1.
Maybe you can not find it because you do not want to?
Hmmm. It's kind of irritating when someone has a theory that doesn't have support and insults or questions the motives of one who has some real evidence. It isn't very persuasive to do so, either. It's annoying at best.
What motivation does one have for wanting to go through a tough time like that, or to think of one's children or grandchildren enduring it? I could just as easily ask if you are pre-trib because you do not like the idea of suffering and dying for Jesus.
You can show actual verses, quoting them, and explaining the parts you think teach pre-trib. But my approach is to interpret apocalyptic passages as consistent with didactic passages (like Paul's writings), rather than reading a theory into the apocalytic passages and trying to work Paul's writings around an eschatology.
I also ask what you do with the parousia? Do you think there are two parousia?
I am just asking because I can find many verses that would technically support all 3, if taken alone by themselves.. So saying you can find none already puts up a red flag Others find many, even if they disagree, that technically would support it. Yet you say non, what makes you different?
Can you show an actual passage that puts the timing of the rapture before the tribulation? Matthew 24 is explicit that the gathering of the elect is after the tribulation. Why should I take that to refer to something other than the rapture when Paul calls the rapture the gathering in II Thessalonians 2:1? Where is the passage that sets the timing of the rapture as pre-trib? I've seen people redefine apostasia to arrive at that conclusion, or try to allegoricalize 'Come up hither.' Is there anything more reasonable than either of those alternatives?