The Doctrinal Belief of a Pre-Tribulation Resurrection. Is not spoken of in the Word of God. It was created by a sick and deranged woman

Eph 5;5 is a bonus.
We see the kingdom of Christ/God/heaven all the same thing

Lol
Your guy followed the serpentine trail to attack a biblical doctrine.

Proves my earlier point.
The pretrib rapture attackers are centered in disenfranchisement. It is their life and drive.
Not their correctness,but their obsession with disproving a group centering on the bible.
Misguided starting place.

This is blatantly false. It is a part of anti-Pretribulation Rapture propaganda. FAKE NEWS. Sick and deranged.

The Pretribulation Resurrection/Rapture is a biblical doctrine which is based upon that fact that Christ must first come FOR His saints before He comes WITH His saints at the Second Coming. See John 14:1-3 and many other passages.

The Tribulation and the Great Tribulation are for the unbelieving and the ungodly. They have no bearing on the Church. And you will not find the words "church" or "churches" from Revelation chapter 6 onwards (which describe the events of the Tribulation and Great Tribulation).

The whole sorry history can be read in a book titled The incredible cover-up by Dave MacPherson published in 1975 by Logos International MacPherson spent years following the the serpentine paper trail to discover the truth about all this. The book is unfortunately out of print but second hand copies could be obtained at Amazon where I managed to get one about a year ago.

I Jesus have sent mine Angel to testify unto you these things in the Churches. I am the root and offspring of David and the bright and morning star

Some of the most highly regarded 19th Century Evangelists and Theologians wrote about and condemned this
doctrine at its conception. It is cultic in its origins and those who believe in it are being deluded.
As for being obsessed with disproving a group centring on the Bible would you say the same about writers who
set about disproving the Jehovah Witness and Later Day Saint doctrines. Both of those cults centre on the Bible as well
and often come up with seemingly convincing arguments for their beliefs. If a JW came to you with their doctrine
would you believe them? I assume not so why should I believe a Pre Tribber?

Her vision is pretrib.
Her interpretation is postrib(she believed that the church needed the gt for cleansing and purification)
So she believed the church goes through the gt.
Postrib confusion. She seemed to have it.

The Apostle Paul was the originator. Clearly. I really don't know why all the debate.

And this goes back to Revelation 1:1: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

This has nothing to do with the fact that the Church or churches are not even mentioned from Rev 6-18 (the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation). Which is what is being promoted by the Anti-Pretribulation Rapture crowd.

So for those who wish to follow the biblical sequence of future event, since we are in the midst of the Great Apostasy, here is what we see ON EARTH (while the saints are in Heaven):

1. The present Great Apostasy
2. The Resurrection/Rapture of the Church
3. The Holy Spirit -- the Restrainer -- taken out of the way
4. The third temple built in Jerusalem
5. The reign of the Antichrist as well as the Tribulation Period
6. The Great Tribulation following the Abomination of Desolation
7. Cataclysmic cosmic events -- sun, moon, stars, the heavens
8. The Second Coming of Christ with His saints and angels
9. The Battle of Armageddon followed by the utter destruction of all Christ's enemies
10. The gathering of the believing Jewish remnant to Israel
11. The Millennium
12. All events from Revelation 20-22.

I do wish you'd knock-off the drama-queen routine. Pre-trib is an extra-biblical idea. Nothing more. It certainly isn't a test to measure the faith of Christians- whether they believe it or not.

It's a teaching that is based upon nothing but assumption. It assumes a pretrib rapture, and then interprets Scripture to conform to a pre-trib understanding, instead of allowing our understanding to conform to Scripture.”

Was Paul confused? Not a chance. He conveyed what was told him by Jesus Himself via direct revelation. Furthermore, there are hints, types and patterns of the pre-trib Rapture peppered throughout the OT. The pre-trib Rapture is doctrinal boilerplate.

Was Paul confused? Not a chance. He conveyed what was told him by Jesus Himself via direct revelation. Furthermore, there are hints, types and patterns of the pre-trib Rapture peppered throughout the OT. The pre-trib Rapture is doctrinal boilerplate.

Paul didn't teach a pre-trib rapture. He taught a resurrection/rapture. I don't see it in the Prophets or the NT. It's a fantasy that appeals to a modern, comfortable Western church.

How in the world can you get pre-trib from Paul's writings? Post-trib makes sense. Pre-trib, no, not unless you postulate mutiple returns of Christ or a return of Christ that last for as long as the tribulation.

Pre-trib makes everything work. Ties up all loose ends. Nothing else does.
Christ comes twice, the first time to meet/keep his Bride from wrath (at the home of the Bride BTW) at ANY MOMENT and takes her to the room prepared John 14 (Pauls mystery newly revealed), and then the end of the 70th week preceded by massive signs incl Dan 9 etc. with these Saints in devastating judgement where every eye will see Him to His earthly throne to fulfill all prophecy and satisfy all covenants.

Why doesn't the Bible actually say that Jesus comes back twice, then. Can you show me the scriptures that teach this? Show me where Paul taught that.

23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Kingdom of God/heaven is the same thing.
Iow at the last of acts we find your doctrine debunked.

Your welcome.
I knew you were not going to investigate it.

I never said the Letter from Margaret MacDonald was accurate because it is not, which is why the Pre-Trib doctrine is a false teaching.

Do you know what the eye of the needle is?