The seals are God's wrath, as well as the trumpets and the bowl judgments.
Well, no....the seals come before God's wrath...because both Joel 2:31 and Rev. 6 echo each other in specifying that the cosmic signs come before God's wrath. All you're doing here is making a bare assertion. Bare assertions don't cut it in the world of discussion/debate. You ought to learn some of the
principles of debate before you
attempt "debate" - my two cents.
The words "has come" is in the Arorist tense and that announcement includes what will have previously taken place
Your dishonesty is quite amazing...in that you have previously made this claim...a rebuttal has then been offered...and now you dishonestly re-introduce the same claim without acknowledging the previous rebuttal...as though there
has been no previous rebuttal.
One wonders about your need to proceed
continuously and repeatedly in this dishonest manner.
Nevertheless, let us go over this again --
1) There is the abundantly obvious fact that God has gone to the trouble of actually and literally numbering the sequence of events...completely and utterly underscoring and emphasizing the plain and simple fact that the numbered events need to be understood as HAPPENING IN THE SEQUENCE IN WHICH THEY ARE PRESENTED BY NUMBER.
2) There is the abundantly obvious fact that the wicked do NOT begin crying out in alarm until the breaking of the 6th seal. This means, of course, that no "wrath" was present or observable until that time. The wicked were NOT scrambling for the rocks and caves until they saw God's wrath.
3) Thirdly, there is the aforementioned Joel 2:31 which resoundingly echoes and confirms the simple fact that God's wrath does not occur until the appearance of the cosmic signs...a rebuttal which has been presented to you previously innumerable times and which you once again dishonestly sidestep.
4) This "aorist" argument is a concocted argument on the part of unscrupulous PreTrib innovators (C.I. Scofield et al) which you have copycatted. Ironically (for you) the "aorist" tense is so named because it is a tense "without specification" -- "
a-orist" ("without place"). It specifically does NOT demand a specific tense - past, present or future. And I previously supplied to you (which you dishonestly brush past and ignore) specific examples in the Bible where this is proven:
Mark 14:41 - "the hour is come [aorist tense]
" which was Jesus' reference in the Garden of Gethsemane to His crucifixion. It had NOT happened but was about to. The same thing with
Rev.19:7 - "the marriage of the Lamb is come [aorist]
". In that passage, the marriage is about to happen
but hasn't yet.
I have previously provided
both of these scriptures and you dishonestly behave as though this has never been presented to you.
So now you are going to, for the dozenth time, disappear into the mists without response...and then circle back around somewhere down the line and once again dishonestly re-introduce the same pseudo-arguments as though they have never been addressed. A day in the life of a PreTribber, I suppose.
Using your same reasoning, Jesus was speaking to Peter, James and John, yet, they have long since died and so the information could not have possibly been directed at them.
Using "my" reasoning?? No, that would be YOUR "reasoning". Or more accurately, your anti-logic.
And once again, the dishonesty -- I have now twice or three times explained to you how your "reasoning" about Peter, James and John eventually passing from this world...is a failed pseudo-argument. So you dishonestly re-introduce this stuff as though it has never been addressed
:
If we are to apply your anti-logical interpretation method...this would mean Jesus' words did NOT apply to Peter, James and John...
and therefore Jesus was being untruthful to them...an utter absurdity on your part. Jesus isn't untruthful.
As I have repeatedly explained to you...Jesus completely and totally covered the possibility that Peter, James and John
might not survive to see these events...when He clearly stated that He...did...not...know
"the day or the hour". The events might very well happen 2000 years from then, for all He knew. Obviously then, it would mean these events would happen to WHOMEVER among Jesus' followers might be on the scene at that time.
But...IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED...in Peter's time. So said Jesus. Therefore, according to PreTrib, Jesus was teaching false doctrine. An obvious absurdity that instantly renders PreTrib invalid.
And as I have asked you and any other PreTribbers...a question every one of you have run away from: If Jesus HAD returned within the lifetimes of Peter, James and John...would they have been raptured in this alleged pre-70th Week "rapture" event...OR...would Jesus have been correct and they would have gone through the Great Tribulation?