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

[FreeGrace2]

post-trib
pre-wrath
pre-millennial
2nd coming; no 3rd coming
mid-trib was ~1000 years ago

The Great Tribulation started circa 70 A.D. and will end at some point in the future. The worst is yet to come.

There is no 7-year 'prophetic' End Times period.

There will be no 7-year treaty between any antichrist and Israel (as being in accordance with bible prophecy).

There is a 3.5-year 'prophetic' End Times period - we call it the Two Witnesses. And, it is post-trib.

If you pay attention (reading my posts), it will not take you long to know what I believe. And, it should be pretty clear on the 'Study' pages of my web site.

Here is the answer to your request - "and then some"... :

2 Thessalonians 2:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (Second Coming of Christ), and by our gathering together unto him (Rapture), 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ (Second Coming of Christ) is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (Second Coming of Christ) shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming (Second Coming of Christ):

two 'comings':

You didn't define "gathering" in v.1. I take it to mean a rapture.

Does your view have a specific word or title for it? Whether or not, the natural reading of Revelation doesn't come to such a conclusion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The 'trumpets' and 'vials' are both/all post-trib. The 'seals' are part 'during-trib' and part 'post-trib'.

No Gary. What follows the Tribulation is Christ's Millennial reign on this earth. Rev 20 is quite clear about that.

 

[VCO]

Ok
Does the word of God, the bible, harmonize with what you say you heard?

That is the main focus of a forum because nobody can verify if a person heard God outside of the bible confirming it.

OR, like MORMON's, who actually think the BIBLE is full of contradictions. This is what they think, instead of the obvious, it is their theology that is Wrong.

 

[randyk]

cv5 said:
The truth is that the Church is found nowhere in the book of revelation after chapter 5. You will not find the term Church anywhere in chapter 6 and beyond.

I showed the other poster that the book of Revelation is actually bookended by the church. ch 1-3 are directly for the church and in the last chapter, 22:16 mentions "the churches". So the poster is completely off base with his remarks.

Yes, that is another argument I always use. The book is entirely *for the Church,* from beginning to end. To say the Church is absent for most of what the book talks about is ludicrous. And knowing that this kind of thing would happen, Jesus warned readers *not* to add nor to subtract from the contents of the book. That means they shouldn't remove the Church from the book either! You think?

 

[randyk]

I think earlier you said "why would you want to read it like that?"
I suppose it begs the question of how Paul's words to the Thessalonikans should be construed,
as the advice of an overseer, or as prophecy. They are both really aren't they?
But even as prophecy why wouldn't one simply look for a fulfillment?
Hence first century AD.

OldSage, I find you very smart and insightful. I want you to know I have zero issues with your character presently. On the contrary, I've found your posts to be honest and interesting, whether I agree with you or not.

I don't think the Thessalonian letters were prophecies. I think they were teaching. In 2 Thes Paul drew upon Dan 7, where the Man of Sin is presented in the Bible. I don't know of any other place, in OT Scriptures, where the Man of Sin is talked about. I don't think Antiochus 4 is the "Man of Sin," who is referred to in Dan 8 and Dan 11. So Paul is drawing exclusively from Dan 7 when speaking of the Man of Sin, in my opinion.

Clearly, Paul was speaking to his own generation. But in doing so, he is focusing on the future goal of Christ's return. In the meantime we have all of these problems, tribulations, antichrists, false prophets, etc. Until Christ comes back, and the final Antichrist is defeated, we have to be encouraged to "hold the fort." Paul calls it "standing." We have to learn to "stand."

I'm sure the predicted fall of Jerusalem was certainly in Paul's thinking as well. I just think he's more focused on persecutions by the Jews and by pagans. He wanted Christians to be aware of deceptions, and about the tendency to give up. This letter was not a prediction but an encouragement, in my view. It isn't a prophecy, but a warning to remain alert until the last Antichrist was done.

But I think your question refers to something else.
The idea of the Coming of The Lord at this time
doesn't fit with what we've been taught. But as I said earlier,
you have to differentiate the appearing of the Lord to the Church, which
only happens twice, from the comings of the Lord in judgment, which
are not numerically qualified. Certain ideas are so ingrained we
probably have never even evaluated them. 2 Thess 1 actually refers to the
revelation (apokalyptica) and the face (prosopon) of the Lord incidentally.

I am not all in on these ideas by the way, they just seem at this point the most
reasonable interpretation to me.

Yea, I don't know your positions, and I have no sense of superiority on them either. I do have boatloads of experience though, and am here to give my two cents. I've come to believe that the idea of God's "coming" or Christ's "coming" is described in the OT as any act of judgment or salvation on a grand scale. This would apply to the Assyrian judgment as it would to the Roman judgment. It would apply to the restoration of Israel in the time of Zerubbabel as it would to the Millennial Age.

I get this from having read George E. Ladd's books--I find Ladd fascinating. I'm not Preterist, but this view of "God's coming" helps me to see how Jesus compared His coming in 70 AD with His coming at the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse of Jesus. Makes so much more sense that way. I'm not at all a Preterist or Partial Preterist, but I do agree with the Church Fathers that the OD is to be interpreted in an historicist way, focusing largely on 70 AD.

But the Olivet Discourse is also Futurist, and I believe the Church Fathers were also futurists--they saw a future Antichrist. I don't believe the OD spoke of Antichrist--I think the Abomination of Desolation was the Roman Army. But the "great distress" that followed, according to Jesus, was a continuing tribulation of the Jewish People.

Jesus was still addressing mainly Israel at that time, because they were still under the Law at that time. And thus, only Israel was at that time in focus.

But we know that now, in the NT, what Jesus said to Israel can now apply to all. Even though 70 AD is over with, and a new covenant begun, there have come to be many Christian nations with their own "Jerusalem" and their own "temple." Christian nations have crashed and burned like Israel did in 70 AD. The Catholic Church and Mainline Churches have fallen on hard times, because they've seen compromise, and new generations of "professional" Christians. And the result has been at times a disaster.

The main thing, I think, is to encourage each other to continue to stand in the face of this occasional very negative experience. We have to expect that until the end there will be false hopes delivered to discourage us, false claims of the Kingdom of God, false prophecies--arrogant people who want to be our gurus, guiding us to the Promised Land. We need to follow Christ alone.

Thanks for the conversation!

 

[randyk]

Is anyone on this thread agreeing;
1) that the gt is worldwide

2) that ...as is written...it means the ac massacres all christians

Statements like "all who dwell on the earth" must be understood to be colloquial to the time in which it is spoken. Since Copernicus and Galileo weren't yet around, we aren't talking astronomy and planet earth. We're talking about "all the earth" in an experiential sense, with respect to the 1st century and thereabouts.

"All the earth" may refer to the many kinds of men that existed within an empire. It is not a "global statement" such as we think of planets today. It is a statement meant to be comprehensive, and yet not in the geographical sense. "The earth" is the land as far as one can see, and not "planet earth."

I believe Antichrist will have worshipers everywhere, because there are rebels against God in every nation. This doesn't mean his empire will include more than 200 nations. It just means that his 10 nation confederation will be global in effect, and a superpower that is beyond challenge by the rest of the world.

Speaking in universal terms needs to be understood in the context of the time in which the statements were made. Clearly, Antichrist's Kingdom is a limited Empire. That's why I believe Armageddon will consist of the collapse of this Empire, with other nations, perhaps from Asia, coming against his realm in Europe.

And clearly, if the battle is at Armageddon, he will have stationed his armies in Israel, to govern the entire Middle East.

I've defined the "Great Tribulation" before, and Jesus defined it as the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. So you are referring, technically, to the Reign of Antichrist for 3.5 years at the end of the age. So I'm answering that above.

Though the language is universal in scope, I think it is talking about a policy universal only to the Antichristian Empire in Europe. It is a policy, and policies are never 100% successful. The effort to stamp out the Jews in Europe by Hitler was effective, but certainly not successful in 100% eradication of the Jewish People!

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I showed the other poster that the book of Revelation is actually bookended by the church. ch 1-3 are directly for the church and in the last chapter, 22:16 mentions "the churches". So the poster is completely off base with his remarks.

I've mentioned in past posts, how that saying "churchES" is not exactly the same thing as saying "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY":

--"the churchES" are made up of both those who are saved, AND those who come in His name but who are not actually saved/connected with Christ/believers (ex: I believe the term "lukewarm" is speaking not of milquetoast "Christians"/ believers / saints, but of the unsaved);

--"the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" is made up of ONLY believers / saints / the saved



[Rev1:4,11,20... and Rev2-3 (like 7x, I think)... and chpt 22 use the term "churchES"]

 

[OldSage]

OldSage, I find you very smart and insightful. I want you to know I have zero issues with your character presently. On the contrary, I've found your posts to be honest and interesting, whether I agree with you or not.

I don't think the Thessalonian letters were prophecies. I think they were teaching. In 2 Thes Paul drew upon Dan 7, where the Man of Sin is presented in the Bible. I don't know of any other place, in OT Scriptures, where the Man of Sin is talked about. I don't think Antiochus 4 is the "Man of Sin," who is referred to in Dan 8 and Dan 11. So Paul is drawing exclusively from Dan 7 when speaking of the Man of Sin, in my opinion.

Clearly, Paul was speaking to his own generation. But in doing so, he is focusing on the future goal of Christ's return. In the meantime we have all of these problems, tribulations, antichrists, false prophets, etc. Until Christ comes back, and the final Antichrist is defeated, we have to be encouraged to "hold the fort." Paul calls it "standing." We have to learn to "stand."

I'm sure the predicted fall of Jerusalem was certainly in Paul's thinking as well. I just think he's more focused on persecutions by the Jews and by pagans. He wanted Christians to be aware of deceptions, and about the tendency to give up. This letter was not a prediction but an encouragement, in my view. It isn't a prophecy, but a warning to remain alert until the last Antichrist was done.



Yea, I don't know your positions, and I have no sense of superiority on them either. I do have boatloads of experience though, and am here to give my two cents. I've come to believe that the idea of God's "coming" or Christ's "coming" is described in the OT as any act of judgment or salvation on a grand scale. This would apply to the Assyrian judgment as it would to the Roman judgment. It would apply to the restoration of Israel in the time of Zerubbabel as it would to the Millennial Age.

I get this from having read George E. Ladd's books--I find Ladd fascinating. I'm not Preterist, but this view of "God's coming" helps me to see how Jesus compared His coming in 70 AD with His coming at the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse of Jesus. Makes so much more sense that way. I'm not at all a Preterist or Partial Preterist, but I do agree with the Church Fathers that the OD is to be interpreted in an historicist way, focusing largely on 70 AD.

But the Olivet Discourse is also Futurist, and I believe the Church Fathers were also futurists--they saw a future Antichrist. I don't believe the OD spoke of Antichrist--I think the Abomination of Desolation was the Roman Army. But the "great distress" that followed, according to Jesus, was a continuing tribulation of the Jewish People.

Jesus was still addressing mainly Israel at that time, because they were still under the Law at that time. And thus, only Israel was at that time in focus.

But we know that now, in the NT, what Jesus said to Israel can now apply to all. Even though 70 AD is over with, and a new covenant begun, there have come to be many Christian nations with their own "Jerusalem" and their own "temple." Christian nations have crashed and burned like Israel did in 70 AD. The Catholic Church and Mainline Churches have fallen on hard times, because they've seen compromise, and new generations of "professional" Christians. And the result has been at times a disaster.

The main thing, I think, is to encourage each other to continue to stand in the face of this occasional very negative experience. We have to expect that until the end there will be false hopes delivered to discourage us, false claims of the Kingdom of God, false prophecies--arrogant people who want to be our gurus, guiding us to the Promised Land. We need to follow Christ alone.

Thanks for the conversation!

Hi Randy

Yes, I am just thinking about all you have said and will reread it before I reply.

I suppose from my point of view I am just questioning the whole idea of an antichrist, as I
find that I have two conflicting views of the endtimes, and am trying to resolve that issue.
From experience, I have found that taking things as givens without really examing them can be quite
a handicap.

- It's curious to think about Paul's presentation of all this.
My view of Paul is that he talked face to face with Jesus on Mount Sinai.
I don't really believe that he was anything but totally inspired by God in everything he wrote.

So i view his words here as Prophetic really.
On this I think we are not in agreement.
The more I think about it, the less i see it possible to view things
as in any way random, or less than totally spirit-led.
So if he talks about a future event, I would say that this
is the Spirit Of Jesus - prophecy.

Yes, it is good to talk. I too enjoy any kind of thought-provoking discussion.
Always a bit impersonal online - but we should all be big enough
to surmount that.

Your thoughts?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I've mentioned in past posts, how that saying "churchES" is not exactly the same thing as saying "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY":

I find there is no reason to think they mean something differently.

--"the churchES" are made up of both those who are saved, AND those who come in His name but who are not actually saved/connected with Christ/believers (ex: I believe the term "lukewarm" is speaking not of milquetoast "Christians"/ believers / saints, but of the unsaved);

There are only 2 kinds of people in this world; saved and unsaved. It appears that you want to include the unsaved in "church".

--"the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" is made up of ONLY believers / saints / the saved

The word "churches" only means the collection of SAVED congregations in John's time.

 

[OldSage]

"I believe the Church Fathers were also futurists--they saw a future Antichrist."

Do you have any references RK?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

There are only 2 kinds of people in this world; saved and unsaved. It appears that you want to include the unsaved in "church".

The word "churches" only means the collection of SAVED congregations in John's time.

You and I likely [and from what I recall of your view, do seem to] have a different view of just what the phrase "he [/him] that overcometh" means...


Consider the following:

1 John 5:4 -

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."


1 John 5:5 -

"Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"


____________

Revelation 2:7 -

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."


Revelation 2:11 -

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."


Revelation 2:17 -

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."


Revelation 2:26 [see also v.29 "what the Spirit saith unto the churches"] -

"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:"


Revelation 3:5 [see also v.6 "what the Spirit saith unto the churches"] -

"He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels."


Revelation 3:12 [see also v.13 "what the Spirit saith unto the churches"] -

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."


Revelation 3:21 [see also v.22 "what the Spirit saith unto the churches"] -

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."





[and]

Revelation 21:7 -

"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

"8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."




["He that overcometh" = the "saved" in your "two choices" in your quote at top]

 

[randyk]

Hi Randy

Yes, I am just thinking about all you have said and will reread it before I reply.

I suppose from my point of view I am just questioning the whole idea of an antichrist, as I
find that I have two conflicting views of the endtimes, and am trying to resolve that issue.
From experience, I have found that taking things as givens without really examing them can be quite
a handicap.

- It's curious to think about Paul's presentation of all this.
My view of Paul is that he talked face to face with Jesus on Mount Sinai.
I don't really believe that he was anything but totally inspired by God in everything he wrote.

So i view his words here as Prophetic really.
On this I think we are not in agreement.
The more I think about it, the less i see it possible to view things
as in any way random, or less than totally spirit-led.
So if he talks about a future event, I would say that this
is the Spirit Of Jesus - prophecy.

Yes, it is good to talk. I too enjoy any kind of thought-provoking discussion.
Always a bit impersonal online - but we should all be big enough
to surmount that.

Your thoughts?

I'm on the way out the door, but I appreciate the comments. Yes, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. As an apostle Paul definitely testified to Jesus in a spirit of prophecy. Later....

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
There are only 2 kinds of people in this world; saved and unsaved. It appears that you want to include the unsaved in "church".

The word "churches" only means the collection of SAVED congregations in John's time.

You and I likely [and from what I recall of your view, do seem to] have a different view of just what the phrase "he [/him] that overcometh" means...

I'm [not sure] HOW your comment HERE relates to my comment.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

"I believe the Church Fathers were also futurists--they saw a future Antichrist."

Do you have any references RK?

In my recent endeavors to assemble a brief response to rk's response to my own post the other day, the following quote I was getting ready to include:

[from Bible Study Tools [dot] com... Commentaries...]

“The ancient church, including such as Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, were consistent in identifying the two witnesses as Enoch and Elijah.”—[Robert L] Thomas, Revelation 8-22, Rev. 11:3.
"See [Seiss, The Apocalypse: Lectures on the Book of Revelation, 248-249] for a summary of the writings of various church fathers in support of the coming of the Elijah prior to the end."

[end quoting; bold emphasis mine]


____________

From the info in what I've been trying to assemble (I'm being slow at it, lol), I can see that Irenaeus did indeed believe it is yet "future"

 

[VCO]

I've mentioned in past posts, how that saying "churchES" is not exactly the same thing as saying "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY":

--"the churchES" are made up of both those who are saved, AND those who come in His name but who are not actually saved/connected with Christ/believers (ex: I believe the term "lukewarm" is speaking not of milquetoast "Christians"/ believers / saints, but of the unsaved);

--"the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" is made up of ONLY believers / saints / the saved



[Rev1:4,11,20... and Rev2-3 (like 7x, I think)... and chpt 22 use the term "churchES"]

I have additional information for you. JESUS NEVER used the word CHURCH in HIS ENTIRE LIFE, and neither did the Apostles. Look up the Word HE used, and you will find out, I am shooting straight with you. HE CALLED US my ASSEMBLY. The SAME thing that HE Called the O.T. ASSEMBLY. It was not a term until about the turn of the first Century. THEN they had to ADD IT to the GREEK DICTIONARY, and there after it became a common Translation that appeared in all translation, except ONE.

Matthew 16:18 (YLT)
18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;


QUOTE:
Greek NASB Number: 1577

Greek Word: ἐκκλησία

Transliterated Word: ekklêsia
Root: from 1537 and 2564;

Definition: an assembly, a (religious) congregation:--

New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
:END QOUTE.

QUOTE:
Greek Strong's Number: 1577
Greek Word: ἐκκλησία
Transliteration: ekklēsia
Phonetic Pronunciation:

ek-klay-see'-ah
Root: from a compound of <G1537> and a derivative of <G2564>
Cross Reference: TDNT - 3:501,394
Part of Speech: n f
Vine's Words: Assembly, Congregation
Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.
:END QUOTE.

Now with that info, you can now properly interpret the following verse.

Jesus is speaking to a Crowd of nothing but the last of the O.T. Assembly; remembering the Birthday of the N.T. Assembly is not until the Day of Pentecost, after HIS Ascension.

John 10:16 (HCSB)
16 But I have other sheep {N.T. Assembly} that are not of this fold {O.T. Assembly}; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock {At the RAPTURE}, one shepherd.


O.T. Assembly = Those who believe God would send the Messiah to pay for their Sins.

N.T. Assembly = Those who believe God did send the Messiah to pay for OUR Sins.

That is the SAME FAITH, the Faith of Abraham!

 

[cv5]

I have additional information for you. JESUS NEVER used the word CHURCH in HIS ENTIRE LIFE, and neither did the Apostles. Look up the Word HE used, and you will find out, I am shooting straight with you. HE CALLED US my ASSEMBLY. The SAME thing that HE Called the O.T. ASSEMBLY. It was not a term until about the turn of the first Century. THEN they had to ADD IT to the GREEK DICTIONARY, and there after it became a common Translation that appeared in all translation, except ONE.

Matthew 16:18 (YLT)
18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;


QUOTE:
Greek NASB Number: 1577

Greek Word: ἐκκλησία

Transliterated Word: ekklêsia
Root: from 1537 and 2564;

Definition: an assembly, a (religious) congregation:--

New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
:END QOUTE.

QUOTE:
Greek Strong's Number: 1577
Greek Word: ἐκκλησία
Transliteration: ekklēsia
Phonetic Pronunciation:

ek-klay-see'-ah
Root: from a compound of <G1537> and a derivative of <G2564>
Cross Reference: TDNT - 3:501,394
Part of Speech: n f
Vine's Words: Assembly, Congregation
Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.
:END QUOTE.

Now with that info, you can now properly interpret the following verse.

Jesus is speaking to a Crowd of nothing but the last of the O.T. Assembly; remembering the Birthday of the N.T. Assembly is not until the Day of Pentecost, after HIS Ascension.

John 10:16 (HCSB)
16 But I have other sheep {N.T. Assembly} that are not of this fold {O.T. Assembly}; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock {At the RAPTURE}, one shepherd.


O.T. Assembly = Those who believe God would send the Messiah to pay for their Sins.

N.T. Assembly = Those who believe God did send the Messiah to pay for OUR Sins.

That is the SAME FAITH, the Faith of Abraham!

Chiming in here.....

The term "gates of hell" is an idiom easily understood in that era. It basically means "the councils of Satan".

Back then the larger city gates were actually constructed of stone, and had interior benches shaded by the outside structure. In this area would assemble the local governor (mayor) and elders. They would convene to deliberate and then delegate authority from there.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have additional information for you. JESUS NEVER used the word CHURCH in HIS ENTIRE LIFE, and neither did the Apostles. Look up the Word HE used, and you will find out, I am shooting straight with you. HE CALLED US my ASSEMBLY. The SAME thing that HE Called the O.T. ASSEMBLY. It was not a term until about the turn of the first Century. THEN they had to ADD IT to the GREEK DICTIONARY, and there after it became a common Translation that appeared in all translation, except ONE.

Matthew 16:18 (YLT)
18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;


QUOTE:
Greek NASB Number: 1577

Greek Word: ἐκκλησία

Transliterated Word: ekklêsia
Root: from 1537 and 2564;

Definition: an assembly, a (religious) congregation:--

New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
:END QOUTE.

QUOTE:
Greek Strong's Number: 1577
Greek Word: ἐκκλησία
Transliteration: ekklēsia
Phonetic Pronunciation:

ek-klay-see'-ah
Root: from a compound of <G1537> and a derivative of <G2564>
Cross Reference: TDNT - 3:501,394
Part of Speech: n f
Vine's Words: Assembly, Congregation
Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.
:END QUOTE.

Now with that info, you can now properly interpret the following verse.

Jesus is speaking to a Crowd of nothing but the last of the O.T. Assembly; remembering the Birthday of the N.T. Assembly is not until the Day of Pentecost, after HIS Ascension.

John 10:16 (HCSB)
16 But I have other sheep {N.T. Assembly} that are not of this fold {O.T. Assembly}; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock {At the RAPTURE}, one shepherd.


O.T. Assembly = Those who believe God would send the Messiah to pay for their Sins.

N.T. Assembly = Those who believe God did send the Messiah to pay for OUR Sins.

That is the SAME FAITH, the Faith of Abraham!

Do you think the word "church" and "assembly" are materially different?

 

[randyk]

"I believe the Church Fathers were also futurists--they saw a future Antichrist."

Do you have any references RK?

Here is Hippolytus: I don't agree with his 70th Week of Daniel view, and he takes liberties using foreshadowings of the Antichrist. But he basically rests his case on the Antichrist referring to Dan 7, as I said.

This is a Catholic reference, but can be helpful: CLICK
I don't agree that a Jewish temple will be built by Antichrist, but apparently a number of Church Fathers believed this. They all speak in Postrib terms, with Christ returning to destroy the Antichrist and to save the Church.

 

[randyk]

Here is how one Church Father seems to have interpreted Paul in 2 Thes, with respect to the obstacle, preventing the coming of Christ for his Church.

Tertullian:
"“[T]he man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the Lord comes, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; and who is to sit in the temple of God and boast himself as being God. . . . "

Compare this with 2 Thes:
2.3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Clearly, Tertullian interpreted 2 Thes 2.3 as indicative as the revelation of the Antichrist as being the "apostasy" that must precede the coming of Christ for his Church.

Those who say what Paul is really saying is that a "departure of the Church" must precede the coming of Christ for his Church is out of sorts with how Tertullian saw it. That is obvious.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ All of us agree that 2Th2:8a [9a] must occur before v.8b... just sayin'





[v.8a speaking of the man of sin "be revealed"... well before v.8b when he's "destroy[ed]"]