@Psalm1
If events that happen simultaneously are written at exactly the same space on the page in scripture, then one set of letters would be written on top of another (like printing twice on the same side of a paper) and we wouldn't be able to read the text.
That was your idea not mine. We have other scripture. Paul sets the rapture at the coming of Christ. He also sets the destruction of the lawless one at the Lord's coming. (Notice this is several verses away to a reference to the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto him, in which 'our' refers to Paul and 'church' people). But in Revelation, when it gives detail, it has to mention one thing then another. We read about the Rider on the white horse, the beast being thrown into the lake of fire, the resurrection of the dead... and then the milennium.
Also, an anouncement of the wedding supper of the Lamb is right before this. The bride is made ready... then we see the scene of Christ on the white horse, the destruction of the beast, and the first resurrection. We know that the dead in Christ and the church are 'raptured' at His coming from I Thessalonians 4, which helps us understand more what is going on in this scene.
Since all this works without having to create an addition rapture event... why invent one. What is the justification for that?
Again, this is your assumption. We know from scripture that the saints meet the Lord in the air as He descends. The dead in Christ and we which are alive and remain are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. The Lord returns with His saints.
When you interpreted Revelation 19 and put in your comments, there was nothing in your text that demanded or required your scenario to be the case. I have heard pretribbers do this with II Thessalonians 2, ignoring the contradictions, but explaining how they think it fits in with their pretrib theory. But what they aren't doing is giving justificaiton for the actual theory they are trying to wrap these passages around.
Where does the idea come from... in the first place... that Jesus comes back twice, that there is a previous rapture event, that the 'coming', the parousia, of II Thessalonians 1 is a separate event from that of verse 8?
I may not quote whatever verse is popping in your head at the time because I am posting not you. You complain about 'omissions' but then you haven't clearly explained why whatever verse you think was omitted from a discussion supports pretrib in some clear way. I'm supposed to read your mind and agree with whatever interpretation you hold to.
According to the book of Revelation it is the revelation of Jesus Christ, so if you have a problem with what the passage says, take it up with Him. I did not write it.
Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection. Christ the first fruits, and afterward they that are His at His coming, Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15. He doesn't say afterward they that are His seven years before His coming, or that Christ comes back twice.
It must be rather uncomfortable for you, though, to have an interpretation system like yours, and not have any actual scripture that teaches that the rapture happens pretrib, then read and see a separate second coming (since you read the idea that it is separate into the passage based on your theory) and then BOOM, a reference to the FIRST resurrection after the second coming. Uh-0h, how do we handle it.... let's make the coming of the Lord multi-part.
If I were going to believe something like that, I'd go with partial preterism. It's more reasonable, and handles some issues.
This is such a strained interpretation. If you are going to hold to such a tenuous view... do you have some sort of evidence from somewhere for a separate parousia and resurrection event elsewhere in scripture? You have demonstrated that you are very capable of assuming pretrib is true, then trying to read it into passages like Revelation 19 and Matthew 24. You take allegorical type passages and try to make an image in a vision or a feature of a parable fit with some concept from the pre-trib rapture. But where do you find a passage that actually lays out or teaches pretrib to justify interpreting parables and visions through this framework?
That's one reason I'm not pretrib. It's circular. One assumes pretrib, and therefore this passage must be interpreted in a pretrib way, but then I use the passage to argue for pretrib. It feels like circular reasoning. And I don't see any good onramp (scripture that teaches it or something) as an onramp to the circular highway of pretrib reasoning.
Then there is the implied idea that God is angry at the tribulational saints, that because they suffer, God's wrath must be upon them. But the Bible presents them heroically, loving not their lives even unto death, robes washed in the blood of the Lamb, overcoming the Devil by the blood of the Lamb and the word of His testimony.
I know a lot of pretribbers can have a lot of emotion (and time) invested in pretrib. And they have elaborate systems of how this passage and that passage fits into pretrib, and letting go of it requires letting go of an intepretation system. But I don't see where any scripture justifies pretrib, and it contradicts passages like the ones I mentioned.
There is a set of questions I have challenged you with multiple times. I will reiterate one, and I'll take your not answering... again... as implicit evidence that you just do not have an answer.
What justification is there from II Thessalonians 2 to take the reference to the parousia (coming) of Christ in verse 1-- which also references the rapture, to be a separate event from the parousia in verse 8, the destruction of the lawless one (which we agree occurs at the second coming)?
