Conclusion From Beware the Pseudo-Rapture Doctrine 4
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Bible teaches that at Jesus' parousia Hethe dead in Christ will be caught up to meet the Lord. It teaches that He will come with all His saints. We must rise to join Him before we can return with Him. Pretrib adds a seven year waiting period without scripture to back it up and has Jesus come back twice.
When does the JSOC occur? When is the marriage of the Lamb? What you're advocating is that only a small part of the body of Christ must endure to the end of the tribulation to be saved. The majority of Christ's body has already passed.
We must understand the body of Christ (Gentiles) was a mystery, and so too will be the gathering of this body (when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in). This body was not spoken of during the ministry of Christ. It was a mystery. You don't read about it in Matthew 24 and 25. That is concerning the nation of Israel. One must rightly divide.
Ephesians 1:
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
We must understand the body of Christ (Gentiles) was a mystery, and so too will be the gathering of this body (when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in). This body was not spoken of during the ministry of Christ. It was a mystery. You don't read about it in Matthew 24 and 25. That is concerning the nation of Israel. One must rightly divide.
Ephesians 1:
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
-
1
- Show all
What is the JSOC? IDNKWAYAU. (I do not know what abbreviation you are using.)
I believe it happens after the rapture of the church, that the rapture of the church occurs right after the resurrection of the dead in Christ. Revelation puts 'the first resurrection' in chapter 20, right after the passage about the Rider on a white horse on Whom John saw written 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords' in chapter 19. I would imagine we both accept this as a reference to the second coming. Before this second coming passage, we read the announcement that 'the marriage of the Lamb is come'.
I don't see how pretribbers can get their pretrib view from the passage. They go in with these pretrib ideas, interpreting passages through a pretrib lens, but the passages do not support the assumptions. Why say the marriage supper of the Lamb is come right before Christ returns and raises the dead if it had occurred seven years prior?
Where did I advocate that? I would imagine there are quite a large number of people who are 'dead in Christ' from the first century until now. But I haven't posted with any numeric estimates. Nor do I know how many saints will surive the tribulation. I haven't posted any estimates. Wouldn't pre-trib eschatology imply that there are a large number of 'dead in Christ' given the years that have passed?
I just read on Wikipedia that global population in 1900 is estimated to have been between 1.56 and 1.71. Now it is estimated to be 8 billion. I don't have an estimate for the numbers of believers whom the Lord deems the dead in Christ.
You are the one who used 'body of Christ' in relation to the rapture. But what does your point have to do with the points I made previously?
I believe it happens after the rapture of the church, that the rapture of the church occurs right after the resurrection of the dead in Christ. Revelation puts 'the first resurrection' in chapter 20, right after the passage about the Rider on a white horse on Whom John saw written 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords' in chapter 19. I would imagine we both accept this as a reference to the second coming. Before this second coming passage, we read the announcement that 'the marriage of the Lamb is come'.
I don't see how pretribbers can get their pretrib view from the passage. They go in with these pretrib ideas, interpreting passages through a pretrib lens, but the passages do not support the assumptions. Why say the marriage supper of the Lamb is come right before Christ returns and raises the dead if it had occurred seven years prior?
Where did I advocate that? I would imagine there are quite a large number of people who are 'dead in Christ' from the first century until now. But I haven't posted with any numeric estimates. Nor do I know how many saints will surive the tribulation. I haven't posted any estimates. Wouldn't pre-trib eschatology imply that there are a large number of 'dead in Christ' given the years that have passed?
I just read on Wikipedia that global population in 1900 is estimated to have been between 1.56 and 1.71. Now it is estimated to be 8 billion. I don't have an estimate for the numbers of believers whom the Lord deems the dead in Christ.
You are the one who used 'body of Christ' in relation to the rapture. But what does your point have to do with the points I made previously?
That's what the "POST-tribbers" do ^ ... which some posts in this thread have pointed out... A few, for example:
--there is NO mention of "harpagēsometha / harpazo / snatch / caught-away / rapture [G726]" (TO the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR) in Matthew 24 (or its numerous parallel passages, that is, in the ENTIRETY of His Olivet Discourse, INCLUDING the parallels with that found in Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding"... THEN "the meal [G347]" [see also Matt8:11 and parallel] and Lk19:12,15,17,19 "RETURN"... and in Lk17:26-37... nor in the context of Matt13:24,30,39,40,49-50 which passage the disciples' Q of Jesus in Matt24:3 was BASED ON [that is, based on what He had ALREADY SPOKEN to them about in that Matt13 context] etc etc)... but POST-tribbers seem to have no problem asserting that IT'S THERE in this passage (and its numerous parallel passages);
--it has already been admitted (correctly) in this thread that the "one TAKEN" is "taken away" IN JUDGMENT (just as in Noah's day) and that the "other LEFT" is left (i.e. not taken away in judgment)... but somehow POST-tribbers think they see a "rapture" in such passages (in the context of His Second Coming to the earth), despite Scripture showing the exact OPPOSITE (the ones who are "LEFT" in THESE contexts are the saved [as they acknowledge, at least in this thread], but for some reason they envision "left" to mean "Raptured [G726]...TO the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR" which is NOT what the text itself declares at all, here (or in any of its parallel passages);
--[there was more... but I'm getting called away to tend to other tasks... will try to get back to this thought when I get a free moment...]
--there is NO mention of "harpagēsometha / harpazo / snatch / caught-away / rapture [G726]" (TO the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR) in Matthew 24 (or its numerous parallel passages, that is, in the ENTIRETY of His Olivet Discourse, INCLUDING the parallels with that found in Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding"... THEN "the meal [G347]" [see also Matt8:11 and parallel] and Lk19:12,15,17,19 "RETURN"... and in Lk17:26-37... nor in the context of Matt13:24,30,39,40,49-50 which passage the disciples' Q of Jesus in Matt24:3 was BASED ON [that is, based on what He had ALREADY SPOKEN to them about in that Matt13 context] etc etc)... but POST-tribbers seem to have no problem asserting that IT'S THERE in this passage (and its numerous parallel passages);
--it has already been admitted (correctly) in this thread that the "one TAKEN" is "taken away" IN JUDGMENT (just as in Noah's day) and that the "other LEFT" is left (i.e. not taken away in judgment)... but somehow POST-tribbers think they see a "rapture" in such passages (in the context of His Second Coming to the earth), despite Scripture showing the exact OPPOSITE (the ones who are "LEFT" in THESE contexts are the saved [as they acknowledge, at least in this thread], but for some reason they envision "left" to mean "Raptured [G726]...TO the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR" which is NOT what the text itself declares at all, here (or in any of its parallel passages);
--[there was more... but I'm getting called away to tend to other tasks... will try to get back to this thought when I get a free moment...]
-
1
- Show all
The scripture does not teach that God is angry at the saints who will be alive at the tribulation, and IMO, it is foolish to imply such an idea. You also have no authority to stand in judgment of God.
The book of Revelation clearly mentions saints alive during that time.
There were Christians during the pagan Roman era who were fed to wild animals, burned, and faced other horrible fates. The bodies of those who were killed were killed just as dead as those who will be kills in the years leading up to Christ's return. There were those whose heads were chopped off several years ago over Christianity when ISIS was growing and attacking people in the middle east. Their bodies were just as dead, also. Would you accuse God of injustice because these Christians suffered?
Paul said if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.
The book of Revelation clearly mentions saints alive during that time.
There were Christians during the pagan Roman era who were fed to wild animals, burned, and faced other horrible fates. The bodies of those who were killed were killed just as dead as those who will be kills in the years leading up to Christ's return. There were those whose heads were chopped off several years ago over Christianity when ISIS was growing and attacking people in the middle east. Their bodies were just as dead, also. Would you accuse God of injustice because these Christians suffered?
Paul said if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.
-
1
- Show all
The passage stating that "God hath not appointed US to wrath" (1Th5:9... in context of: an eschatological 'salvation') and "the One delivering US out-of THE WRATH COMING" (1Th1:10) are specifically addressed to / for / about "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (not to all other saints of all OTHER time periods); that is, ALL who've come to faith in Christ "in this present age [singular]" ...
...and note that this passage does not limit it to God's wrath ALONE (though I certainly believe the entire "7-yr period" IS His wrath [I've posted biblical evidence to this in past posts], not just during the "Vials" part ["for IN THEM the wrath of God is COMPLETED"... not "is STARTED *AND* COMPLETED"!! No. These "Vials"--which themselves TAKE SOME TIME--are just the END-parts of His "wrath" during the Trib yrs, not the totality of it]). IOW, the honest student should at least acknowledge that at the MID-point of the Trib+ will experience "[Satan--when cast down to the earth with his angels, and thus limited to that sphere from that point] having GREAT WRATH because he knoweth he hath but a short time" when there are 1260 days yet remaining... WE are not appointed unto "wrath" PERIOD... and Satan's "wrath" certainly qualifies as [part of] "the wrath COMING" (tho, again, is only a small PORTION of it, not the sum of it in its totality)
...and note that this passage does not limit it to God's wrath ALONE (though I certainly believe the entire "7-yr period" IS His wrath [I've posted biblical evidence to this in past posts], not just during the "Vials" part ["for IN THEM the wrath of God is COMPLETED"... not "is STARTED *AND* COMPLETED"!! No. These "Vials"--which themselves TAKE SOME TIME--are just the END-parts of His "wrath" during the Trib yrs, not the totality of it]). IOW, the honest student should at least acknowledge that at the MID-point of the Trib+ will experience "[Satan--when cast down to the earth with his angels, and thus limited to that sphere from that point] having GREAT WRATH because he knoweth he hath but a short time" when there are 1260 days yet remaining... WE are not appointed unto "wrath" PERIOD... and Satan's "wrath" certainly qualifies as [part of] "the wrath COMING" (tho, again, is only a small PORTION of it, not the sum of it in its totality)
This reminds me of an Islamic apologist's debating tactic-- "Tell me where the Bible says, quote, "Jesus is God'" and if you cannot find the exact quote, he claims victory.
Can you show me one other verse that uses 'harpagēsometha' anywhere else besides that one verse in I Thessalonians 4 in the whole Bible? You would agree that the 'gathering' of II Thessalonians 2:1 occurs at the same event as the rapture, wouldn't you? The related verb form is used in Matthew 24. Matthew 24 and I Thessalonians 4 also speak of the 'parousia', translated 'coming'. In Matthew 24, we read about the parousia of the Son of man. II Thessalonians 2 refers to the parousia of the Lord.
Name one post tribber who has made such an argument. What post-tribber has every artgued that 'left' means raptured to the meeting of the lord in the air? You are so stuck in your pre-trib ideas that you eisegete it, not only into scripture, but also into other's comments.
I would be curious to know the poster who made the argument. Or if you could refer me to a poster or commentator, let me know that also.
Let us look at the passage:
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
The wording I see more associated with the rapture has to do with the __gathering__.
We would both agree that 'gather' here has to do with the rapture, right?
II Thessalonians 1
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
Now compare 'coming of our Lord Jesus Christ' to the coming of the Son of man in the passage below, and 'gathering to to 'gather' below.
Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
My post-trib approach is different from the pre-trib approach. What I do is look at the different passages, look at what they teach, and compare similarities.
What pre-tribbers do is compare scripture with a set of pre-trib concepts that exist outside of scripture that have no support from scripture. Pre-tribbers think Jesus comes back an extra time before the tribulation or that the 'coming' is some not-exactly-literal coming of a seven year time period. They think.... without any scripture to back it up.... that the rapture is pre-trib. Therefore, they take these two passages and assign them to different points of time.
Paul refers to the 'parousia' of Christ. He does not say it is multiple events. In I Thessalonians 4, at the 'parousia of Christ' the dead in Christ and they which are alive and remain are raptured. In I Thessalonians 3:13 he writes of Christ coming with all His holy saints. In II Thessalonians 2, the lawless one is destroyed at the brightness of His coming, but this man has to be revealed before the day of the Lord, and cannot be destroyed before things get started.
It makes perfect sense to interpret the parousia as happening at one event. Pretribbers have no scripture to prove otherwise. They just categorize verses to fit into their system.... this verse refers to the parousia goes to their made-up extra return of Christ not mentioned in scripture, and this one at the actual return of Christ at the end of the tribulation.
If you have any scripture that shows that Jesus is going to come back and rapture the church before the tribulation, show it. Assuming the 'parousia' of I Thessalonians 4 is a different event from other references to the parousia is not evidence. Pointing out that John was told to 'come up hither' early on in his vision is not evidence, not weighty enough of an argument to add a return of Christ to the message of scripture. Arguing or hinting at the identity of the 24 elders does not add a return of Christ to the Bible either. Neither does assuming the saints alive during the tribulation must be under God's wrath, as if He were angry at them.
Can you show me one other verse that uses 'harpagēsometha' anywhere else besides that one verse in I Thessalonians 4 in the whole Bible? You would agree that the 'gathering' of II Thessalonians 2:1 occurs at the same event as the rapture, wouldn't you? The related verb form is used in Matthew 24. Matthew 24 and I Thessalonians 4 also speak of the 'parousia', translated 'coming'. In Matthew 24, we read about the parousia of the Son of man. II Thessalonians 2 refers to the parousia of the Lord.
Name one post tribber who has made such an argument. What post-tribber has every artgued that 'left' means raptured to the meeting of the lord in the air? You are so stuck in your pre-trib ideas that you eisegete it, not only into scripture, but also into other's comments.
I would be curious to know the poster who made the argument. Or if you could refer me to a poster or commentator, let me know that also.
Let us look at the passage:
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
The wording I see more associated with the rapture has to do with the __gathering__.
We would both agree that 'gather' here has to do with the rapture, right?
II Thessalonians 1
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
Now compare 'coming of our Lord Jesus Christ' to the coming of the Son of man in the passage below, and 'gathering to to 'gather' below.
Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
My post-trib approach is different from the pre-trib approach. What I do is look at the different passages, look at what they teach, and compare similarities.
What pre-tribbers do is compare scripture with a set of pre-trib concepts that exist outside of scripture that have no support from scripture. Pre-tribbers think Jesus comes back an extra time before the tribulation or that the 'coming' is some not-exactly-literal coming of a seven year time period. They think.... without any scripture to back it up.... that the rapture is pre-trib. Therefore, they take these two passages and assign them to different points of time.
Paul refers to the 'parousia' of Christ. He does not say it is multiple events. In I Thessalonians 4, at the 'parousia of Christ' the dead in Christ and they which are alive and remain are raptured. In I Thessalonians 3:13 he writes of Christ coming with all His holy saints. In II Thessalonians 2, the lawless one is destroyed at the brightness of His coming, but this man has to be revealed before the day of the Lord, and cannot be destroyed before things get started.
It makes perfect sense to interpret the parousia as happening at one event. Pretribbers have no scripture to prove otherwise. They just categorize verses to fit into their system.... this verse refers to the parousia goes to their made-up extra return of Christ not mentioned in scripture, and this one at the actual return of Christ at the end of the tribulation.
If you have any scripture that shows that Jesus is going to come back and rapture the church before the tribulation, show it. Assuming the 'parousia' of I Thessalonians 4 is a different event from other references to the parousia is not evidence. Pointing out that John was told to 'come up hither' early on in his vision is not evidence, not weighty enough of an argument to add a return of Christ to the message of scripture. Arguing or hinting at the identity of the 24 elders does not add a return of Christ to the Bible either. Neither does assuming the saints alive during the tribulation must be under God's wrath, as if He were angry at them.
Yes sir. Furthermore, there is absolutely ZERO evidence of a "rapture" a "translation" of still living mortal bodies during the tribulation or Second Coming. All that is spoken of is a resurrection of the ALREADY DEAD.
Rom 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from G1537 the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from G1537 the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
"ALL trib saints DIE before they are resurrected. All OT saints are ALREADY DEAD then are resurrected. Living trib believers and Israelites DO NOT GET RAPTURED at the SC.....they go on to populate planet earth.
ONLY the Church (those alive at the pre-trib rapture event) gets translated while still in their mortal bodies!
For the simple reason that only the Church is Spirit indwelt. "
Presidente...if you have Scriptural evidence to the contrary....have at it.
Rom 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from G1537 the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from G1537 the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
"ALL trib saints DIE before they are resurrected. All OT saints are ALREADY DEAD then are resurrected. Living trib believers and Israelites DO NOT GET RAPTURED at the SC.....they go on to populate planet earth.
ONLY the Church (those alive at the pre-trib rapture event) gets translated while still in their mortal bodies!
For the simple reason that only the Church is Spirit indwelt. "
Presidente...if you have Scriptural evidence to the contrary....have at it.
The idea that the tribulational saints are not part of US is totally unsubstantiated. It is yet another of those pre-trib assertions that is totally assumed without Biblical support. It's pretrib theory, not scripture.
In II Thessalonians 1, the church receives rest from tribulation at Christ's return.
Look [up] wrath in the dictionary. Look [up the GrEEk word] in a Bible dictionary. It has to do with anger. It is not a time period.
You have to consider what 'not appointed unto wrath' means. Appointed unto wrath is contrasted with obtaining salvation.
I Thessalonians 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
If you experience any wrath at all, does that mean you aren't saved? What about early Christians who refused to burn incense to the emperor. If their noncompliance made a Roman official demanding it of them angry, does that mean these Christians went to hell.... because they experienced wrath? Men can have wrath, too, you know.
James 1:20
for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.
We should also consider what salvation from wrath means in other writings of Paul.
Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
Notice justification versus wrath. Do the tribulational saints experience the wrath spoken of in Romans 5:9, or are they justified by His blood?
Let us look in scripture for an answer:
Revelation 7
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
In II Thessalonians 1, the church receives rest from tribulation at Christ's return.
Look [up] wrath in the dictionary. Look [up the GrEEk word] in a Bible dictionary. It has to do with anger. It is not a time period.
You have to consider what 'not appointed unto wrath' means. Appointed unto wrath is contrasted with obtaining salvation.
I Thessalonians 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
If you experience any wrath at all, does that mean you aren't saved? What about early Christians who refused to burn incense to the emperor. If their noncompliance made a Roman official demanding it of them angry, does that mean these Christians went to hell.... because they experienced wrath? Men can have wrath, too, you know.
James 1:20
for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.
We should also consider what salvation from wrath means in other writings of Paul.
Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
Notice justification versus wrath. Do the tribulational saints experience the wrath spoken of in Romans 5:9, or are they justified by His blood?
Let us look in scripture for an answer:
Revelation 7
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
There is ZERO evidence of a 'rapture' or 'translation' of still living mortal bodies
before the tribulation found in scripture. There IS evidence for the rapture at the end of the tribulation because it follows the resurrection of the dead in Christ as per I Thessalonians 4, and the 'first resurrection' is described in Revelation 20. So if we combine scritpures together, there is evidence for it. But there is no evidence in scripture for a pretrib rapture in scripture.
Your mixing apples and oranges here, mixing the issue of the rapture of the church with the dead Old Testament saints. I am not 100% sure of when they are resurrected, but there is a resurrection described at the end of 1000 years in Revelation. You do make an interesting case, but it has nothing to do with pre-trib. The saints, now, have the earnest of the Spirit prior to the resurrection, but that doesn't mean God is not free to resurrect others at His own predetermined time. Certain prophets had the Spirit on them in the Old Testament. I'll let God decide what to do with them as far as timing goes, since my decision doesn't determine what happens anyway.
But I don't see how your point here offers any evidence at all for adding in an additional parousia of Christ that the Bible does not teach us about before the tribulation and placing the rapture at that time.
This happens at the parousia, not seven years before Jesus comes back.
before the tribulation found in scripture. There IS evidence for the rapture at the end of the tribulation because it follows the resurrection of the dead in Christ as per I Thessalonians 4, and the 'first resurrection' is described in Revelation 20. So if we combine scritpures together, there is evidence for it. But there is no evidence in scripture for a pretrib rapture in scripture.
Your mixing apples and oranges here, mixing the issue of the rapture of the church with the dead Old Testament saints. I am not 100% sure of when they are resurrected, but there is a resurrection described at the end of 1000 years in Revelation. You do make an interesting case, but it has nothing to do with pre-trib. The saints, now, have the earnest of the Spirit prior to the resurrection, but that doesn't mean God is not free to resurrect others at His own predetermined time. Certain prophets had the Spirit on them in the Old Testament. I'll let God decide what to do with them as far as timing goes, since my decision doesn't determine what happens anyway.
But I don't see how your point here offers any evidence at all for adding in an additional parousia of Christ that the Bible does not teach us about before the tribulation and placing the rapture at that time.
This happens at the parousia, not seven years before Jesus comes back.
And your debate tactic (to use your words 
) is to look at Scripture, find similar or same words and declare they are all speaking of the SAME THING, disregarding all surrounding context (which provides "timing" and "sequence" matters, as well as "setting" and "who" it pertains to etc etc)...
It's as though you would look at the texts about Jesus having been "anointed" by women (involving oil or ointment) and declaring that since these 3 separate and distinct incidents use the word "woman" and "anoint [Jesus]" (and "oil"/"ointment") that they must ALL refer to ONE SINGULAR INCIDENT at ONE POINT IN TIME (when they do not!)
-- What is the significance of Jesus being anointed by a woman with expensive perfume? | GotQuestions.org
That is the essence of your faulty reasoning, here.
[Yes, 1Th4 and 2Th2:1 = same]...
...but to your point... so what that Matthew 24 uses the related verb form... SO DOES Lk17:37!! Are you among those who deduce and declare that WE ARE the "vultures / eagles" that are / will have been "gathered-together [G1996 - verb]" in this passage?? If not, WHY NOT?? since, according to your reasoning, if the words match (or are at least related) they MUST be the SAME INCIDENT (despite the abundance of the clues in the rest of the surrounding texts / contexts that provide evidences to the contrary!)
) is to look at Scripture, find similar or same words and declare they are all speaking of the SAME THING, disregarding all surrounding context (which provides "timing" and "sequence" matters, as well as "setting" and "who" it pertains to etc etc)...It's as though you would look at the texts about Jesus having been "anointed" by women (involving oil or ointment) and declaring that since these 3 separate and distinct incidents use the word "woman" and "anoint [Jesus]" (and "oil"/"ointment") that they must ALL refer to ONE SINGULAR INCIDENT at ONE POINT IN TIME (when they do not!)
-- What is the significance of Jesus being anointed by a woman with expensive perfume? | GotQuestions.org
That is the essence of your faulty reasoning, here.
[Yes, 1Th4 and 2Th2:1 = same]...
...but to your point... so what that Matthew 24 uses the related verb form... SO DOES Lk17:37!! Are you among those who deduce and declare that WE ARE the "vultures / eagles" that are / will have been "gathered-together [G1996 - verb]" in this passage?? If not, WHY NOT?? since, according to your reasoning, if the words match (or are at least related) they MUST be the SAME INCIDENT (despite the abundance of the clues in the rest of the surrounding texts / contexts that provide evidences to the contrary!)
-
1
- Show all
I said "THE WRATH COMING" refers to what will unfold upon the earth DURING a certain, specific, future, LIMITED "TIME PERIOD" (even Satan's "having great wrath" is specified as to its timing and duration). I did not say the word "wrath" is defined as "time period".
Pay close attention, when reading.
[just like the "WRATH [upon this people]" spoken of in Lk21:23,21 referred to what occurred back in the events surrounding 70ad (during a specific TIME PERIOD), correlating with what Jesus had said in Matt22:7 "the king... WAS WROTH and..." describing the events surrounding 70ad]
Pay close attention, when reading.
[just like the "WRATH [upon this people]" spoken of in Lk21:23,21 referred to what occurred back in the events surrounding 70ad (during a specific TIME PERIOD), correlating with what Jesus had said in Matt22:7 "the king... WAS WROTH and..." describing the events surrounding 70ad]
And your debate tactic (to use your words ) is to look at Scripture, find similar or same words and declare they are all speaking of the SAME THING, disregarding all surrounding context (which provides "timing" and "sequence" matters, as well as "setting" and "who" it pertains to etc etc)...
) is to look at Scripture, find similar or same words and declare they are all speaking of the SAME THING, disregarding all surrounding context (which provides "timing" and "sequence" matters, as well as "setting" and "who" it pertains to etc etc)...
Why should I consider verses about the parousia to be referring to something different than other verses about the parousia?
Umm. No. I am aware of two incidents, btw. But that's not the same. The details are different. Here, you assume different time periods and assume the coming of the Lrod refers to different events.
Where does the Bible teach that Jesus comes back and the dead are raised seven years after Jesus comes back and the dead are raised?
I would call it "compelling". Very much so.
Paul never speaks of the Church suffering wrath BTW. Not once. You would think he should be screaming bloody murder warning about the coming wrath of God upon the Church. Not so.
1Th 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Th 1:10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
2Th 1:7
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
Paul never speaks of the Church suffering wrath BTW. Not once. You would think he should be screaming bloody murder warning about the coming wrath of God upon the Church. Not so.
1Th 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Th 1:10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
2Th 1:7
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
Except "pretribbers" do NOT say Jesus "RETURNS" TWO times. (At least not the pretribbers who've been taught / learned correctly).
I've pointed out how the word "return" (re: Jesus) speaks of His Second Coming to the earth time-slot (Rev19):
--"when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" (i.e. as an ALREADY-WED "Bridegroom," NOT to "MARRY" the believers / righteous / saints in THIS text / context), Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 (and its parallel Matt24:42-51);
--Lk19:12,15,17,19 "RETURN" (when He will deal out responsibilities having to do with "have thou AUTHORITY OVER 10 cities" and "be thou likewise OVER 5 cities" ("cities" are on the earth; and its parallel passage Matt25:14-30);
Because "parousia" has a context wherever it is used (of Jesus)... so it depends on "WHERE" His "parousia / presence" is located... and it depends on WHOM that particular instance INVOLVES / relates to / pertains to (where His "presence / parousia" will be located, and to what purpose); and it cannot contradict other related passages (that's something else which should be taken into consideration... which we've covered a bit in this thread already).
Even you acknowlege that Paul is not merely covering ONE particular point in time [i.e. a singular 24-hr day] in what all he is covering in his 2 Thessalonians 2 context. (Let the reader recognize that Paul is telling "how/when" his verse 1 Subject "FITS" time-wise/sequence-wise IN RELATION TO the Subject of [the false claim of] verse 2--which are distinct things, not the SAME thing as many ppl incorrectly suppose)
So paying attention to the details here (in chpts 1&2), as well as defining the various terms biblically (rather than adopting, say, the [flawed] "Amill-teachings'" made-up DEFINITIONS in this chpt 2 passage especially), will aid one in coming to grasp what it is that Paul is actually conveying in this text (rather than the commonly-stated incorrect notion of what he was conveying here).
I've pointed out how the word "return" (re: Jesus) speaks of His Second Coming to the earth time-slot (Rev19):
--"when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" (i.e. as an ALREADY-WED "Bridegroom," NOT to "MARRY" the believers / righteous / saints in THIS text / context), Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 (and its parallel Matt24:42-51);
--Lk19:12,15,17,19 "RETURN" (when He will deal out responsibilities having to do with "have thou AUTHORITY OVER 10 cities" and "be thou likewise OVER 5 cities" ("cities" are on the earth; and its parallel passage Matt25:14-30);
Because "parousia" has a context wherever it is used (of Jesus)... so it depends on "WHERE" His "parousia / presence" is located... and it depends on WHOM that particular instance INVOLVES / relates to / pertains to (where His "presence / parousia" will be located, and to what purpose); and it cannot contradict other related passages (that's something else which should be taken into consideration... which we've covered a bit in this thread already).
Even you acknowlege that Paul is not merely covering ONE particular point in time [i.e. a singular 24-hr day] in what all he is covering in his 2 Thessalonians 2 context. (Let the reader recognize that Paul is telling "how/when" his verse 1 Subject "FITS" time-wise/sequence-wise IN RELATION TO the Subject of [the false claim of] verse 2--which are distinct things, not the SAME thing as many ppl incorrectly suppose)
So paying attention to the details here (in chpts 1&2), as well as defining the various terms biblically (rather than adopting, say, the [flawed] "Amill-teachings'" made-up DEFINITIONS in this chpt 2 passage especially), will aid one in coming to grasp what it is that Paul is actually conveying in this text (rather than the commonly-stated incorrect notion of what he was conveying here).
-
1
- Show all