Thief in the Night-- Pretrib or Second Coming?
- Thread starter presidente
- 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.
Man this thread moves fast, I need some spare time to able to participate.
I dont think there is an explicit verse that says the rapture is pre or post trib, just like there is no verse that says God is One and Three, yet when we read scripture it is clear there is a trinity the same with pre trib rapture, and pre trib and post trib generally use the same verses we just disagree with what they mean to support our own views, we know one is right and the others must be wrong, so some people go to some pretty strange places to want to be right, and can cause some to slip and slide further down the wrong rabbit hole.
Yet the favorite thing in the bible for me is pictures and types, I know you have just said you dont like allegorical things to show forth positions but I believe pictures and types build upon what is true, for instance if you could show me an allegory that supports post trib it would have way more effect on me, so when I read the bible I will read things like the account of Isaac coming to meet his bride Rebekah I can see the type of Isaac being Christ and Rebekah the pure bride (Church) And sure enough when you read the account the Father sends His Servant to fetch the bride the servant being the Holy Spirit to bring the Bride to the Son because father Abe does not want Isaac to return to His country at this time. So even though Isaac comes to meet His bride he does not return to his country
I know the pictures are not proof in any way yet God made pictures and does not speak plainly in all things to keep those in the dark, well in the dark, plus to to me it just builds onto or confirms pretrib is in harmony with all scripture.
I dont think there is an explicit verse that says the rapture is pre or post trib, just like there is no verse that says God is One and Three, yet when we read scripture it is clear there is a trinity the same with pre trib rapture, and pre trib and post trib generally use the same verses we just disagree with what they mean to support our own views, we know one is right and the others must be wrong, so some people go to some pretty strange places to want to be right, and can cause some to slip and slide further down the wrong rabbit hole.
Yet the favorite thing in the bible for me is pictures and types, I know you have just said you dont like allegorical things to show forth positions but I believe pictures and types build upon what is true, for instance if you could show me an allegory that supports post trib it would have way more effect on me, so when I read the bible I will read things like the account of Isaac coming to meet his bride Rebekah I can see the type of Isaac being Christ and Rebekah the pure bride (Church) And sure enough when you read the account the Father sends His Servant to fetch the bride the servant being the Holy Spirit to bring the Bride to the Son because father Abe does not want Isaac to return to His country at this time. So even though Isaac comes to meet His bride he does not return to his country
I know the pictures are not proof in any way yet God made pictures and does not speak plainly in all things to keep those in the dark, well in the dark, plus to to me it just builds onto or confirms pretrib is in harmony with all scripture.
Paul isn't "concerned about" it overtaking them as a thief, he's making the point that it won't.
[per vv.1-4, "the day of the Lord" ARRIVING "exactly like [hosper]" the INITIAL "birth pang"... which will be followed by many more birth pangs according to Jesus' words in His Olivet Discourse, and He's not referring to what will commence to take place merely on the 24-hr day of His RETURN to the earth Matt24:29-31, see... but well-prior to that point]
I think a better question, when it comes to the passage in 1Thess 5:1-10, would be, why does Paul say (in contrast to Jesus' words basically saying "WATCH [or else!],") Paul instead states, "10 the One having died for us, so that whether we may watch OR whether we may sleep [same two words that v.6 used, and mean], we should live together with [G4862-UNIONed-with] Him"
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:10 Greek Text Analysis (biblehub.com)
[per vv.1-4, "the day of the Lord" ARRIVING "exactly like [hosper]" the INITIAL "birth pang"... which will be followed by many more birth pangs according to Jesus' words in His Olivet Discourse, and He's not referring to what will commence to take place merely on the 24-hr day of His RETURN to the earth Matt24:29-31, see... but well-prior to that point]
I think a better question, when it comes to the passage in 1Thess 5:1-10, would be, why does Paul say (in contrast to Jesus' words basically saying "WATCH [or else!],") Paul instead states, "10 the One having died for us, so that whether we may watch OR whether we may sleep [same two words that v.6 used, and mean], we should live together with [G4862-UNIONed-with] Him"
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:10 Greek Text Analysis (biblehub.com)
-
1
- Show all
We know these things exist in scripture; however, never-ever-ever does any of it supercede direct clear obvious statements in/of scripture - such as:
Immediately after the tribulation of those days...
(The best example I can think of right now.)
All scripture must agree.
Direct clear obvious statements in/of scripture take precedence.
If other less direct, clear, and obvious things seem to contradict - they are incorrectly interpreted.
Immediately after the tribulation of those days...
(The best example I can think of right now.)
All scripture must agree.
Direct clear obvious statements in/of scripture take precedence.
If other less direct, clear, and obvious things seem to contradict - they are incorrectly interpreted.
You are reading "rapture [in the air]" INTO that Matthew 24 passage, which instead corresponds with the "GREAT trumpet" passage of Isaiah 27:12-13,9 (regarding Israel... the believing remnant of Israel, at the END of the Trib, who will be "gathered ONE BY ONE" to one location upon the earth, "to worship the Lord in the holy mount, AT JERUSALEM" --Let the readers also compare v.9 of Isa27, to that of Rom11:26... not to mention Dan9:24)
["rapture" (that concept) is not the Subject Jesus is covering anywhere in His Olivet Discourse]
["rapture" (that concept) is not the Subject Jesus is covering anywhere in His Olivet Discourse]
-
1
- Show all
No - it means things which will soon begin to transpire... 
"soon" is an adverb.
But the word in v.1 is NOT an "adverb" (like "soon" or "immediateLY" or "shortLY" or the like); rather is a "noun" ("in quickness [noun]" or "with speed [noun]" is the idea...; and also refers to what Jesus would "SHOW" [see this word in 4:1... and that which follows from there]).
["in quickness [noun]" also used in Lk18:8 and Rom16:20... which I believe are related]
Last edited:
-
1
- Show all
Are you using standard Greek grammar terms. I find some of your use of grammar terms to be a bit confusing.
Also, do you actually know and read Greek? I'm taking a first college Greek class now, so I am a first-year student. Your posts seem like you might be half-guessing with an interlinear. Is that right, that you haven't formally studied Greek and your using stuff like BibleHub, Logos software, or something along those lines?
Sorry I might have got my verse wrong or looked at the wrong place. Technically if epeita is there eita is there too. I don't really know the difference between the two. Both can mean then or thereafter. epeita is epi+eita contracted to epeita. 'Epi' translates as on or upon (in some contexts.)
Do you know anyone who knows Greek who says this is contrasted? Do you have any commentaries that say that? Can you show any clear examples from the New Testament, the LXX, or other Greek works?
Or are you guessing and treating your guess as the basis for a doctrinal argument?
Even though verse 20 is important for understanding the flow of the argument, i don't know why anyone would argue that epeita or eita,___grammatically____ point back to verse 20.
As far as 'no time element attached to it', that is obviously false. 'Then' or 'thereafter' or however you translate it has something to do with time in this context.
What conjunction? How would Heksaskos be a conjuction? If you mean 'de', that's all over the place. Why is that significant?
I bounced your argument about the future tense off of someone who knows Greek and he says that word in the future indicative passive would apply to Christ also who 'is risen', ἐγήγερται, and that the person I mentioned was overthinking the grammar.
If you are arguing for future bands in the resurrection, the Bible already talks about the resurrection of the just and the unjust. That's two groups. The issue here is that you can't show where there are two mass resurrections of the just from scripture. Reading into here is more or less circular reasoning, since you would be reading it into the passage you are trying to use as evidence for it.
Again, a source for the 'contrast.' Have you personally studied and read Greek enough to see contrasts between epeita and eita in other contexts?
As an additional support, besides the 2Cor4:14 verse (and 1Cor12:12's "For as the body is one... many members... being many, are ONE BODY: so also IS THE CHRIST")...
consider also that some versions have 2Th2:13 saying, "hath chosen [note: a distinct word for "chosen" from the usual word used] you FIRSTFRUIT"; ...the "you" here, speaking of the Church which is His body... a proleptic "you"[/QUOTE]
Also, do you actually know and read Greek? I'm taking a first college Greek class now, so I am a first-year student. Your posts seem like you might be half-guessing with an interlinear. Is that right, that you haven't formally studied Greek and your using stuff like BibleHub, Logos software, or something along those lines?
Sorry I might have got my verse wrong or looked at the wrong place. Technically if epeita is there eita is there too. I don't really know the difference between the two. Both can mean then or thereafter. epeita is epi+eita contracted to epeita. 'Epi' translates as on or upon (in some contexts.)
Do you know anyone who knows Greek who says this is contrasted? Do you have any commentaries that say that? Can you show any clear examples from the New Testament, the LXX, or other Greek works?
Or are you guessing and treating your guess as the basis for a doctrinal argument?
Even though verse 20 is important for understanding the flow of the argument, i don't know why anyone would argue that epeita or eita,___grammatically____ point back to verse 20.
As far as 'no time element attached to it', that is obviously false. 'Then' or 'thereafter' or however you translate it has something to do with time in this context.
What conjunction? How would Heksaskos be a conjuction? If you mean 'de', that's all over the place. Why is that significant?
I bounced your argument about the future tense off of someone who knows Greek and he says that word in the future indicative passive would apply to Christ also who 'is risen', ἐγήγερται, and that the person I mentioned was overthinking the grammar.
If you are arguing for future bands in the resurrection, the Bible already talks about the resurrection of the just and the unjust. That's two groups. The issue here is that you can't show where there are two mass resurrections of the just from scripture. Reading into here is more or less circular reasoning, since you would be reading it into the passage you are trying to use as evidence for it.
Again, a source for the 'contrast.' Have you personally studied and read Greek enough to see contrasts between epeita and eita in other contexts?
As an additional support, besides the 2Cor4:14 verse (and 1Cor12:12's "For as the body is one... many members... being many, are ONE BODY: so also IS THE CHRIST")...
consider also that some versions have 2Th2:13 saying, "hath chosen [note: a distinct word for "chosen" from the usual word used] you FIRSTFRUIT"; ...the "you" here, speaking of the Church which is His body... a proleptic "you"[/QUOTE]
I know pre-trib and post-trib use the same verses. It's just that Paul tells a number of things about the coming of the Lord, and so post-tribbers see that and think, "These things happen at the coming of the Lord." But pre-tribbers say, "The coming of the Lord is two events. This verse.... we'll put it in the pre-trib category... and this verse.... we'll put it in the post-trib category." Often pre-tribbers use verses that are set post trib if we look carefully, like verses about the day coming as a thief.
I'm not against allegory or allegorical interpretation as a matter of principal. But I am concerned when such interpretations diverge from the teaching of the plain sense of non allegorical passages, like Paul's writings on the coming of the Lord.
Let me give an allegorical example to you. If we look in the Old Testament, there was another time of tribulation and amazing judgments happening. We see this in Egypt. But God did not rapture His people out of the land during this time. They stayed there, but He protected them as He poured out His judgments. Then they were brought out of the land after a great time of judgment and tribulation.
I'm not against allegory or allegorical interpretation as a matter of principal. But I am concerned when such interpretations diverge from the teaching of the plain sense of non allegorical passages, like Paul's writings on the coming of the Lord.
Let me give an allegorical example to you. If we look in the Old Testament, there was another time of tribulation and amazing judgments happening. We see this in Egypt. But God did not rapture His people out of the land during this time. They stayed there, but He protected them as He poured out His judgments. Then they were brought out of the land after a great time of judgment and tribulation.
The thing is bro.....the pre-trib rapture doctrine is the eschatological component (related quintessentially and uniquely to the Church alone) that never contradicts Scripture. Really its breathtaking in its all-encompassing perfection.
Post-trib is a bull in the china shop. Daniel's seventy weeks gets trampled, as do the words of Jesus, Paul, and pretty much everything else.
I pity those who fail to see/grasp/appreciate the Biblical grandeur and perfection of the pre-trib rapture. I'll tell you what. I for one AM NOT anticipating the tribulation horrors as a part of my blessed hope.
"as your faith is so be it unto you" is not a good deal as far at those post-tribbers who hope for the tribulation to begin bro.
Post-trib is a bull in the china shop. Daniel's seventy weeks gets trampled, as do the words of Jesus, Paul, and pretty much everything else.
I pity those who fail to see/grasp/appreciate the Biblical grandeur and perfection of the pre-trib rapture. I'll tell you what. I for one AM NOT anticipating the tribulation horrors as a part of my blessed hope.
"as your faith is so be it unto you" is not a good deal as far at those post-tribbers who hope for the tribulation to begin bro.
I'm not sure what your question pertains to... are you questioning whether a "conjunction" is being used to start out v.23 (that connects what is being said in v.22b)? Or are you asking/questioning something else?
"eita" (v.24a) is a SEQUENCE-word only... and by my saying "with no time-element attached," I am NOT saying sequence isn't involved.
For example, "Amill-teachings"insist v.24a means "then [immediately] the end"... as tho "eita/then" means that, but it doesn't... it means "then [sequentially] the end" which can legit be something "1000 years later"... coz no timing-element is attached with the word "eita";
"EPeita," however... (distinctly)... is not only a "sequence" word but touches "time and sequence" (lit. "UPON-then"), conveying a closer-in-time perspective between the two items... if that makes sense. = )
Not talking about "Hekastos" ("each")... rather, I'm talking about the "conjunction" (in v.23a) which connects what is being said in v.23 (in its entirety), with that which had just been stated back in v.22b (about the "SHALL be made alive [future tense]" resurrection topic)
"eita" (v.24a) is a SEQUENCE-word only... and by my saying "with no time-element attached," I am NOT saying sequence isn't involved.
For example, "Amill-teachings"insist v.24a means "then [immediately] the end"... as tho "eita/then" means that, but it doesn't... it means "then [sequentially] the end" which can legit be something "1000 years later"... coz no timing-element is attached with the word "eita";
"EPeita," however... (distinctly)... is not only a "sequence" word but touches "time and sequence" (lit. "UPON-then"), conveying a closer-in-time perspective between the two items... if that makes sense. = )
Not talking about "Hekastos" ("each")... rather, I'm talking about the "conjunction" (in v.23a) which connects what is being said in v.23 (in its entirety), with that which had just been stated back in v.22b (about the "SHALL be made alive [future tense]" resurrection topic)
Lucy-Pevensie said:
You want names of those priests who are serving in the inner sanctuary of heaven now?
You kinda forgot one teensy tiny thing. 1 Cor 15:23 tells us that the singular resurrection will at the Second Advent and with ALL saved people from Adam forward.
What else do you think "those who belong to Him" might refer to?
ha ha. how do either verse do that? They don't even mention the resurrection.
You want names of those priests who are serving in the inner sanctuary of heaven now?
You kinda forgot one teensy tiny thing. 1 Cor 15:23 tells us that the singular resurrection will at the Second Advent and with ALL saved people from Adam forward.
What else do you think "those who belong to Him" might refer to?
ha ha. how do either verse do that? They don't even mention the resurrection.
Yes, I also believe we should look prayerfully And Carefully about
"the day" or the Days - ie:
The Day Of CHRIST:
“Mystery” CHURCH: Designated as the “Heavenly” Day of CHRIST,
Which will be The Day of reward and consummation of our salvation (Philippians 1:6, 10; Philippians 2:16; I Corinthians 1:8;
II Corinthians 1:14).
Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ” (online)
The Day Of The LORD:
Israel’s KINGDOM: Designated as the “Earthly” Day of The LORD,
which will be first of all a day of judgment to be followed by the establishment of the Kingdom (Isaiah 13:9 to 16; Isaiah 24:21 to 23;
Isaiah 26:20 and 21; Isaiah 34:1 to 35:10; Ezekiel 30:3; Joel 1:15;
Joel 2:1 to 11; Amos 5:16 to 20; Obadiah 1:15 to 21;
Zephaniah 1:14 to 18; Zephaniah 14:1 to 21; Malachi 4:1 to 6;
Matthew 25:31 to 46; Acts 2:19 to 21)
In Light of Amos' Dark Warning, WHY be post-trib?:
Amos 5:18 "Woe unto you that desire The Day Of The LORD!
to what end is it for you? The Day of The LORD is darkness,
and not Light."
Should not we then rather "desire Light In The Day Of Christ"?
Grace, Peace, And JOY!...
"the day" or the Days - ie:
The Day Of CHRIST:
“Mystery” CHURCH: Designated as the “Heavenly” Day of CHRIST,
Which will be The Day of reward and consummation of our salvation (Philippians 1:6, 10; Philippians 2:16; I Corinthians 1:8;
II Corinthians 1:14).
Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ” (online)
The Day Of The LORD:
Israel’s KINGDOM: Designated as the “Earthly” Day of The LORD,
which will be first of all a day of judgment to be followed by the establishment of the Kingdom (Isaiah 13:9 to 16; Isaiah 24:21 to 23;
Isaiah 26:20 and 21; Isaiah 34:1 to 35:10; Ezekiel 30:3; Joel 1:15;
Joel 2:1 to 11; Amos 5:16 to 20; Obadiah 1:15 to 21;
Zephaniah 1:14 to 18; Zephaniah 14:1 to 21; Malachi 4:1 to 6;
Matthew 25:31 to 46; Acts 2:19 to 21)
In Light of Amos' Dark Warning, WHY be post-trib?:
Amos 5:18 "Woe unto you that desire The Day Of The LORD!
to what end is it for you? The Day of The LORD is darkness,
and not Light."
Should not we then rather "desire Light In The Day Of Christ"?
Grace, Peace, And JOY!...
We could ask, too, why it is that the ones under the altar (fifth seal martyrs) are said to be given "stole" (garments) rather than "himation" (garments; re: the 24 elders); and why they are told they must "rest yet a little time, until..." (until more saints are killed), IF it were true that immediately upon death (of the believer) they "sit on thrones" and act in "priest" capacity, as supposedly the "24 elders" are already doing (that is, supposedly without bodies... and meaning, presently).
[which, by the way, disregards the timing issues spelled out in the texts of 1:1 / 4:1 / 1:19c, I already posted earlier today]
[which, by the way, disregards the timing issues spelled out in the texts of 1:1 / 4:1 / 1:19c, I already posted earlier today]
Yep, there it is, plain as day. The FIRST resurrection, which is the resurrection of saved people, is at the Second Advent, as Rev 20:1-5 clearly shows.
These verses SAY there is one resurrection of the saved:
Dan 12:2, John 5:28,29, Acts 24:15, 1 Cor 15:23.
All believers will be resurrected at the Second Advent.
These verses SAY there is one resurrection of the saved:
Dan 12:2, John 5:28,29, Acts 24:15, 1 Cor 15:23.
All believers will be resurrected at the Second Advent.