50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

[OldSage]

That's not what He said. In v.18 He was referring to His Second Advent. In v.19 He was affirming the disciples that they had eternal life and would see Him again. This doesn't refer to the Second Advent, but the fact that they will be in heaven when they die, because He will already be there.

If you take v.18 to be a reference to the Holy Spirit, then there is no difference between Jesus and the Spirit. But there is. They are two separate but equal Personalities.

John 16: 16 “A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me.” 17 Then some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying to us, ‘A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’; and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?” 18 They said, “What does he mean by this ‘a little while’? We do not know what he is talking about.” 19 Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, “Are you discussing among yourselves what I meant when I said, ‘A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’? 20 Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will have pain, but your pain will turn into joy. 21 When a woman is in labor, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world. 22 So you have pain now; but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. 23 On that day you will ask nothing of me.[c] Very truly, I tell you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.[d] 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete.


if you read through John 14-17 it is obvious that Jesus is talking about Pentecostal coming of the Holy Spirit.

But if you prefer, look at 'a little while'.

Somewhere in the forty days after Jesus was resurrected he says, 'in a little while you won't see me'.
So 'a little while' here is a matter of a few days. e.g. 10 , 20 whatever.
Then he tells the disciples that they will see him 'a little while' later after he's gone.
So it is crystal clear that 'a little while' is a matter of a few days, (10 days in fact),
and not thousands of years.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
That's not what He said. In v.18 He was referring to His Second Advent. In v.19 He was affirming the disciples that they had eternal life and would see Him again. This doesn't refer to the Second Advent, but the fact that they will be in heaven when they die, because He will already be there.

If you take v.18 to be a reference to the Holy Spirit, then there is no difference between Jesus and the Spirit. But there is. They are two separate but equal Personalities.

It is what he said - or do you not believe Scripture?

I just explained what He said, and yes, I do believe Scripture. Obviously we don't have the same meaning of the same words.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
The word "if" is the key. Jesus was giving Peter a hypothetical. Not a statement of fact. Then Jesus asks Peter, "what is that to you".

The condition is not regarding whether Jesus comes or not - that is a given.
Read the words, they are not abstruse.

Do you understand what the word "if" means? And, I agree the condition wasn't regarding whether Jesus comes or not. It was regarding whether John would still be alive.

 

[FreeGrace2]

John 16: 16 “A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me.” 17 Then some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying to us, ‘A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’; and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?” 18 They said, “What does he mean by this ‘a little while’? We do not know what he is talking about.” 19 Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, “Are you discussing among yourselves what I meant when I said, ‘A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’? 20 Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will have pain, but your pain will turn into joy. 21 When a woman is in labor, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world. 22 So you have pain now; but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. 23 On that day you will ask nothing of me.[c] Very truly, I tell you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.[d] 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete.


if you read through John 14-17 it is obvious that Jesus is talking about Pentecostal coming of the Holy Spirit.

But if you prefer, look at 'a little while'.

Somewhere in the forty days after Jesus was resurrected he says, 'in a little while you won't see me'.
So 'a little while' here is a matter of a few days. e.g. 10 , 20 whatever.
Then he tells the disciples that they will see him 'a little while' later after he's gone.
So it is crystal clear that 'a little while' is a matter of a few days, (10 days in fact),
and not thousands of years.

OK. Where does the Bible record this visit? Or history itself?

If neither the Bible nor history recorded another visit, it was a secret one. So let's not count it. Since we have no idea at all about where He visited or why or with whom.

 

[OldSage]

FreeGrace2 said:
The word "if" is the key. Jesus was giving Peter a hypothetical. Not a statement of fact. Then Jesus asks Peter, "what is that to you".

Do you understand what the word "if" means? And, I agree the condition wasn't regarding whether Jesus comes or not. It was regarding whether John would still be alive.

What sort of stupid thing is this?
You lack all credibility writing in this stupid way

 

[OldSage]

OK. Where does the Bible record this visit? Or history itself?

If neither the Bible nor history recorded another visit, it was a secret one. So let's not count it. Since we have no idea at all about where He visited or why or with whom.

You aren't saying anything. And you are rude and disrespectful. Why?
Are you so hung up on being right, that you fear losing face, so you shift away
from the argument and deliberately provoke a silly fracas?
This is very poor. Stick to what is presented. It's simple.
This boring detour degrades the forum.
it degrades Christians.

I answered your questions and then you start insulting me.
Why are you on the forum?
What is your animus?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
The word "if" is the key. Jesus was giving Peter a hypothetical. Not a statement of fact. Then Jesus asks Peter, "what is that to you".

Do you understand what the word "if" means? And, I agree the condition wasn't regarding whether Jesus comes or not. It was regarding whether John would still be alive.

What sort of stupid thing is this?
You lack all credibility writing in this stupid way

Wow. What set you off?

I pointed out the "if" and you seemed not to understand what that meant. So I was asking.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You aren't saying anything. And you are rude and disrespectful. Why?

Show me where I've been rude. You last response to me used "stupid" twice. How's that NOT disrespectful?

Are you so hung up on being right, that you fear losing face, so you shift away
from the argument and deliberately provoke a silly fracas?

What? I said "OK". Do I have to explain every word to you? C'mon, man. Lighten up. As to your charge of "silly fracas", I would say tht is a stupid claim.

Now, since you showed Jesus saying He was coming back soon, and you claim that would be a "third visit", all I am asking for is whether either the Bible or history records it. And instead of just admitting whether either does or not, you go off the rails with all your railing and false claims. What's gotten into you?

This is very poor.

Yeah, I'll say it is. Get a grip.

Stick to what is presented. It's simple.

I AM sticking to what is presented. Since i am totally unaware of any so-called "third trip" by Jesus, I was asking if either the Bible or history recorded such a visit. And you go off half cocked.

I answered your questions and then you start insulting me.

Show me any insult towards you.

Why are you on the forum?
What is your animus?

This post of yours is kinda like going from Jeckle to Hyde or something.

You started this whole thing by your claim of at a 3rd coming of Jesus, so quit complaining about getting questions about it.

If you don't want questions, then don't make claims that create questions that you don't want to answer.

 

[OldSage]

I'll give it one more try...

Jesus says to Peter that he will die in such and such a way.
Understandably Peter did not take well to the news. (e.g. John 16:6)
Jesus doesn't tell John of a gruesome fate.
Peter gets upset and asks Jesus words to the effect of: "What is his (grim) death?'

Jesus replies to the effect:
"If I want him to stay alive (endure) until I come, what's it to you/what business is it of yours?"
It is a rhetorical question, and Peter obviously does not reply.
Jesus has just told him to mind his own business, and Peter doesn't argue with God here.

Then the disciples interpret Jesus's words to mean that John will not see death -
meaning that they now believe he will live until the regeneration at Jesus's Final Coming.

John then sets the record straight by explaining that Jesus never said that he would live until the regeneration.
23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die.
But Jesus did not say that he would not die;
he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

So really Jesus is making one of two statements here.
Either, as you think, he is saying :

A) "if I want to, I can ensure John never dies at all, and that's not your business"

or he is saying :

B) "If I want him to live until I come to see him, then that's not your business"

In both cases he is saying:
"if I want to do something, it's not your business"

The question is not about God's sovereignty, introduced with the conditional clause,
the question is about what God's plans are for John.

John says that Plan A was not what Jesus meant - But Jesus did not say that he would not die.

So now the question is:

A1) Was Jesus simply asserting his sovereign power to Peter, (and used a random example - John living for thousands of years - to make his point)
or
B) Was he specifically saying that John would live long enough to see Jesus again as a living man

Well clearly B came to pass as John encountered Jesus in the cave at Patmos.
I suppose A1 is also possible, although it doesn't resonate with me

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'll give it one more try...

Jesus says to Peter that he will die in such and such a way.
Understandably Peter did not take well to the news. (e.g. John 16:6)
Jesus doesn't tell John of a gruesome fate.
Peter gets upset and asks Jesus words to the effect of: "What is his (grim) death?'

Jesus replies to the effect:
"If I want him to stay alive (endure) until I come, what's it to you/what business is it of yours?"
It is a rhetorical question, and Peter obviously does not reply.
Jesus has just told him to mind his own business, and Peter doesn't argue with God here.

Then the disciples interpret Jesus's words to mean that John will not see death -
meaning that they now believe he will live until the regeneration at Jesus's Final Coming.

John then sets the record straight by explaining that Jesus never said that he would live until the regeneration.
23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die.
But Jesus did not say that he would not die;
he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

So really Jesus is making one of two statements here.

So far, so good.

Either, as you think, he is saying :

A) "if I want to, I can ensure John never dies at all, and that's not your business"

or he is saying :

B) "If I want him to live until I come to see him, then that's not your business"

In both cases he is saying:
"if I want to do something, it's not your business"

My view has always been "B". Never "A" as you erroneously think.

The question is not about God's sovereignty, introduced with the conditional clause,
the question is about what God's plans are for John.

Agreed.

John says that Plan A was not what Jesus meant - But Jesus did not say that he would not die.

So now the question is:

A1) Was Jesus simply asserting his sovereign power to Peter, (and used a random example - John living for thousands of years - to make his point)
or
B) Was he specifically saying that John would live long enough to see Jesus again as a living man

Well clearly B came to pass as John encountered Jesus in the cave at Patmos.
I suppose A1 is also possible, although it doesn't resonate with me

Well, geez. That's all I was asking for. What the Bible said about visits to earth. And don't forget the road to Damascus with Paul.

However, I don't consider these as "comings" and I wouldn't count them as such. But you are free to count whatever you want.

The important theological idea is that Jesus came to earth the FIRST time as the "suffering servant". He will come again (SECOND time) as the "conquering King".

 

[GaryA]

You've got an entire Bible that says: nope!

My King James Bible says 'Yep!'.

You've got that all wrong.

Nope!

That brand of eschatology is amateur hour my friend. Nobody who actually knows what they're talking about believes anything like that for one single solitary second.

The default common-sense view and understanding is 'no gap'.

And, there is no biblical reason for us to even imagine that there should be any gap(s) in Daniel's 70 Weeks.

The idea that there is a gap in Daniel's 70 Weeks is extraneous and "conjured up" out of the severe misinterpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.

When God shows you the truth, all of that pride you have will disappear in an instant and you will feel about as tall as the electron in a hydrogen atom.

Maybe it's time you sat at the feet of someone who actually knows what they're talking about such as Walvoord or TDW......

The only feet I will sit at belong to Jesus.

And, He always knows what He is talking about.

I will sit at the same table with anyone else - if you "get my meaning"...

So let me ask you what is to become of the covenant to Abraham and the Israelites?

For now - any questions you have for me will be answered with this:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html

 

[OldSage]

So far, so good.


My view has always been "B". Never "A" as you erroneously think.


Agreed.




Well, geez. That's all I was asking for. What the Bible said about visits to earth. And don't forget the road to Damascus with Paul.

However, I don't consider these as "comings" and I wouldn't count them as such. But you are free to count whatever you want.

The important theological idea is that Jesus came to earth the FIRST time as the "suffering servant". He will come again (SECOND time) as the "conquering King".

Obviously Google is not Matthew Henry, but when I search for 'scriptures about the second coming' it gives me Catholic doctrine.

There is no scripture that specifically cites a "second coming".


I just find it mildly comical that the two central pillars of much theological discourse,
the Second Coming and the Great Tribulation, are neither wholly correct, the first being a
simplification and the latter a monumental error.

I think the first time Jesus came to earth it was as cleansing fire and liberating judge.
How do you see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?.

 

[VCO]

My King James Bible says 'Yep!'.


Nope!


The default common-sense view and understanding is 'no gap'.

And, there is no biblical reason for us to even imagine that there should be any gap(s) in Daniel's 70 Weeks.

The idea that there is a gap in Daniel's 70 Weeks is extraneous and "conjured up" out of the severe misinterpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.

When God shows you the truth, all of that pride you have will disappear in an instant and you will feel about as tall as the electron in a hydrogen atom.


The only feet I will sit at belong to Jesus.

And, He always knows what He is talking about.

I will sit at the same table with anyone else - if you "get my meaning"...


For now - any questions you have for me will be answered with this:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html

Did God want to reveal the Church in the OLD TESTAMENT ? ? ? NO!

He even said, "Other Sheep that are not of this fold?" Without giving them them a HINT who they could be.

The people WHO he said that to, thought our GENTILES had to be Defiling, and the could not even enter a house of a gentile.

Look at the wording of the 70 weeks in Daniel.

Daniel 9:24-27 (NIV)
24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him".


Now HE IS ONLY TALKING ABOUT ISRAEL, the Black type is History up till Christ is KILLED on the Cross.
The Red Type is FUTURE ISRAEL, know as JACOB's TROUBLE. The future it is the Leader of the REVIVED ROMAN EMPIRE.
HOW DO I KNOW? LOOK AT THE PINK FONTS, AS IT TELLS ALL OF US THE TIME PERIOD HE IS TALKING ABOUT. The 70th week, known as JACOB's Trouble and future ISRAEL will make a Strong Covenant (a peace Treaty with Satan's Antichrist), and HE BREAKS THE PEACE TREATY half ways through that final week of years of man's rule on this Earth.

I do not know how you can misunderstand that, HE did not want Israel to know about the CHURCH-age. It is all about ISRAEL, and part of it is Jewish History, and part of is the END TIMES. It is as plain as the nose on your FACE, so HOW COME YOU MISSED IT.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-11 (HCSB)
6 And you know what currently restrains ⌊him⌋, so that he will be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one now restraining will do so until he is out of the way,
8 and then the lawless one will be revealed. The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of His mouth and will bring him to nothing with the brightness of His coming.
9 The coming ⌊of the lawless one⌋ is based on Satan’s working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders,
10 and with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. ⌊They perish⌋ because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved.
11 For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false,

 

[ewq1938]

Obviously Google is not Matthew Henry, but when I search for 'scriptures about the second coming' it gives me Catholic doctrine.

There is no scripture that specifically cites a "second coming".


I just find it mildly comical that the two central pillars of much theological discourse,
the Second Coming and the Great Tribulation, are neither wholly correct, the first being a
simplification and the latter a monumental error.

You are wrong on both of those.

The second coming comes from these:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

The second coming means a second physical arrival of Jesus Christ. Appearing a "second time" and "coming again" both support this second physical arrival of Jesus Christ.


The Great Tribulation comes from here:

Mat_24:21 For then shall be great tribulation , such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

 

[OldSage]

You are wrong on both of those.

The second coming comes from these:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

The second coming means a second physical arrival of Jesus Christ. Appearing a "second time" and "coming again" both support this second physical arrival of Jesus Christ.


The Great Tribulation comes from here:

Mat_24:21 For then shall be great tribulation , such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Ah, thank you - a direct reply.

You're probably not very familiar with Daniel, so we will pass on that.

Regarding the Second Coming and Hebrews.

Hebrews 9
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


Firstly Paul is talking about the end of the world. So Christ's previous comings, before the end of the world, need to be factored in. So your point is lazy, well incorrect really.

But the more important point is whether Jesus only comes once or not, after his ascension.
We can look at that separately

 

[OldSage]

You are wrong on both of those.

The second coming comes from these:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

The second coming means a second physical arrival of Jesus Christ. Appearing a "second time" and "coming again" both support this second physical arrival of Jesus Christ.


The Great Tribulation comes from here:

Mat_24:21 For then shall be great tribulation , such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

The Hebrews verse is a great pick EWQ. It really solves the Preterist conundrum very nicely.
in effect Jesus appears - optanomai - twice.

Once to those who are looking for him (his final coming) and once to those who are not looking for him -
the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew 26 : 62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see (optanomai) the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

I really appreciate this conversation EWQ, you have really helped me this morning to understand something.

 

[GaryA]

The 70th week, known as JACOB's Trouble and future ISRAEL will make a Strong Covenant (a peace Treaty with Satan's Antichrist), and HE BREAKS THE PEACE TREATY half ways through that final week of years of man's rule on this Earth.

Daniel 9:24-27 says absolutely none of this.

Not even close.

Completely different.

No commonality whatsoever.

Jacob's Trouble is Armageddon.

My answer to the whole issue:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Seventy_Weeks.html

 

[ewq1938]

I really appreciate this conversation EWQ, you have really helped me this morning to understand something.

I'm glad to be helpful.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Obviously Google is not Matthew Henry, but when I search for 'scriptures about the second coming' it gives me Catholic doctrine.

There is no scripture that specifically cites a "second coming".

Apparently you are just not aware of where the phrases "First Advent" and "Second Advent" came from.

The Bible prophesied about Jesus' first coming or advent and His second coming or advent. Why do you think the Bible MUST use those exact words to make a point? Just like the "Trinity", the word doesn't occur in the Bible, but the Bible teaches it clearly.

So, because of the Bible's TWO prophecies concerning Jesus' coming to earth, that's what I count. The Bible didn't prophesy about either Jesus' appearance to Paul or John. So I don't count them as "comings".

You are free to count whatever you want.


I just find it mildly comical that the two central pillars of much theological discourse,
the Second Coming and the Great Tribulation, are neither wholly correct, the first being a
simplification and the latter a monumental error.[/QUOTE]
Please explain each of these so-called errors (incorrections).

btw, the Bible specifically mentions "great tribulation" twice, both in the context of end times. Matt 24:21 and Rev 7:14. So where's the "monumental error" there?

I think the first time Jesus came to earth it was as cleansing fire and liberating judge.

How do you figure that? Jesus came the first time (First coming, First Advent) as a baby, grew up and had a gospel ministry for 3.5 years and then died for the sins of the world. He will return a second time (Second Coming, Second Advent) as King and Judge.

Where is this "cleansing fire" stuff or "liberating judge" stuff?

How do you see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?.

Is THIS your "cleansing fire" stuff? Jesus wasn't there. It was angels who escorted Lot and family out of there.

I see S & G as a judgment of wanton immorality.

 

[FreeGrace2]

ewq1938 said:
You are wrong on both of those.

The second coming comes from these:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

The second coming means a second physical arrival of Jesus Christ. Appearing a "second time" and "coming again" both support this second physical arrival of Jesus Christ.


The Great Tribulation comes from here:

Mat_24:21 For then shall be great tribulation , such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Ah, thank you - a direct reply.

You're probably not very familiar with Daniel, so we will pass on that.

Ah, the old "pitting Scripture against Scripture" routine, I see. Doesn't work. Total harmony in all of Scripture.

But the more important point is whether Jesus only comes once or not, after his ascension.
We can look at that separately

Just look at prophesy. Only 2. Not 3, not 4. Or more.