All the evidence you will ever need to trash the false pre-trib rapture

[PlainWord]

Why is it that none of you have seen fit to deal with the following...

Whether we apply the rapture or the second coming to that term 'imminent', the Lord has told us through the Spirit that 'I come quickly' (Rev 22:7,12,20). The word 'quickly' means 'swift, speedily and without delay'. This does not only refer to how he comes but also as to the expectation that the Spirit and the bride has of his coming (Rev 22:17). If the believers in the early church did not have an expectation of his coming then they would have no occasion to look for the mercy of the Lord as stated in (Jude 21). Look at the context of the entire chapter and determine for yourself as to what believers are encouraged to do and as to what that end might be in their own life time.

I'm not sure where you trying to go with this?? Are you saying that since the Lord says that He comes quickly that there must be a Pre-Trib Rapture? I don't see how you can make the case for that. Pre-Tribbers mostly believe that the Immanency Doctrine proves a Pre-Trib timing yet they don't see how such an idea could prove a Second Coming Post Trib Return. The Returns are allegedly 7 years apart so after 2,000 years do 7 years make a difference?

As for the early Church looking forward to an imminent return, obviously it wasn't so imminent. So does that make God's Word wrong or the early church wrong? To us 2,000 years is a long time with nothing imminent about it. However a day is 1,000 years to God - time is a dimension that doesn't effect God or limit Him in any way. A year is earth revolving once around the sun, that's all it is.

It seems clear to me that we should all live looking forward to Christ's return whether or not it happens in our life times. But looking forward to it doesn't equate with a Pre-Trib Rapture return when no such timing is found anywhere.

 

[Elin]

Negatives cannot be proven.

It falls on you to prove the positive, showing where, in fact, it was preached.

Lets see. The claim is made,but we jetison all proof or even the need for any. Ok.

I need no such dimension either way. I am only illustrating the FACT they have no proof.
You have answerd the root of the claim.
THEY have no proof,........I need none

Yes, let's see.

That's some hermeneutic.

It also means they have no proof that Jesus did not have two noses; ergo,
according to your hermeneutic it's true to say that he did.

 

[popeye]

Yes, let's see.

That's some hermeneutic.

It also means they have no proof that Jesus did not have two noses; ergo,
according to your hermeneutic it's true to say that he did.

They made the claim,let them defend it. They can not. Simple as that.
It is a rabbit trail. The word is what testifies. Not you,me,or all the extra-biblical parade of the postribs that are pulled from the sky. The "jesuits" also are twisted into something I can not seem to find. Hence I say prove it. I suppose you say "they don't have to"
The fact they don't and won't speaks loudly and is proof enough for me,as I need no such nonsense to defend the pretrib rapture.

 

[popeye]

Challenge to postribs;
Please interpret the 10 virgin parable for us.
Should be easy as it is painfully simple.
I can get you started
Groom= Jesus
Virgin= Born again saints
Oil= type of the HS
Foolish=No oil reserve

Ok,with this help,what is Jesus talking about?
Now remember,this is Jesus coming for his bride......or "the gathering"

 

[Elin]

They made the claim,let them defend it. They can not. Simple as that.
It is a rabbit trail. The word is what testifies. Not you,me,or all the extra-biblical parade of the postribs that are pulled from the sky. The "jesuits" also are twisted into something I can not seem to find. Hence I say prove it. I suppose you say "they don't have to"
The fact they don't and won't speaks loudly and is proof enough for me,as I need no such nonsense to defend the pretrib rapture.

I claim Jesus did not have only one nose because nowhere in Scripture does it say he had only one nose.

 

[Elin]

Challenge to postribs;
Please interpret the 10 virgin parable for us.
Should be easy as it is painfully simple.
I can get you started
Groom= Jesus
Virgin= Born again saints
Oil= type of the HS
Foolish=No oil reserve

Ok,with this help,what is Jesus talking about?
Now remember,this is Jesus coming for his bride......or "the gathering"

Please prove that statement.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I claim Jesus did not have only one nose because nowhere in Scripture does it say he had only one nose.

Faulty logic.

Jesus was born a man.
Jesus is also God.
God is perfection.
No perfect man would have two noses, since one is the norm.
Therefore, Jesus had one nose.

To think He had two or more would be as big a mistake as believing in a post-trib rapture.

 

[popeye]

I claim Jesus did not have only one nose because nowhere in Scripture does it say he had only one nose.

MMMMM ok,suit yourself
Posibly a new bible can cure you.

 

[popeye]

Please prove that statement.

WE will await another to swallow the camel

 

[Elin]

Challenge to postribs;
Please interpret the 10 virgin parable for us.
Should be easy as it is painfully simple.
I can get you started
Groom= Jesus
Virgin= Born again saints
Oil= type of the HS
Foolish=No oil reserve

Ok,with this help,what is Jesus talking about?
Now remember,
this is Jesus coming for his bride......or
"the gathering"

The parable of the ten virgins is the second in a trilogy of teachings
on professors of faith vs. possessors of faith (Lk 8:13), which is revealed at the end of time,
keeping in mind that the rapture ("gathering") is at the end of time and final judgment, as shown here.

1) Faithful, wise servant vs. hypocrite, wicked servant - no faithfulness and watchfulness (Mt 24:45-51),

2) wise vs. foolish virgins - no Holy Spirit (Mt 25:1-30; see Lk 12:35-40), and

3) the sheep vs. the goats - no obedience (Mt 25:31-46).

 

[Elin]

I claim Jesus did not have only one nose because nowhere in Scripture does it say he had only one nose.

MMMMM ok,suit yourself
Posibly a new bible can cure you.

. . . .Q.E.D.

 

[Elin]

Faulty logic.

It's no different than your logic.

Jesus was born a man.
Jesus is also God.
God is perfection.
No perfect man would have two noses, since one is the norm.
Therefore, Jesus had one nose.

Human fatherhood is also the norm.

 

[PlainWord]

Challenge to postribs;
Please interpret the 10 virgin parable for us.
Should be easy as it is painfully simple.
I can get you started
Groom= Jesus
Virgin= Born again saints
Oil= type of the HS
Foolish=No oil reserve

Ok,with this help,what is Jesus talking about?
Now remember,this is Jesus coming for his bride......or "the gathering"

And the 10 Virgins prove a Pre-Trib Rapture return how exactly? Why does it not prove a Post Trib Return? Why is it possible to be prepared only before Satan's Great Tribulation but not during or after it?

Bottom line is the pre-trib camp relies 100% on conjecture and man's logic and 0% on actual Biblical teaching. Christ Himself said He returns after the Tribulation. Paul and John agree. I think I will take them all at their word instead of your conjecture and wishful thinking. But said with utmost love....

 

[Born_Again]

Hmmm, I saw this exact thread in another forum I belong to. It didn't go so well there either. LOL

 

[BradC]

Corrrect.

And the rapture cannot happen at any time, if that means now,

because the apostasy (rebellion, falling away) and the revealing of the man of lawlessness must come first (2Th 2:1, 3).

"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him. . .that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed." (2Th 2:1, 3)

The man of lawlessness will rise out of the great rebellion (apostasy) and intensify it (vv. 9-10).

However, since the rapture cannot happen at any time, if that means now, the rapture is not imminent.

NB: That NT authoritative teaching locates the rapture at the end of time and the final judgment
is shown here.

by Thomas Ice

2 Thessalonians 2:3 'Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;'

I believe that there is a strong possibility that 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is speaking of the rapture. What do I mean? Some pretribulationists, like myself, think that the Greek noun apostasia, usually translated " apostasy," is a reference to the rapture and should be translated " departure." Thus, this passage would be saying that the day of the Lord will not come until the rapture (or a departure) comes before it. If apostasia is a reference to a physical departure, then 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is strong evidence for pretribulationism.

The Meaning of Apostasia
The Greek noun apostasia is only used twice in the New Testament. In addition to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, it occurs in Acts 21:21 where, speaking of Paul, it is said, " that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake (apostasia) Moses." The word is a Greek compound of apo " from" and istemi " stand." Thus, it has the core meaning of " away or stand from" or " departure." The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon defines apostasia first as " defection, revolt;" then secondly as " departure, disappearance." Gordon Lewis explains how the verb from which the noun apostasia is derived supports the basic meaning of departure in the following:

The verb may mean to remove spatially (from a location). There is little reason then to deny that the noun can mean such a spatial removal or departure. Since the noun is used only one other time in the New Testament of apostasy from Moses (Acts 21:21), we can hardly conclude that its Biblical meaning is necessarily determined. The verb is used fifteen times in the New Testament. Of these fifteen, only three have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8;13; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb 3:12). The word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19), from ungodly men(1 Tim. 6:5), from the temple (Luke 2:27), from the body (2 Cor. 12:8), and from persons (Acts 12:10; Luke 4:13).

" It is with full assurance of proper exegetical study and with complete confidence in the original languages," concludes Daniel Davey, " that the word meaning of apostasia is defined as departure." Paul Lee Tan adds the following: What precisely does Paul mean when he says that " the falling away" (2:3) must come before the tribulation? The definite article " the" (in front of falling away) denotes that this will be a definite event, an event distinct from the appearance of the Man of Sin. The Greek word for " falling away", taken by itself, does not mean religious apostasy or defection. Neither does the word mean " to fall," as the Greeks have another word for that. [pipto, I fall; TDI] The best translation of the word is " to depart." The apostle Paul refers here to a definite event which he calls " the departure," and which will occur just before the start of the tribulation. This is the rapture or departure of the church.So the word has the core meaning of departure and it depends upon the context to determine whether it is used to mean physical departure or an abstract departure such as departure from the faith.

The Use of the Article. It is important to note that Paul uses a definite article with the noun apostasia. What does this mean? Davey notes the following:

Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article reference is being made to something in particular. In II Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church. Dr. Lewis provides a likely answer when he notes that the definite article serves to make a word distinct and draw attention to it. In this instance he believes that its purpose is " to denote a previous reference." The departure Paul previously referred to was ' our being gathered to him' (v. 1) and our being ' caught up' with the Lord, both of the living and the dead in the clouds (1 Thess. 4:17), notes Dr. Lewis. The " departure" was something that Paul and his readers clearly had a mutual understanding about. Paul says in verse 5, " Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?"

The use of the definite article would also support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernable event. A physical departure, like the rapture would fit just such a notion. However, the New Testament teaches that apostasy had already arrived in the first century (cf. Acts 20:27- 32; 1 Tim. 4:1- 5; 2 Tim. 3:1- 9; 2 Pet. 2:1- 3; Jude 3- 4, 17- 21) and thus, such a process would not denote a clear event as demanded by the language of this passage. Understanding departure as the rapture would satisfy the nuance of this text. E. Schuyler English explains as follows:

Again, how would the Thessalonians, or Christians in any century since, be qualified to recognize the apostasy when it should come, assuming, simply for the sake of this inquiry, that the Church might be on earth when it does come? There has been apostasy from God, rebellion against Him, since time began. Whatever Paul is referring to in his reference to " the departure," was something that both the Thessalonian believers and he had discussed in-depth previously. When we examine Paul' s first letter to the Thessalonians, he never mentions the doctrine of apostasy, however, virtually every chapter in that epistle speaks of the rapture (cf. 1:9- 10; 2:19; probably 3:13; 4:13- 17; 5:1- 11). In these passages, Paul has used a variety of Greek terms to describe the rapture. It should not be surprising that he uses another term to reference the rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Dr. House tells us:

Remember, the Thessalonians had been led astray by the false teaching (2:2- 3) that the Day of the Lord had already come. This was confusing because Paul offered great hope, in the first letter, of a departure to be with Christ and a rescue from god' s wrath. Now a letter purporting to be from Paul seems to say that they would first have to go through the Day of the Lord. Paul then clarified his prior teaching by emphasizing that they had no need to worry. They could again be comforted because the departure he had discussed in his first letter, and in his teaching while with them, was still the truth. The departure of Christians to be with Christ, and the subsequent revelation of the lawless one, Paul argues, is proof that the Day of the Lord had not begun as they had thought. This understanding of apostasia makes much more sense than the view that they are to be comforted (v. 2) because a defection from the faith must precede the Day of the Lord. The entire second chapter (as well as 1 Thessalonians 4:18; 5:11) serves to comfort (see vv. 2, 3, 17), supplied by a reassurance of Christ' s coming as taught in his first letter.

Departure and The Restrainer
Since pretribulationists believe that the restrainer mentioned in verses 6 and 7 is the Holy Spirit and teaches a pre-trib rapture, then it should not be surprising to see that there is a similar progression of thought in the progression of verse 3. Allan MacRae, president of Faith Theological Seminary in a letter to Schuyler English has said the following concerning this matter:
I wonder if you have noticed the striking parallel between this verse 3 and verses 7- 8, a little further down. According to your suggestion verse 3 mentions the departure of the church as coming first, and then tells of the revealing of the man of sin. In verses 7 and 8 we find the identical sequence. Verse 7 tells of the removal of the Church (my add - the indwelling Spirit and the work of that Spirit in the body of the believer goes up); verse 8 says: " And then shall that Wicked be revealed." Thus close examination of the passage shows an inner unity and coherence, if we take the word apostasia in its general sense of " departure," while a superficial examination would easily lead to an erroneous interpretation as " falling away" because of the proximity of the mention of the man of sin.

Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar from Moody Bible Institute added the following contextual support to taking apostasia as a physical departure: But then hee apostasia of which Paul is speaking, precedes the revelation of Antichrist in his true identity, and is to katechon that which holds back his revelation (2:6). The hee apostasia, therefore, cannot be either a general apostasy in Christendom which does precede the coming of Antichrist, nor can it be the particular apostasy which is the result of his activities in making himself the alone object of worship. Furthermore, that which holds back his revelation (vs. 3) is vitally connected with hoo katechoon (vs. 7), He who holds back the same event. The latter is, in my opinion, the Holy Spirit and His activities in the Church. All of which means that I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that the hee apostasia (vs. 3) refers to the Rapture of the Church which precedes the Day of the Lord, and holds back the revelation of the Man of Sin who ushers in the world-aspect of that period.

Conclusion
The fact that apostasia most likely has the meaning of physical departure is a clear support for pretribulationism. If this is true, then it means that a clear prophetic sequence is laid out by Paul early in his Apostolic ministry. Paul teaches in 2 Thessalonians 2 that the rapture will occur first, before the Day of the Lord commences. It is not until after the beginning of the Day of the Lord that the Antichrist (man of sin and son of perdition) is released, resulting in the events described by him in chapter 2 of 2 Thessalonians. This is the only interpretation that provides hope for a discomforted people. Maranatha!

 

[Elin]

by Thomas Ice

2 Thessalonians 2:3 'Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;'

I believe that there is a strong possibility that 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is speaking of the rapture. What do I mean? Some pretribulationists, like myself, think that the Greek noun apostasia, usually translated " apostasy," is a reference to the rapture and should be translated " departure." Thus, this passage would be saying that the day of the Lord will not come until the rapture (or a departure) comes before it. If apostasia is a reference to a physical departure, then 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is strong evidence for pretribulationism.

The Meaning of Apostasia
The Greek noun apostasia is only used twice in the New Testament.

Actually, the verb form is used in Lk 14:33, where it means "to renounce, forsake, abandon" what was formerly claimed as one's own (possessions; faith).

In addition to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, it occurs in Acts 21:21 where, speaking of Paul, it is said, " that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake (apostasia) Moses."

Which is not a physical departure, for Moses had been dead for centuries, but a forsaking of their faith in Moses' words.

So there are two clear uses of apostasia/apotasso to mean forsake what one formerly claimed as one's own.
And which is precisely what Jesus prophesied in Mt 24:10 regarding the end of time, which is when the rapture occurs, as shown in my post found here.

The word is a Greek compound of apo " from" and istemi " stand." Thus,
it has the core meaning of " away or stand from" or " departure."

"To stand away from" means "not to take part in," " to withhold oneself from,"
which is not about removal by physical distance, but removal of the claim to what was one's own.

The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon defines apostasia first as " defection, revolt;"

Which is its meaning in Lk 14:33; Ac 21:21, and what Jesus prophesied in Mt 24:10,
thereby showing its meaning in 2Th 2:3.

The verb may mean to remove spatially (from a location). There is little reason then to deny that the noun can mean such a spatial removal or departure.

That it can/may does not mean that it does.

Since the noun is used only one other time in the New Testament of apostasy from Moses (Acts 21:21),

Verbs (Lk 14:33) and Jesus' prophesy (Mt 24:10) also count.

we can hardly conclude that its Biblical meaning is necessarily determined.

It is necessarily determined by Jesus' prophesy in Mt 24:10 regarding what occurs at the end of time, which is the time frame in which authoritative NT teaching locates the rapture, as shown in the link above.

 

[DiscipleDave]

Challenge to postribs;
Please interpret the 10 virgin parable for us.
Should be easy as it is painfully simple.
I can get you started
Groom= Jesus
Virgin= Born again saints
Oil= type of the HS
Foolish=No oil reserve

Ok,with this help,what is Jesus talking about?
Now remember,this is Jesus coming for his bride......or "the gathering".

What has this parable to do with the timing of His actual return. The entire purpose Jesus told this parable it to teach us to be prepared because we do not KNOW when He will return. Hello!
If anything the parable teaches the Truth, the Gathering is midtribulation.
Consider the virgins who upon hearing He is coming, immediately go get ready and buys the oil. (pretrib) Those virgins which thought He would not come in the night, did not feel they needed to prepare (posttrib). Now think about it. The virgins who went and got oil, though He would come Early, But when He did not come early as they expected, they went on to bed, thinking maybe He will come tomorrow and went to sleep and not stay up waiting for Him to come. When did He actually come. in the middle of the night. AFTER the virgins with oil gave up and went to bed, and before the virgins thought He would come, they thought they had time to prepare. The other virgin who thought He may come at any time, was immediately ready, and also prepared just in case HE came in the middle of the night.
There are verses which contradict pretrib belief
There are verses which contradict posttrib belief.
There are NO verses which contradict a midtrib belief. Scriptures teach we will go through some of the Tribulations but not all of it. That is the Truth. those who believe otherwise do not know the Truth at all concerning that topic.

^i^

 

[ChristIsGod]

Well, the foolish virgins didn't gather enough oil because they didn't know the darkness would last THAT long - as they certainly wouldn't need lamps and extra oil if the Bridegroom was very near - because of the "brightness of His appearing" but they were given a heads-up to start getting toward the direction of the call and while still heading out -- the 5 foolish that thought they had enough ran out, as they hadn't thought they'd need THAT much of walking in His Spirit [oil] = being led/guidance.

Good post-trib Scripture reference.

"Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path and Thy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth that guides us into all truth and even shows us things to come."

The Word [the lamp] and The Spirit [oil].

 

[notuptome]

Well this is doctrine that you can be wrong about and still be saved. I expect you will miss out on a lot of blessings but you can still be saved and not know that the church of whom you is will never be subjected to the wrath of God. Israel is going through the tribulation but not the church. The church is troubled by the world but finds solace and comfort in her heavenly Father. Christ cares for the church.

Israel will one day repent and receive Christ but only after they have been through literally what will seem like hell.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[ChristIsGod]

It may not be a salvation issue 'yet' but if the pre-trib theory is wrong - it certainly could become so.

I believed pre-trib for my first years of salvation but kept running across verses that seemed to contradict it and then heard Tim LaHaye say that they can't prove pre-trib with just the Scriptures and heard Keith Green say, be ready for either because he couldn't say just yet or boldly what he believed - so that's what led me to go to just the Bible and a Strong's and find every verse from the O.T. to the New that had anything to do with His 2nd Coming and write all that Scripture down in a notebook and surprise-surprise to me in 1985 when I did that and kept adding more & more from the O.T. as I'd find more each time I'd read through it. Just Scripture alone can be trusted whole-heartedly.