Pre Trib or Post trib rapture?
- Thread starter Gideon300
- 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.
[/QUOTE]
your answer:
"The coming of Christ is the blessed hope, not 'hopless'
When there are multiple verses that refer to the coming of the Lord in the singular, the 'default' understanding should be that we are waiting for one coming ..."
1) I never said, inferred, or ever thought the coming of the Lord is hopeless.
You knowingly misrepresented what I said.
Why would you do that?
Desperation ?
Frustration?
2) let's apply your misplaced inference, (your conjecture), to the "plurality of God."
( He, is reference to, countless times, of both singular and plural).
Your mental thinking, would reduce that one also, to ;
"no he cant, He can't be both"
The bible, mentally discerned and edited, as you are demonstrating, produces doctrines of conjecture and bible modifications.
Look what you and your camp do to this very issue of the impossible "one coming".
...and to Matthew "before the flood" setting, Lot's "before the trib removal" setting, the 10 virgin parable, the 144,000, Rev 14:14.
IN EVERY SINGLE ONE, YOUR CAMP CHANGES THOSE VERSES!
So very telling, of a flawed and failed, poorly thought out doctrine.
Like I said, I asked you to produce a verse.
Your answer is, via your silence, and dodge, that you do not have one.
We both know you don't.
Your walking away verifies it.
Don't feel bad.
None of your camp has any standing.
All you know is, "pretribbers are bad, pretribbers are bad, pretribbbers are bad"
You see us as the enemy.
That is WHY you talk over facts and can't defend your doctrine.
You don't know why you believe in a postrib rapture ( that you can't defend, and are demonstrating), you just don't like the concept of a pretrib rapture, (that i can easily defend and run circles aroud all of your colleagues), whether Jesus taught it or not....it matters not to you or any postribber.
You can't hit the ball over the net, all you can hope for is that my facts can be somehow cast down by cleverness and conjecture.
(Win an argument via default).
My job here is to make you guys go against the bible, and you do just that.
The bible just will not go away or be cleverly talked over.
Not honestly, anyway.
I got the facts.
Try one on and let's go.
Debate me honestly.
The bible, mentally discerned and edited, as you are demonstrating, produces doctrines of conjecture and bible modifications.
Look what you and your camp do to this very issue of the impossible "one coming".
...and to Matthew "before the flood" setting, Lot's "before the trib removal" setting, the 10 virgin parable, the 144,000, Rev 14:14.
IN EVERY SINGLE ONE, YOUR CAMP CHANGES THOSE VERSES!
What are you talking about? How have I, or anyone in the thread, changed Matthew 24?
I have asked you over and over again to give some justification that a reference to the flood means that Jesus is coming back twice, or why a reference to the flood would mean that the coming of the Son of man earlier in the passage would refer to something different from the coming of the Son of man later in the passage.
None of these events are 'pre-flood'. The flood happened thousands of years even before Christ was born. The passage is clear about the similarities to the time before the flood. Before the flood came, they were marrying and giving in marriage. The flood is compared to the time of the coming of the Son of man not the sorrows that come before it. You are the one trying to change what the passage means to something that it does not say.
And again, II Thessalonians 1 shows us that the CHURCH is going to receive rest when the Lord is revealed from heaven, and that He will execute vengeance on them that do not obey the Gospel when He comes to be glorified in the saints. Notice it does not say for a seven year period after He comes to be glorified in the saints.
A large percentage of your posts are made up of false generalizations and complains like what I quoted above rather than dealing with the text or the problems pointed out with your interpretation. Why is that?
Why don't you answer in detail questions I posed about some problems with pretrib. I have made a post about those specific problems. Hopefully, there will be posts on those specific issues. I would suggest you might actually try to wrestle with those problems.
But if you don't see how pre-trib can be reconciled with II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8, for example, you can just say so. That's a good starting place.
your answer:
"The coming of Christ is the blessed hope, not 'hopless'
When there are multiple verses that refer to the coming of the Lord in the singular, the 'default' understanding should be that we are waiting for one coming ..."
1) I never said, inferred, or ever thought the coming of the Lord is hopeless.
You knowingly misrepresented what I said.
Why would you do that?
Desperation ?
Frustration?
2) let's apply your misplaced inference, (your conjecture), to the "plurality of God."
( He, is reference to, countless times, of both singular and plural).
Your mental thinking, would reduce that one also, to ;
"no he cant, He can't be both"
The bible, mentally discerned and edited https://ffh4x.com.br/, as you are demonstrating, produces doctrines of conjecture and bible modifications.
Look what you and your camp do to this very issue of the impossible "one coming".
...and to Matthew "before the flood" setting, Lot's "before the trib removal" setting, the 10 virgin parable, the 144,000, Rev 14:14.
IN EVERY SINGLE ONE, YOUR CAMP CHANGES THOSE VERSES!
So very telling, of a flawed and failed, poorly thought out doctrine.
[/QUOTE]
The debate between pre-tribulation and post-tribulation rapture centers on different interpretations of biblical prophecy within Christian theology. The pre-tribulation view teaches that believers will be taken up (raptured) before a period of great suffering known as the Tribulation, sparing them from divine judgment.
I asked you first.
That is when your deflection started.
You can not produce a verse?
It is Amazing that you don't have a verse to base your beliefs in.
(We both already knew that.)
What happened to your policing of Quote boxes?
You didn't see the the chastening memo
QUOTE
"I have asked you over and over again to give some justification that a reference to the flood means that Jesus is coming back twice, or why a reference to the flood would mean that the coming of the Son of man earlier in the passage would refer to something different from the coming of the Son of man later in the passage.
None of these events are 'pre-flood'. The flood happened thousands of years even before Christ was born. The passage is clear about the similarities to the time before the flood. Before the flood came, they were marrying and giving in marriage. The flood is compared to the time of the coming of the Son of man not the sorrows that come before it."
Kinda leaves your deal high and dry, trying to first say the flood means nothing and happened long ago, then backtracking and using the flood to demonstrate how your impossible deal is verified by using the flood metaphorically.
Like I told you.
Skip mat 24.
Changing it is making you look bad.
If you do read it, pretend it means nothing, and that your deal of chaos, no commerce, and running from cave to cave is what Jesus meant by " normal life, commerce and planning for the future" AT HIS COMING.
It is bizarre that you think Jesus' declared setting, AT HIS COMING, of normal life , everyday life, and planning for the future, is in error, and you actually defend your ascertain of his supposed error, by dancing all around some outlandish re invention of his words.
Maybe read it more slowly???
(Don't reframe it. Jesus said it. So don't cast it down)
Mat 24.
37But 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.
Note, "COMING"
Note WHEN. (Don't change it.)
Note Jesus words...HIS WORDS...BEFORE THE FLOOD.
Ok...hold you finger there.
Note He said, "watch for Me"
Note what is said from heaven by Jesus: "Before the flood, the normal everyday life and activities setting, in which I am coming, and the gathering of Half of a group at my coming, so be ready"
Now refute the bible.
Reframe Jesus words.
That bible is wrong.
I tell you it is wrong.
Those 3 Comings that are written from heaven as the word of God, just can't be right.
There just can't be 3 comings.!!!!
Just can't be.!!!!!
Jesus please listen
You can not come in Rev 14
And 1 these 4
And Rev 19 in the context and setting you declared..
Looky here Jesus.
Come one time.
Sit on a horse, with a sickle, and pretend the horse is a cloud.
No no...wait..I got it....make the cloud in the shape of a horse, so now we got Rev 14:14 blenderized into Rev 19.
Now Jesus, tell us the 144,000 are not really firstfruits and make them somehow not Jews, but 144,000 church members.
Can you do that for us Jesus???
Now Jesus, why why why did you have to make up that number of 144,000, and call them JEWISH firstfruits, THEN LIST THE TRIBES?????
You know that messes up my doctrine!
Now I got to make up what tribe I am.
and Jesus you know there is more than 12, 000 believers.
What were you thinking Jesus?????
You got any idea what your deal does to my deal????
And why why why did you have to list those raptured believers as half the church?????
Hey Jesus....let's make it a gathering of wicked people prejudgement!!!!
(A wicked pretrib rapture)
And Jesus, why why why did you have to put in your book, that all take the mark or die and that Power is given The AC to overcome believers.
Jesus...how can we change that into a rapture of living believers , that your book claims are all dead, to the sky at the battle of Armageddon???
Can we please change those 10 or 20 places in the bible?????
Whatcha think Jesus????
Whatcha think???
Cue Jesus faceplant
I tell you it is wrong.
Those 3 Comings that are written from heaven as the word of God, just can't be right.
There just can't be 3 comings.!!!!
Just can't be.!!!!!
Jesus please listen
You can not come in Rev 14
And 1 these 4
And Rev 19 in the context and setting you declared..
Looky here Jesus.
Come one time.
Sit on a horse, with a sickle, and pretend the horse is a cloud.
No no...wait..I got it....make the cloud in the shape of a horse, so now we got Rev 14:14 blenderized into Rev 19.
Now Jesus, tell us the 144,000 are not really firstfruits and make them somehow not Jews, but 144,000 church members.
Can you do that for us Jesus???
Now Jesus, why why why did you have to make up that number of 144,000, and call them JEWISH firstfruits, THEN LIST THE TRIBES?????
You know that messes up my doctrine!
Now I got to make up what tribe I am.
and Jesus you know there is more than 12, 000 believers.
What were you thinking Jesus?????
You got any idea what your deal does to my deal????
And why why why did you have to list those raptured believers as half the church?????
Hey Jesus....let's make it a gathering of wicked people prejudgement!!!!
(A wicked pretrib rapture)
And Jesus, why why why did you have to put in your book, that all take the mark or die and that Power is given The AC to overcome believers.
Jesus...how can we change that into a rapture of living believers , that your book claims are all dead, to the sky at the battle of Armageddon???
Can we please change those 10 or 20 places in the bible?????
Whatcha think Jesus????
Whatcha think???
Cue Jesus faceplant
But not every reference to a harvest is a reference to a resurrection, which is the key issue here. The harvest of grapes involved blood up to the horse's bridle. Do you think that refers to the resurrection?
I do believe that Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection....as Paul says Christ the firstfruits and afterward they that are His at His coming.
Not seven years before His coming, not He comes back and resurrects people, then comes back again and resurrects people, and the second resurrection labeled in scripture as 'the first resurrection'
So, basically, you dodge the issue. All you are doing here in your posts is ASSUMING pretrib without any evidence, then arguing Bible verses to fit into that. But you don't present Biblical evidence for it.
Show me some passage that lays out a time line in which the pretrib rapture happens with a resurrection, then a resurrection at the end. Do this without having to eisegete it into some passage where it doesn't fit... or where one would only agree with you if he were pretrib and read it in.
That's what's lacking. And this is circular reasoning. You interpret allegorical passages as pretrib passages because you already believe in pretrib, then the pretrib reinterpretation of allegorical passages is your evidence for pretrib. Then pretribbers will just add pretrib commentary for how they try to make some passage work with pretrib (like you did with Revelation 19) when there is no internal evidence from the passage for pretrib.
Just the fact that Paul kept referring to the parousia in the singular as if it were one event, when stuff happens that pretrib tries to place in two separate events, is good evidence against pretrib. In the very same chapter in II Thessalonians 2, in verse 1, we have a rapture reference-- the parousia (coming) of our Lord and our gathering unto him, then in verse 8 of the same chapter, the lawless one is destroyed at the parousia of the Lord. Pretrib has the beast cast into the Lake of Fire at the end of the tribulation. But a straightforward reading of the passage leads one to think this is the same event.
And in II Thessalonians chapter 1, the Lord execute judgment on them that do not believe the gospel when He comes to be glorified in the saints. In pretrib, doesn't this happen at separate comings? He also comes giving the _church_ rest from those causing it _tribulation_ in this passage.
I point stuff out like this, and I get stuff like your comment above-- just call my comment a diversion, and then you don't address the question. Your little comment is the diversion.
I did not lie about you. I didn't say anything about you specifically in the quote above. That's generally true of a lot of pretribbers, or a lot of people invested in their own interpretation and eschatology.
Do you have any evidence for pretrib that does not involve reading pretrib into allegorical passages (parables or apoctalyptic passages) that other eschatologies don't have other interpretations for? Do you have any answer to the challenges I have raised? Where is the actual scripture that teaches pretrib that justifies two returns of Christ reinterpreting parables and visions to be about one or the other return of Christ?
That's not what I am asking for. I am asking for verses that teach pre-trib, not verses that contain absolutely no evidence for it that you assume are pretrib or interpret through a pretrib grid or read pretrib into. With Revelation 14, I pointed out that right before the angel harvesting scene, it says that those who die in the Lord are blessed, and the grape harvest scene shows a lot of blood, so you are just assuming the grain harvest scene is what... some kind of rapture, even though there is a 'death' theme before and after it? And you do not even think it refers to the I Thessalonians 4 rapture? so what's your point? I asked and you did not explain. That's not a persuasive assumption.
In those passages, what is it about the passage that makes it pretrib. I've heard pretribbers say that the church will be in heaven for seven years like a seven day wedding feast, but we get to chapter 19, and the wedding hasn't happened yet. It's announced right before Jesus comes down to the earth and there is 'the first resurrection'. That lines up with I Thessalonians 4, since the dead in Christ are raised first right before the rapture and the remaining saints are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. That is stronger evidence for Jesus coming back after the tribulation.
What I am asking for is why.... what is the scripture that leads you to read pretrib into I Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 19? Also, if the thief in the night passage in Matthew 24 is in the passage with 'as the days of Noah were' in Matthew 24, and it is supposed to be about a pretrib rapture, then why about the coming of the Lord, then why does Revelation 16:25 say,
"Behold I come as a thief."
That is after the time when many pretribbers think the rapture happened (ch. 3-4), and after the verse in Revelation 14 you referenced.
And how do you handle Matthew 24? So at first, you have the coming of the Son of man AFTER the tribulation in the passage. Then without any contextual evidence, you take the reference to the coming of the Son of man in the 'as the days of Noah were' as being about seven years earlier to a pretrib rapture time Then what, does the passage switch back to seven years later talking about the second coming. Really read through Matthew 24 without trying to read pretrib into it.
Let's look here at Matthew 24
So we have these verses that look like they could be referring to a rapture, gathering the elect, similar to Paul's use of 'gathering' in II Thessalonians 2:1.
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.
But no, pretribbers say the rapture occurred seven years before. But when they get to this, it's supposed to switch to seven years before without warning.
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.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
But at verse 43, do you have it switch again to seven years later, without warning, to refer to a separate second coming event? Revelation 16 still warns about His coming as a thief that late in the book.
I'm trying. Also, you don't have to go loggerheads over everything. If you spend time typing a message, I would imagine you'd want people to be able to focus on what you are saying. I told you a little about how quotes work. I'm not sure what happened to that last quote, but it made sense directed at your posts. I don't know what the chastening memo is. I've got mainly fundraising messages in my Inbox.
After all this conversation, you finally tried put together some argument as to why you think this passage first your viewpoint. And it doesn't say commerce all continues as normal or that people do not eat in caves. It says they will be marrying and giving in marriage and eating and drinking. And for most of human history, these things have gone on. There could be some time of reprieve during which people celebrate for the relief before His coming also.
I just stick with what the passage says. It says these 'beginning of sorrows' and other difficult things will happen, and then tells us the coming of the Son of man happens immediately after the tribulation. It also says that as there was eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage up until the flood came, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with scripture, not me. And creating a whole second coming event and a whole separate resurrection to solve this is extreme and unreasonable. Do you have any scripture that teaches two comings of Christ to justify reading it into this passage?
The passage continues on to warn about a thief breaking in at an unexpected hour. 'Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh' is says. But the warning 'Behold I come as a thief' also shows up in Revelation 16, after the time pretribbers would have set Christ's coming.
Quote
"... tells us the coming of the Son of man happens immediately after the tribulation. It also says that as there was eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage up until the flood came, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.""
Lol
You just destroyed your own deal of "one coming", and are most likely, oblivious to it.
Yes the pretrib setting that Jesus said was the setting of His coming is OPPOSITE the setting at the second coming" ( your one and only supposed coming on white horses.)
Ahem... no normal everyday life at you supposed one and only coming.
Your assertion of "see, there is only one coming", in the same breath you describe 2 separate comings is a losing proposition.
You are basically saying Jesus is confused about the two comings , you yourself, are now finally admitting to.
You just admitted to a preflood coming.
Now that you finally read it for what it says, let's keep going.
Before the flood, one taken, one left.
Who are you saying this preflood gathering is of?
What group ?
my post;
Your reply:
".....But not every reference to a harvest is a reference to a resurrection, which is the key issue here. The harvest of grapes involved blood up to the horse's bridle. Do you think that refers to the resurrection?"
I do believe that Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection....as Paul says Christ the firstfruits and afterward they that are His at His coming"
I never said every harvest has a resurrection.
You are spinning what I said.
The 144,000 are in fact firstfruits.
That prefaces a harvest as next.
You are not able to connect the dots?
1) they CANNOT BE firstfruits of a resurrection. That is Jesus' realm.
2) they can not be 1 Thessalonians 4.
3) they can not be the coming on white horses.
Look, your doctrine does not know who those of rev 14 are , what purpose they are of,or how they are firstfruits.
I mean how can you muddy that up any further???????
Rev 14 means and says EXACTLY what is there.
You aren't making much sense here. Up is the opposite of down. Yes is the opposite of now, but why would your theory of a pretrib rapture be the opposite of the second coming?
Nothing about what I posted is evidence for your assertions above. I can't read your mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make. Obviously, I do not read the idea of 'the 7 year great tribulation' period into this text, and I would point out that the passage does not imply that. You need to differentiate what the text actually says from your interpretation of it.
From the chapter we can conclude that.
1. The coming of the Son of man is after the great tribulation.
2. The coming of the Son of man will be like the days of Noah in that people ate and drank and gave in marriage until the flood came.
The idea that the flood is a reference pretrib rapture is in your mind, not in the passage.
Ahem... no normal everyday life at you supposed one and only coming.
Also, let us show some respect. You wrote,
Jesus did not mention pretrib in the passage. Again lets us show our Lord respect and not pretend that He said something that is not mentioned in the passage.
These are the kind of nonsense circular arguments you've been making. Again, I am asking why you think a reference to a flood means there is a pretrib rapture. That seems to be your argument here. I obviously don't share this assumption, so the way you post about it seems extremely strange and childish to me, especially since you aren't really explaining what you believe and why and leaving me to guess and infer.
If you wanted to explain why you think a reference to the flood implies or requires a pretrib rapture, please _explain_ it... but not this rhetorical nonsense.
I did not say that. Do not pretend like Jesus said anything about two parousies in the passage.
Confusion? Delusion? Dishonesty? I really don't know which.
The flood took most people away in judgment. But if the elect mentioned earlier who are gathered from one horizon to another are being referenced, that could be another interpretation there. In either case, you have shown no reference to a pretrib rapture here. You assume it, read it into the passage, but do not explain how or why.
Here it is again.
Unbelievably plain.
No changes needed.
Mat 24
38;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.
yep....
Jesus coming in a "before the flood" setting.
Jesus coming in a normal life setting, (PREFLOOD),where there's planning for the future and every day life.
Jesus coming prior to judgement. (PREFLOOD)
At Jesus coming one will be taken and another one left behind...PREFLOOD
Jesus said half of a group are taken.
50% are taken, and 50% are left behind.(PREFLOOD)
In Luke, Jesus uses Lot and Noah as pretrib rapture setting.
Exact same message. PRETRIB REMOVAL.
.....pretrib judgement REMOVAL
( so any hope of trying to change the components in those two side by side analogies by Jesus is way off)
Since you don't believe any of that, and actually introduce dynamics to change it, no wonder you are saying my quoting of Jesus is not making sense.
QUOTE
" Again, I am asking why you think a reference to a flood means there is a pretrib rapture. That seems to be your argument here."
You doctrine omits the setting.
You are not getting anywhere because you are "flood centered".
Jesus uses Lot and Noah together, to form a picture in ALAGORY of HIS COMING.
Both settings, BY JESUS, are pretrib.
Vividly.
( to you both setting Jesus used are to be cast down)
The Holy Spirit was involved in those words by Jesus.
just inject into your doctrine that Jesus was confused and actually got the setting wrong in every rapture verse, and he meant to say the rapture is post Sodom, and post flood, ahem...postrib.
( your doctrines incredibly changed setting)
( no preflood coming and no presodom removal of Gods people, as JESUS DEPICTED VIVIDLY and coming. That is rebellion against God's word.)
that bible is a doctrine destroyer.
@Psalm 1
This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. The scriptures are great. But I could quote 'Judas went and hanged himself'---and say 'see it says not the eat chocolate on the weekend. It doesn't prove my case.
Show me chapter and verse that a reference to the 'flood' means the pretrib rapture. Again, look at the passage. The coming of the Son of man is 'after the tribulation of those days' and as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man.
It doesn't say that exactly 50% will be taken. 50% of the two people in the scenario, but it doesn't say 50% of the world.
The flood analogy is set AFTER the tribulation according to the passage.
Again, show me chapter and verse where it says that any reference to the flood is a reference to a pretribulational rapture. Or you could also just show any verse of scripture at all that teaches a pretribulational rapture. But don't use passages that explicitly refer to a post-tribulational setting as Matthew 24 does.
Your response does not address the issue. Show me some evidence that references to the flood somehow refer to a pretrib scenario. Don't just keep asserting it without evidence... don't keep asserting it contrary to the evidence since the passage in Matthew sets the coming of the Son of man after the tribulation.
Then let us treat the words with respect and not add ideas that are not in the passage that are contrary to what it says, without any evidence at all to back it up. You are basically insisting you are right without even arguing a case.
The flood analogy is set AFTER the tribulation. The coming of the Son of man is explicitely AFTER THE TRIBULATION. You are just insisting it refers to the tribulation, but the passage does not say that. What I am saying does NOT present Jesus as confused when His words set the coming of the Son of man 'after the tribulation of those days' after calling it 'great tribulation.'
You are confused. Read II Thessalonians 2. Jesus executes vengeance on them that know not God when He comes to be glorified in the saints (wouldn't you have him be glorified in the saints seven years earlier.) The judgment at the second coming, after the tribulation, will be severe.
This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. The scriptures are great. But I could quote 'Judas went and hanged himself'---and say 'see it says not the eat chocolate on the weekend. It doesn't prove my case.
Show me chapter and verse that a reference to the 'flood' means the pretrib rapture. Again, look at the passage. The coming of the Son of man is 'after the tribulation of those days' and as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man.
It doesn't say that exactly 50% will be taken. 50% of the two people in the scenario, but it doesn't say 50% of the world.
The flood analogy is set AFTER the tribulation according to the passage.
Again, show me chapter and verse where it says that any reference to the flood is a reference to a pretribulational rapture. Or you could also just show any verse of scripture at all that teaches a pretribulational rapture. But don't use passages that explicitly refer to a post-tribulational setting as Matthew 24 does.
Your response does not address the issue. Show me some evidence that references to the flood somehow refer to a pretrib scenario. Don't just keep asserting it without evidence... don't keep asserting it contrary to the evidence since the passage in Matthew sets the coming of the Son of man after the tribulation.
Then let us treat the words with respect and not add ideas that are not in the passage that are contrary to what it says, without any evidence at all to back it up. You are basically insisting you are right without even arguing a case.
The flood analogy is set AFTER the tribulation. The coming of the Son of man is explicitely AFTER THE TRIBULATION. You are just insisting it refers to the tribulation, but the passage does not say that. What I am saying does NOT present Jesus as confused when His words set the coming of the Son of man 'after the tribulation of those days' after calling it 'great tribulation.'
You are confused. Read II Thessalonians 2. Jesus executes vengeance on them that know not God when He comes to be glorified in the saints (wouldn't you have him be glorified in the saints seven years earlier.) The judgment at the second coming, after the tribulation, will be severe.
Now that it has done so, admit it and move on.