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

[ewq1938]

It can be proven that the 6th seal in Revelation 6 describes the return of Jesus described in Matthew 24:29 (signs in the heavens - moon, sun, stars) and the day of God's wrath beginning.

Yes and the key word there is "describes". The second coming is not happening when the 6th seal is being opened. It is just describing what the second coming will be like, just as Matthew 24 is also describing what it will be like but it is not happening when Christ was teaching the Olivet Discourse.

 

[OldSage]

Everything Paul wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's a given. However, even if the Holy Spirit gave him the news that Jerusalem would be leveled (70 AD), he wrote NOTHING about Jerusalem specifically being leveled.

He DID mention the end times Beast (world ruler) in both epistles. So no one would have understand 2 Thess 2:1 as a prophecy about Jerusalem.

Ok, you are making several mistakes here FG.

Firstly if you study Paul's life, it is clear, amongst other things, that he was taught by the Lord personally.
This you really need to take on board, as until you understand that Paul had perfect understanding, then you will make
wayward statements.

Galatians 1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.......
................15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

 

[OldSage]

NOT "everyone" pushes it (that [incorrect] "idea" about the "false claim" Paul is covering in v.2--which "false claim" is NOT AT ALL covering the Subject of "rapture").

See my post above this one, for explanation (Post #4677).

[any one that see the Subject of "rapture" in the "false claim" Paul is talking about in v.2 is MISSING THE POINT! ]

TDW - If the DOTL had come, then the Rapture would have preceded it, correct? (whether by seconds or days or years - that's your area of expertise)

So the logic is simple, using your scenario- Paul would be saying (in your scenario):

'If anyone writes a letter signed by me saying that the DOTL has come - ergo Paul would have been raptured wouldn't he? -
then don't believe them because.....'

I am saying, are we supposed to believe that the Thessalonian Church are completely moronic?
None of the following have taken place

That the Lord has descended from heaven with a shout and a Trumpet
That every eye has seen him
That the dead have been raised
Christians have been raptured, Thessalonians included
That earth and heaven have been dissolved with fire etc

And then Paul writes a letter, 'post rapture', telling the Thessalonians what?
Obviously if it is a forgery he would have to say:
'I've been raptured...'
Otherwise the Thessalonians would not believe him to be God's messenger.
And then he also has to convince them that the day of the Lord has come......and I have no idea what you
expect him to be saying at this point.

Nor do I, because your scenario is bonkers

 

[OldSage]

This narrative would certainly fit well in that context, but I think that could also very well be a considered a microcosmic representation of 'the end.'

It's good you see the connection Mem.
The connection between the two end periods
appears to me very complex actually, thinking about it while I download something.

There are lots of connections. Keep thinking on those lines!
But regards Tares.

God had to separate out the wheat and tares prior to burning the tares.
This was done by gathering together the Church as one entity,
and gathering together OldCov Israel as another separate entity -
at Jerusalem for Passover as it happens. If the Romans had attacked the synagogues in, say,
50AD, the Christians would simply have been slaughtered with the unbelieving Jews.

Of course at the end of the age it will be much swifter and simpler, and 'reverse osmosis' so to speak.
God will gather the Church, through transfiguration, and then burn the chaff.

 

[Runningman]

Yes and the key word there is "describes". The second coming is not happening when the 6th seal is being opened. It is just describing what the second coming will be like, just as Matthew 24 is also describing what it will be like but it is not happening when Christ was teaching the Olivet Discourse.

Exactly. Thank you for paying attention to that detail.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And then Paul writes a letter, 'post rapture', telling the Thessalonians what?
Obviously if it is a forgery he would have to say:
'I've been raptured...'
Otherwise the Thessalonians would not believe him to be God's messenger.
And then he also has to convince them that the day of the Lord has come......and I have no idea what you
expect him to be saying at this point.

Paul doesn't say "rapture" is on their/the Thessalonians' mind.

And no, a letter would not have to say that (Paul makes NO such suggestion about the false claim's contents in v.2).

Paul is the one bringing the Subject of "our Rapture" to bear on such a "problem" [ / false claim (v.2) he's talking about].




He's saying, "[2]Don't listen to THEM (anyone coming along with this "false claim")... [15]Listen to what WE taught you INSTEAD."

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TDW - If the DOTL had come, then the Rapture would have preceded it, correct? (whether by seconds or days or years - that's your area of expertise)
So the logic is simple, using your scenario- Paul would be saying (in your scenario):
'If anyone writes a letter signed by me saying that the DOTL has come - ergo Paul would have been raptured wouldn't he? -
then don't believe them because.....'

There's no requirement that false teachers / false conveyors have to even BELIEVE there's a "rapture," or to have even have HEARD there's a "rapture"; they can STILL falsely say "that the day of the Lord is already here / is already present [playing out in our experience... and (for the Thessalonians specifically) the circumstances we all are aware of in 1:4 are 'PROOF' of it! (proof of its JUDGMENTS unfolding)]".



Again, PAUL is the one bringing the Subject of "our Rapture" to bear on the issue of this "false claim's contents"

 

[OldSage]

In reply to TDW

Paul doesn't say "rapture" is on their/the Thessalonians' mind.
So now you are saying that 'the coming of the Lord' is not the rapture??

And no, a letter would not have to say that (Paul makes NO such suggestion about the false claim's contents in v.2).
Paul is postulating a situation where the Coming of the Lord is claimed to have taken place, and they receive a letter claiming to be from him.....do you not understand this?


Paul is the one bringing the Subject of "our Rapture" to bear on such a "problem" [ / false claim (v.2) he's talking about].
''problem'' - not sure what you are referring to

 

[OldSage]

There's no requirement that false teachers / false conveyors have to even BELIEVE there's a "rapture," or to have even have HEARD there's a "rapture"; they can STILL falsely say "that the day of the Lord is already here / is already present [playing out in our experience... and (for the Thessalonians specifically) the circumstances we all are aware of in 1:4 are 'PROOF' of it! (proof of its JUDGMENTS unfolding)]".



Again, PAUL is the one bringing the Subject of "our Rapture" to bear on the issue of this "false claim's contents"

But if the proof that the Day of the Lord has not come is in itself the Rapture, which the Thessalonians understand and know precedes the DOTL, but the decievers are oblivious to, (and therefore peddle a certain lie thinking they can pull it off),
why does Paul then need to give a different proof that the DOTL has not come?

Why doesn't Paul just refer to the obvious, (as before):

That the Lord has descended from heaven with a shout and a Trumpet
That every eye has seen him
That the dead have been raised
Christians have been raptured, Thessalonians included
That earth and heaven have been dissolved with fire etc

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

In reply to TDW

Paul doesn't say "rapture" is on their/the Thessalonians' mind.
So now you are saying that 'the coming of the Lord' is not the rapture??

I'm saying neither of those two things are the content of the "false claim" that Paul is telling about in v.2.

And no, a letter would not have to say that (Paul makes NO such suggestion about the false claim's contents in v.2).
Paul is postulating a situation where the Coming of the Lord is claimed to have taken place, and they receive a letter claiming to be from him.....do you not understand this?

That is not the content of the false claim, per Paul v.2.

Paul is the one bringing the Subject of "our Rapture" to bear on such a "problem" [ / false claim (v.2) he's talking about].
''problem'' - not sure what you are referring to

The false claim (not to be believed) is the "problem"... Paul is addressing this "false claim" (v.2) he does not want them to fall sway under as though it were true.

He tells WHY it is not so "that the day of the Lord is already here / is already present" (he is not addressing any "claim" about JESUS HIMSELF already being present, or about the RAPTURE having already occurred--the "false claim's contents" he is covering, per the wording of verse 2, has to do with an "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time... that IT has already arrived and is playing out in their experience"--Paul is saying "IT'S NOT PRESENT"... and here's why [enter Paul's Subject that he'd already intro'd in v.1]).

 

[Runningman]

Yes indeed!

I am so glad somebody else can see that!

The 6th seal represents a span of time-and-events from Trumpet 1 to Vial 7 - with the Resurrection and Rapture occurring after the Trumpet Events and before the Wrath of God (Vials).

I think the 7th trumpet also contains familiar elements mentioned at what Paul describes as the "last trump." This doesn't seem like a coincidence to me.

1 Corinthians 15:52 describes the resurrection of the dead at the last trump. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 describes the resurrection of the dead at the trumpet call of God after Jesus returns.

Guess what the 7th trumpet in Revelation 11 talks about... The resurrection to judgement:

Revelation 11:18
18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

This is the resurrection to judgement that Jesus spoke of in John:

John 5:28-29
28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

So I think the evidence is quite compelling that the 7th trumpet is also know as the last trumpet and is literally when Jesus returns or occurs shortly before His arrival.

 

[Absolutely]

YES, the Jews had to endure the plagues while being kept from (the effect of) them. And what is there to endure patiently (keep faith and hope joyfully despite) if its not tribulation?

Then Jesus was in error.
Because he differentiated " tribulation all saints endure vs the great tribulation.

But maybe you are just stuck on reframing it?

Because TWICE Jesus talked of escape/keeping a section of Believers FROM/OUT OF the great tribulation.

Paul and the other apostles went through tribulation.
Never the great tribulation.

Have you read of the plagues and horrors of the great trib?????

I think you do not understand the dynamics in play.
Was Jesus in error rapturing that Group of Jews DURING THE GT?

 

[Absolutely]

But if the proof that the Day of the Lord has not come is in itself the Rapture, which the Thessalonians understand and know precedes the DOTL, but the decievers are oblivious to, (and therefore peddle a certain lie thinking they can pull it off),
why does Paul then need to give a different proof that the DOTL has not come?

Why doesn't Paul just refer to the obvious, (as before):

That the Lord has descended from heaven with a shout and a Trumpet
That every eye has seen him
That the dead have been raised
Christians have been raptured, Thessalonians included
That earth and heaven have been dissolved with fire etc

Did all that happen in AD 70?

 

[OldSage]

If I have deciphered you correctly TDW....(and seriously, I am running out of energy for this).

The false claim = an "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time" having started.

But you refuse to call this "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time" the Day of the Lord, (although previously in your posts I am sure you did)

&

although the Rapture is not part of the false claim, you cannot understand that the Church knows that the Rapture precedes the "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time", and therefore can understand that the false claim of an "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time" is false, as it is necessarily preceded by a rapture

 

[Absolutely]

Disagree that this is Paul's point for his bringing up a false claim's content in v.2.

Rather, "the day of the Lord" (the thing/time-period that the false claim says "IS PRESENT") NOT [is], "if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* and [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed...".

Once he is "revealed" (and that's at the START of the "7 yrs") the DOTL will then also "BE PRESENT". It's not present without the presence of the man of sin.

Pretty much so....with a slight tweek here and there .
Lol

 

[Absolutely]

If I have deciphered you correctly TDW....(and seriously, I am running out of energy for this).

The false claim = an "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time" having started.

But you refuse to call this "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time" the Day of the Lord, (although previously in your posts I am sure you did)

&

although the Rapture is not part of the false claim, you cannot understand that the Church knows that the Rapture precedes the "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time", and therefore can understand that the false claim of an "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time" is false, as it is necessarily preceded by a rapture

It appears neither of you gets what the other is saying


Also appears you agree.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

But you refuse to call this "EARTHLY-located TIME-PERIOD commencing with JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth, over the course of some time" the Day of the Lord, (although previously in your posts I am sure you did)

I'm not "refusing" to call it "the day of the Lord" (I've pointed that this is the content of the false claim [v.2] about a zillion times)... I'm simply spelling it out a different way due to your continual EQUATING of my phrasing "the day of the Lord" [v.2] to *mean* (in your mind) "Christ's coming/presence/parousia" (that THAT is what the false claim's content is saying "is already present / is already here" per v.2) in these back-and-forths-of-explaining.


I've repeatedly pointed out the content of the false claim is: "that the day of the Lord is already here / is already present."




[not "JESUS HIMSELF" and not "our Rapture"--the "false claim's contents" (per v.2) were not about those items / Subjects]

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"How is this question relevant to what I posted above?

Also, what does it matter where "another mention" of a rapture concept occurs in "this context"? Please answer why the question is relevant and then define what you mean by "overall context"."

For one thing, it is a point you previously accused "pre-tribbers" of doing (which we do not do--you do.)

OK, now, please give me an example of what you are accusing me of. If you can. I say you can't.

What say you?

 

[Absolutely]

It almost seems as though they are brainwashed, in that they are programmed to reject the truth at every turn. In doing so, they continue with the false apologetics and ignore the scriptures that destroy their claims.

The purpose of our contention is not to be against them, but to get them to open their eyes to see what we God's word says about this subject. I don't know why we should be surprised though, for the word of God says that there would be those who would abandon the truth in the last days.

Can you imagine what they are teaching to a new believer? 'The good news is that you have forgiveness of sins and eternal life. But the bad news is, you still have to go through the coming wrath of God. Sorry! Now comfort each other with these words.'

It certainly wouldn't be a blessed hope, nor could we comfort each other with those words, if we were to have to through the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, which Jesus said would be a time of tribulation unequaled from the beginning, until now and never to be equaled again. And they think that the Lord is going to put His bride through that!

Most churches are not teaching anymore about the rapture.
Basically robing their flock.

I have seen that ones end times view determines how the rest if the bible is interpreted.

For example, a friend of mine is magnetically drawn to Sam Solen.
Manifest sons of God.
You can not mention the rapture without stern resistance.

What a joke

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Not even close. Paul's point is clear. v.1 cannot happen until the rebellion occurs and the man doomed to destruction is revealed.

Disagree that this is Paul's point for his bringing up a false claim's content in v.2.

Doesn't matter what you disagree with. The language and wording is very clear. v.1 cannot happen until v.3 occurs.

Rather, "the day of the Lord" (the thing/time-period that the false claim says "IS PRESENT") NOT [is], "if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* and [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed...".

This strange sentence makes no sense. First, leave out all your needless embellishments. Then try to be clear.

Once he is "revealed" (and that's at the START of the "7 yrs") the DOTL will then also "BE PRESENT". It's not present without the presence of the man of sin.

Paul wasn't talking about what's "present", but what comes first. It's very clear.