Pre Trib or Post trib rapture?

[BBerean]

God is of course restrainer , who else could be ?

God lets until he takes out the anti christ , I hope that makes sense !

 

[presidente]

QUOTE
"As far as pre-trib is concerned, I was raised believing that, then sat down and went through Revelation and other scripture looking for it, and it wasn't there. So I decided I wasn't going to be dogmatic about it and opened my mind. And of course upon meditation on scripture and reading it, I could see passages didn't align with pretrib"

...and yet I tear that false postrib rapture doctrine to pieces.
Blow holes in it a bus could drive through.

There is not a postribber anywhere that can honestly debate me.

This reminds me of the Old Testament passage where one king says that he who puts his armor on should not boast like he who takes it off. We would all do well to have humility when it comes to our understanding of the scripture and discussion of it with others. Do you think taking jabs at opponents actually causes them to change their mind or build them up in the faith.

You wrote,

( no postribber has ever actually read mat 24 wording.)

I really feel like this is the reason pre-trib explanations of Mathew 24 can continue to exist. Of course, I have read Matthew 24. I had to back in Bible quiz to memorize it in the KJV. How does someone justify treating the coming of the Son of man early in the chapter (which is shown to occur after the tribulation) as a different event from the coming of the Son of man later in the same chapter?

I don't see this in your posts. I see you dodging straightforward issues. I haven't read all of today's batch but here are some questions:

1. How do you justify interpreting 'the coming of the Son of man' in Matthew 24 as referring to one event in one verse and another event in another? The passage shows us that the coming of the Son of man happens after the tribulation, so why do you say it happens before the tribulation when interpreting the passage?
2. How does the coming (parousia again) of the Lord in II Thessalonians 2:1 change in meaning from verse 1 to some other event in verse 2? What is it in the context that justifies this interpretation.
3. Even though II Thessalonians 1 teach that the Lord will execute wrath on them that know not God when he comes to be glorified in the saints, why does pretrib separate these into different time periods.
4. Why do pretribbers teach that they that are Christ's will be made alive 7 years before Jesus' coming, when I Corinthians 15 teaches that the dead are made alive at His coming?
5. Why does Revelation 20 say that the resurrection that occurs at that time is 'the first resurrection' while pretribbers have a resurrection occurring 7 years before that?

 

[greenonions]

God is of course restrainer , who else could be ?

The angel in Rev. 10 is between sea and land, who says no more delay. Could be Jesus. The restrainer. It happens at the 6th trumpet, where 4 angels are released and people allowed to be killed (unlike 5th trumpet). Beast from sea arises first, but now beast from land will arise.

 

[greenonions]

It is so basic.
It is major postrib rapture blunder.


Psalm1 said:
"Who is the firstfruits of the church?"

Answer:
"22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: CHRIST THE FIRSTFRUITS; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."
That is 1 Corinthians 15.

JESUS is the firstfruits of the resurrection.

See this points out the folly of postrib doctrine.

Without this knowledge, the 144,000 firstfruits are a Blurr.

( that is exactly why EVERY POSTRIB RAPTURE ADHRRENT must change it.)

Note that postribbers need a premillinium resurrection inserted in Rev 20.
None is there, but they insert it.

Now hold that against Rev 14.
The 144,000 firstfruits can not be Jesus, nor can they be a firstfruits of the first RESURRECTION.

I think every postribber I have debated has not known that Jesus is the firstfruits of the first resurrection.

Yes Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection. That can be true even if the 144,000 are first fruits. Btw, I don't think the 144,000 are resurrected earlier. They are just all dead by that time and their spirits are in heaven.

So you don't think there is a premillenial resurrection? Those who were beheaded by the beast are alive again. Isn't that resurrection?

I think it happens during the rapture in Rev. 18-19, where the great multitude appears, but it doesn't explicitly mention resurrection there, if that's your point.

 

[Psalm1]

Yes Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection. That can be true even if the 144,000 are first fruits. Btw, I don't think the 144,000 are resurrected earlier. They are just all dead by that time and their spirits are in heaven.

So you don't think there is a premillenial resurrection? Those who were beheaded by the beast are alive again. Isn't that resurrection?

I think it happens during the rapture in Rev. 18-19, where the great multitude appears, but it doesn't explicitly mention resurrection there, if that's your point.

Just believe what you want.

You are not at all understanding the firstfruits.

If you can not grab that, then I will just leave it alone.
Way too tedious and a waste of time.

 

[Psalm1]

This reminds me of the Old Testament passage where one king says that he who puts his armor on should not boast like he who takes it off. We would all do well to have humility when it comes to our understanding of the scripture and discussion of it with others. Do you think taking jabs at opponents actually causes them to change their mind or build them up in the faith.

You wrote,


I really feel like this is the reason pre-trib explanations of Mathew 24 can continue to exist. Of course, I have read Matthew 24. I had to back in Bible quiz to memorize it in the KJV. How does someone justify treating the coming of the Son of man early in the chapter (which is shown to occur after the tribulation) as a different event from the coming of the Son of man later in the same chapter?

I don't see this in your posts. I see you dodging straightforward issues. I haven't read all of today's batch but here are some questions:

1. How do you justify interpreting 'the coming of the Son of man' in Matthew 24 as referring to one event in one verse and another event in another? The passage shows us that the coming of the Son of man happens after the tribulation, so why do you say it happens before the tribulation when interpreting the passage?
2. How does the coming (parousia again) of the Lord in II Thessalonians 2:1 change in meaning from verse 1 to some other event in verse 2? What is it in the context that justifies this interpretation.
3. Even though II Thessalonians 1 teach that the Lord will execute wrath on them that know not God when he comes to be glorified in the saints, why does pretrib separate these into different time periods.
4. Why do pretribbers teach that they that are Christ's will be made alive 7 years before Jesus' coming, when I Corinthians 15 teaches that the dead are made alive at His coming?
5. Why does Revelation 20 say that the resurrection that occurs at that time is 'the first resurrection' while pretribbers have a resurrection occurring 7 years before that?

Mat 24
A postrib gathering.
A postrib coming.
The timeframe is given
The place is given
The gatherer is given.

Mat 24
Pre flood pretrib coming
Pretrib flood gathering.
The setting given
The time-frame given.
Who is gathered is given

How can anyone get it wrong.

You get all but one wrong.

"After the trib" you are allowed to read

After that...you get every single point wrong.
Complete with "the flood does not represent the trib."

 

[Psalm1]

This reminds me of the Old Testament passage where one king says that he who puts his armor on should not boast like he who takes it off. We would all do well to have humility when it comes to our understanding of the scripture and discussion of it with others. Do you think taking jabs at opponents actually causes them to change their mind or build them up in the faith.

You wrote,


I really feel like this is the reason pre-trib explanations of Mathew 24 can continue to exist. Of course, I have read Matthew 24. I had to back in Bible quiz to memorize it in the KJV. How does someone justify treating the coming of the Son of man early in the chapter (which is shown to occur after the tribulation) as a different event from the coming of the Son of man later in the same chapter?

I don't see this in your posts. I see you dodging straightforward issues. I haven't read all of today's batch but here are some questions:

1. How do you justify interpreting 'the coming of the Son of man' in Matthew 24 as referring to one event in one verse and another event in another? The passage shows us that the coming of the Son of man happens after the tribulation, so why do you say it happens before the tribulation when interpreting the passage?
2. How does the coming (parousia again) of the Lord in II Thessalonians 2:1 change in meaning from verse 1 to some other event in verse 2? What is it in the context that justifies this interpretation.
3. Even though II Thessalonians 1 teach that the Lord will execute wrath on them that know not God when he comes to be glorified in the saints, why does pretrib separate these into different time periods.
4. Why do pretribbers teach that they that are Christ's will be made alive 7 years before Jesus' coming, when I Corinthians 15 teaches that the dead are made alive at His coming?
5. Why does Revelation 20 say that the resurrection that occurs at that time is 'the first resurrection' while pretribbers have a resurrection occurring 7 years before that?

QUOTE
"How does someone justify treating the coming of the Son of man early in the chapter (which is shown to occur after the tribulation) as a different event from the coming of the Son of man later in the same chapter?"

You solution is simple.
Pretend "before the flood coming" is a pretrib gathering of the wicked, and the flood does not represent the trib.
....Just muddy up what is said.

Then pretend the "after the trib coming" has no gathering in heaven, and reframe it to be a gathering on earth.
Then pretend Jesus gathers and and he does not send angels to gather.

That way you can get both the comings, Jesus declares, completely wrong.

Oh wait...you already do all that.
Nevermind

 

[Psalm1]

This reminds me of the Old Testament passage where one king says that he who puts his armor on should not boast like he who takes it off. We would all do well to have humility when it comes to our understanding of the scripture and discussion of it with others. Do you think taking jabs at opponents actually causes them to change their mind or build them up in the faith.

You wrote,


I really feel like this is the reason pre-trib explanations of Mathew 24 can continue to exist. Of course, I have read Matthew 24. I had to back in Bible quiz to memorize it in the KJV. How does someone justify treating the coming of the Son of man early in the chapter (which is shown to occur after the tribulation) as a different event from the coming of the Son of man later in the same chapter?

I don't see this in your posts. I see you dodging straightforward issues. I haven't read all of today's batch but here are some questions:

1. How do you justify interpreting 'the coming of the Son of man' in Matthew 24 as referring to one event in one verse and another event in another? The passage shows us that the coming of the Son of man happens after the tribulation, so why do you say it happens before the tribulation when interpreting the passage?
2. How does the coming (parousia again) of the Lord in II Thessalonians 2:1 change in meaning from verse 1 to some other event in verse 2? What is it in the context that justifies this interpretation.
3. Even though II Thessalonians 1 teach that the Lord will execute wrath on them that know not God when he comes to be glorified in the saints, why does pretrib separate these into different time periods.
4. Why do pretribbers teach that they that are Christ's will be made alive 7 years before Jesus' coming, when I Corinthians 15 teaches that the dead are made alive at His coming?
5. Why does Revelation 20 say that the resurrection that occurs at that time is 'the first resurrection' while pretribbers have a resurrection occurring 7 years before that?

QUOTE
"How do you justify interpreting 'the coming of the Son of man' in Matthew 24 as referring to one event in one verse and another event in another? The passage shows us that the coming of the Son of man happens after the tribulation, so why do you say it happens before the tribulation when interpreting the passage?"

Let's blow a hole in that.

Rev 14 :14 is a coming OF JESUS DURING THE TRIB.
A COMING AND GATHERING DURING THE TRIB.
A 100% impossibility to your entire one coming deal.

You know for a fact, that item alone defeats every word you are saying.
One verse that is so out of place in your doctrine that you must omit it and dodge it.

 

[Psalm1]

This reminds me of the Old Testament passage where one king says that he who puts his armor on should not boast like he who takes it off. We would all do well to have humility when it comes to our understanding of the scripture and discussion of it with others. Do you think taking jabs at opponents actually causes them to change their mind or build them up in the faith.

You wrote,


I really feel like this is the reason pre-trib explanations of Mathew 24 can continue to exist. Of course, I have read Matthew 24. I had to back in Bible quiz to memorize it in the KJV. How does someone justify treating the coming of the Son of man early in the chapter (which is shown to occur after the tribulation) as a different event from the coming of the Son of man later in the same chapter?

I don't see this in your posts. I see you dodging straightforward issues. I haven't read all of today's batch but here are some questions:

1. How do you justify interpreting 'the coming of the Son of man' in Matthew 24 as referring to one event in one verse and another event in another? The passage shows us that the coming of the Son of man happens after the tribulation, so why do you say it happens before the tribulation when interpreting the passage?
2. How does the coming (parousia again) of the Lord in II Thessalonians 2:1 change in meaning from verse 1 to some other event in verse 2? What is it in the context that justifies this interpretation.
3. Even though II Thessalonians 1 teach that the Lord will execute wrath on them that know not God when he comes to be glorified in the saints, why does pretrib separate these into different time periods.
4. Why do pretribbers teach that they that are Christ's will be made alive 7 years before Jesus' coming, when I Corinthians 15 teaches that the dead are made alive at His coming?
5. Why does Revelation 20 say that the resurrection that occurs at that time is 'the first resurrection' while pretribbers have a resurrection occurring 7 years before that?

QUOTE
"4. Why do pretribbers teach that they that are Christ's will be made alive 7 years before Jesus' coming, when I Corinthians 15 teaches that the dead are made alive at His coming?"

Just pretend the sentences that follow, "the coming of the Son of man will be as the setting before the flood", in mat 24 is a mistake.
Your doctrine will make perfect sense , and me quoting the bible will seem very strange to you.

 

[Psalm1]

I wrote,
"Can you agree with Jesus' teaching that the coming of the Son of man is after the tribulation, and His teaching that as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be?"
@Psalm1 wrote,



All of our eschatologies that have a gathering have it set post flood because the flood happened thousands of years ago. In Matthew 24, we see that the coming of the Son of man happens after 'great tribulation'. The coming of the Son of man is compared to the way it was in the days of Noah. It doesn't say the tribulation is like the days of Noah.

There are other analogies also-- the thief coming at a time the house owner is unprepared, the master not knowing the hour his master would come. The next chapter tells the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. A common theme is unpreparedness. But again, this is related to unpreparedness for the coming of the Son of man AFTER the tribulation.



There is the _gathering_ of the elect after the tribulation in the passage.


Pretrib interpretations directly contradict the wording.



Not heaven, but the ends of heaven. Look at how it is used in other scripture. Do you think Babylonians were in heaven in Isaiah's time?

Go stand on a hill or mountain. Look around you and you will see the 'end of heaven' where the heaven (sky) meets the earth. We also call it the horizon.

Here is a literal translation that calls
Isaiah 5:26 (KJV)
And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly.


Isaiah 13:5 (KJV)
They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.

Look at a modern translation, less literal, more dynamic equivalence that translates the idea more into something we might say. rather than translating closer to word for word.

Isaiah 13:5 (NLT)
They come from distant countries, from beyond the farthest horizons. They are the LORD’s weapons to carry out his anger. With them he will destroy the whole land.



Show me one place in scripture where it says that Jesus gathers prior to the tribulation. Show me some scripture that justifies two second coming events.
Also notice there is a resurrection of the 'dead in Christ' at the rapture in I Thessalonians 4.

Now, the first resurrection occurs in Revelation 20, after the Rider on a white horse passage. Doesn't the FIRST resurrection occur after (or at) the Second coming.

How does that not contradict pretrib?



The angels sent forth to gather the elect from one horizon to the other is in the passage.





Interesting.

Peel that onion back, and now a new position of, "the flood being connected to Noah is forbidden."



Maybe omit it with the pile of omissions we see in your doctrine



The flood omission.

QUOTE
"All of our eschatologies that have a gathering have it set post flood because the flood happened thousands of years ago. In Matthew 24, we see that the coming of the Son of man happens after 'great tribulation'. The coming of the Son of man is compared to the way it was in the days of Noah. It doesn't say the tribulation is like the days of Noah."

Huh ?
You actually do not understand the analogy?

Are you also going to say Noah died years ago so He is a non component?
And that the ark is gone and rotted away so Jesus can't use that one either.

You are so worried about omitting the components of the analogy that you have lost the meaning.
You really do not understand that an ANALOGY has COMPONENTS????
And you omitting them is perverted??????

Then you go unto some bizarre deal and accuse others of omitting? ?

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Please answer the previous question; “Why isn’t the church mentioned after Revelation chapter 3?”

In your answer, please feel to cite scriptural references to legitimize your reply. If I’m wrong about the church not being mentioned after Revelation chapter 3, I’m sure you can prove it from the Bible.

Wishing you a blessed Holy Week.

The Bible doesn't have the word "trinity" in it either but expressed in other words. So it is with God's people.

Youve been set in your beliefs on this for years, so that Jesus's own words and the Holy Spirit's guidance has been ignored.

John 6:39 "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."

What makes anyone think you'll accept my explanation?

It's better to just let the gt explain it to you. It will happen soon enough in the 2030s.


🕊

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Careful.

During the 7 year great tribulation, post rapture people turn to Christ and are saved. (Sealed) That is the express work of The Holy Spirit. I do not know any Pre Tribulation rapture believers who say that the Holy Spirit is taken away.

Jesus promised the Spirit as a permanent guide, teacher, seal of salvation, and comforter for believers (John 14:16-18). He also promised that the Holy Spirit’s power would help His followers to spread the message of the gospel around the world: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The salvation of souls is a supernatural work only made possible by the Holy Spirit’s power at work in the world.

Yes, so that means the Holy Spirit is not the restrainer. Satan isn't that strong. You would just need someone like Michael the archangel to restrain him. So the restrainer is an angel, not the Holy Spirit.


🕊

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

God is of course restrainer , who else could be ?

It's just satan. You don't need the most powerfu person to restrain the devil. An angel like Michael will suffice.


🕊

 

[presidente]

Mat 24
A postrib gathering.
A postrib coming.
The timeframe is given
The place is given
The gatherer is given.

Mat 24
Pre flood pretrib coming
Pretrib flood gathering.
The setting given
The time-frame given.
Who is gathered is given

How can anyone get it wrong.

You get all but one wrong.

"After the trib" you are allowed to read

After that...you get every single point wrong.
Complete with "the flood does not represent the trib."

Matthew 24 the coming of the sun and of manicures after the tribulation.

Matthew 24 the coming of the sun of man (which occurs after the tribulation) shall be as the days of Noah where....

How can anyone miss that? Why don't we just stick with what the passage says instead of making stuff up.

 

[Psalm1]

Matthew 24 the coming of the sun and of manicures after the tribulation.

Matthew 24 the coming of the sun of man (which occurs after the tribulation) shall be as the days of Noah where....

How can anyone miss that? Why don't we just stick with what the passage says instead of making stuff up.

Just pretend Jesus never said HIS COMING WILL BE AS "before the flood, complete with normal life setting"
PRETEND IT WAS NEVER SAID.

Doctrine is way more important that scripture huh?

Like you implied ."modify the bible, via omission of every word of Jesus' noah analogy, and how could anyone miss it."

That flood analogy is eating your lunch big time.
It is beyond basic.
It does not fit your theory at all.

Then the rev 14:14 VIVID, VIVID Picture of his mid trib coming.

( Final nail in your beliefs coffin)

Game
Set
Match.

 

[Psalm1]

Yes, so that means the Holy Spirit is not the restrainer. Satan isn't that strong. You would just need someone like Michael the archangel to restrain him. So the restrainer is an angel, not the Holy Spirit.


🕊

Just hope and hope and hope it ain't the church
Lol.

For me it could be any of them.
Makes no difference at all.
Zip.

 

[Psalm1]

Mat 24
A postrib gathering.
A postrib coming.
The timeframe is given
The place is given
The gatherer is given.

Mat 24
Pre flood pretrib coming
Pretrib flood gathering.
The setting given
The time-frame given.
Who is gathered is given

How can anyone get it wrong.

You get all but one wrong.

"After the trib" you are allowed to read

After that...you get every single point wrong.
Complete with "the flood does not represent the trib."

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Psalm1]

Mat 24
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.

Postrib rapture adherent:
Faceplant
"NO NO NO It just can not be. That is the craziest thing. It is ONE COMING, ONE COMING, ONE COMING, ONE COMING ONE COMING, ONE COMING, ONE COMING, ONE COMING."

OH..BTW....we also have a coming in Rev 14:14 way different than "after the wrath," in fact, that coming is DURING THE TRIB AND BEFORE THE WRATH.
Postrib rapture adherent:
Faceplant
"NO NO NO It just can not be. That is the craziest thing. It is ONE COMING, ONE COMING, ONE COMING, ONE COMING ONE COMING, ONE COMING, ONE COMING, ONE COMING."

SORRY. But the bible is a doctrine destroyer.
Teachers will at some point make a fool of you.

Best to study and agree with heaven....(the actual real source)
Thank you.

 

[TMS]

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) developed the theological system known as Dispensationalism, which separates Israel and the Church and includes the pretribulational rapture. He believed in a "secret" coming of Christ for the saints before the tribulation.

Darby invented the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture—where Christ removes the church secretly before a seven-year tribulation—a concept absent from early church history story.

Dispensationalism.... Darby’s system divides history into seven distinct dispensations (Innocency, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, Millennium), which detractors, including early contemporaries like George Mueller, felt was an artificial framework imposed upon Scripture.

Scripture needs to be twisted in many places to accommodate the appealing error.

It is founded on error after error.

 

[JayWalker]

But the Holy Spirit has been removed , that’s not possible! If a pretibber .

No, the Holy Spirit will still be here during the tribulation and folks will still be getting saved after the rapture.

And the rapture is mid trib, not pre trib as it happens after the anti-christ is reveled to the world but before the last 3.5 years of the tribulation.