Pre Trib or Post trib rapture?

  • 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.
I agree that such a belief is bizarre, but who believes that pretribbers "a "wicked person rapture" before the trib."

I can't speak for all pretribbers, but I take the passages about 'one shall be taken and the other left' to refer to events that occur at the coming of the Son of man AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS as the passage says.

People who do not hold to your eschatology do not read your eschatology into the passages. They aren't pretribbers.

I am also open when it comes to eschatology, and hold certain points tentatively, but pre-trib is pretty low on the list as being a possible alternative. It's more far-fetched than partial preterism, but much less so than full preterism, IMO.

I'd like you to explain how you think the parousia changes to a different even between II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8.... and why does II Thessalonians 1 set the judgment and wrath on unbelievers at the same time as giving the saints rest from those causing tribulation?
QUOTE
"I am also open when it comes to eschatology, and hold certain points tentatively, but pre-trib is pretty low on the list as being a possible alternative. It's more far-fetched than partial preterism, but much less so than full preterism, IMO."

All rapture verses are pretrib setting.
None are postrib setting
Maybe you have one? ( besides Rev 14:14)
Post one for me.
Should be easy since you are advocating a setting of no commerce without the mark, no normal life , and satanic rule.

I agree that such a belief is bizarre, but who believes that pretribbers "a "wicked person rapture" before the trib."

I can't speak for all pretribbers, but I take the passages about 'one shall be taken and the other left' to refer to events that occur at the coming of the Son of man AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS as the passage says.

People who do not hold to your eschatology do not read your eschatology into the passages. They aren't pretribbers.

I am also open when it comes to eschatology, and hold certain points tentatively, but pre-trib is pretty low on the list as being a possible alternative. It's more far-fetched than partial preterism, but much less so than full preterism, IMO.

I'd like you to explain how you think the parousia changes to a different even between II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8.... and why does II Thessalonians 1 set the judgment and wrath on unbelievers at the same time as giving the saints rest from those causing tribulation?
.
When, in relationship to the flood,are the "wicked taken and the righteous remain"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amargosa
When Jesus returns in all His glory

Then the saved will be raised and the living will meet the Lord in the air.

1Th 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Pre trib is not biblical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ruthie
QUOTE by presidente
"What do your comments have to do with the verses you quote.
The setting of the coming of the Son of man is not before the flood."
SMH
Not according to Jesus.
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 ..."

CHANGE IT AROUND.
MAKE IT SAY WHAT IT DOES NOT.
GO AHEAD.
IT READS EXACTLY LIKE IT SAYS.
 
When Jesus returns in all His glory

Then the saved will be raised and the living will meet the Lord in the air.

1Th 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Pre trib is not biblical.
You posted a pretrib rapture verse.

You can say " the resurrection is not biblical" over and over, it will still be your error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amargosa
May I ask if you think there is any evidence at all at what you just pointed out to answer the question, or are you agreeing with me? It is not clear to me and I don't know your eschatology.

I asked:
"Where is the evidence from any scripture to posit an additional coming of Jesus? The pre tribulational rapture theory does that without any evidence and then reinterprets passages of scripture around that even passages like this where it obviously defies the context."

The word translated 'meet' in I Thessalonians 4:17 is used on a number of occasions in Greek to refer to going out to meet someone who is 'heading your way' and escort him to where you came from. Sometimes this is an official context, a dignitary or such.
Liddell–Scott–Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon is one of the major dictionaries for ancient Greek. In the entry for ἀπάντησις, that lexicon lists ordinary “meeting” usage, cites Polybius 5.26.8 and Diodorus 18.59, and separately notes an “escort” sense at Polybius 5.43.3. A second major source, Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, says the word had become something like a technical term for the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary. That does not mean the noun itself always guarantees a return to the exact place the greeters came from, but it does show that the word naturally fits scenes where people go out to meet an arriving person and then accompany him onward.

Classical example 1: Polybius 5.26.8
Greek: εἰς τὴν ἀπάντησιν
Transliteration: eis tēn apantēsin
Translation: “for the meeting / reception”

In this scene, leading men at Corinth stir up the young men to go out in reception of the arriving figure. The point is not a random encounter but a public welcome.
Classical example 2: Diodorus Siculus 18.59.3
Greek: ἀπάντησιν … ἐποιήσαντο τῷ Εὐμενεῖ
Transliteration: apantēsin … epoiēsanto tō Eumenei
Translation: “they made a meeting / reception for Eumenes”

Here Eumenes’ supporters go out some distance to receive him. Again, the scene is one of deliberate reception, not mere accidental contact.
New Testament example: Acts 28:15 (KJV)
KJV: “And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and The three taverns...”
Greek: ἦλθαν εἰς ἀπάντησιν ἡμῖν
Transliteration: ēlthan eis apantēsin hēmin
Translation: “they came out to meet us”

The believers come out from Rome to meet Paul on the road; then the narrative continues into Rome. This is a very natural example of going out to meet an arriving party and then continuing with them.

Matthew 25:6 (KJV)
KJV: “Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.”
Greek: ἐξέρχεσθε εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτοῦ
Transliteration: exerchesthe eis apantēsin autou
Translation: “go out to meet him”

Brief explanation: in the parable, the virgins go out to meet the bridegroom, and the story then moves to going in with him. That narrative flow again fits reception rather than mere encounter.

So lets look at I Thessalonians 4. The Lord Jesus returns, and we go up to meet him and escort Him back. That's the most straightforward interpretation, that fits the wording, IMO, and not just my view of course. That was a view that existed before 1827 or whenever Darby came up with his interpretation.
You got it backwards from the bible

1) in the Jewish weddind the bride NEVER escorted the groom back to her house
2) in mat 25 the GROOM TAKES THE BRIDE TO THE MARRIAGE CHAMBER

Mat 25
10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh

No way can you honestly make God's word into a "bride uturn"

.....but you do it in error anyway.

Yet another postrib rapture doctrine made up fallacy.
 
When Jesus returns in all His glory

Then the saved will be raised and the living will meet the Lord in the air.

1Th 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Pre trib is not biblical.

Why aren’t “the saved” mentioned after Revelation chapter 3? (Excluding the last chapter of Revelation, which is the epilogue of the book.)
 
You got it backwards from the bible

1) in the Jewish weddind the bride NEVER escorted the groom back to her house
2) in mat 25 the GROOM TAKES THE BRIDE TO THE MARRIAGE CHAMBER

Mat 25
10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh

No way can you honestly make God's word into a "bride uturn"

.....but you do it in error anyway.

Yet another postrib rapture doctrine made up fallacy.
I did not say they escorted her back to her house.

It's hard to discuss with you because you keep making up ideas other people do not think or say and attributing it to them.

I'll admit to using AI to organize that last message. The bridegroom thing has them meeting with the bride and going, in this case somewhere else. There are other cases where the hosts or the people that live at that location meet the individual and escort said individual back. Just imagine going to pick up someone at the airport and bringing that person home. In Paul's case, people met him on a ship instead of an airplane. That is still a possibility with boat travel.


Let's look at Acts 1. The men said that Jesus would return the same way He went up. If we read the passage, we don't see Jesus ascending, coming back to earth for 7 years, then ascending again.... which would be the case if we were to expect it to happen the same way as with the pretrib rapture scenario.
 
QUOTE by presidente
"What do your comments have to do with the verses you quote.
The setting of the coming of the Son of man is not before the flood."
SMH
Not according to Jesus.
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 ..."

CHANGE IT AROUND.
MAKE IT SAY WHAT IT DOES NOT.
GO AHEAD.
IT READS EXACTLY LIKE IT SAYS.

Look at the actual 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.

It's the lack of preparedness, the eating and drinking, etc. up until the day that is the same.

You asked for a timeline. I do not believe the flood happens right before the tribulation or right after it or right before or after the coming of the Son of Man.

The flood happened thousands of years before Jesus was born. I don't think any pretribber would agree with you if you disagree with that.

And don't be a smart alec with that part in capital letters. Your saying stuff like that doesn't convince other people, either. Also, why don't you explain why II Thessalonians has the unbelievers getting wrath executed on them when Jesus comes to be glorified in the saints, and 'parousia' changing in meaning between II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8. Does the word refer to the same event in those verses or not. Don't dodge the question.

If you want to see what you confused in my last posts or ideas you attributed to me, go back and re-read my messages carefully where I pointed it out. I don't have time to guess at what you are trying to say or guess at what you think I am saying if you won't spell it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
The outstanding, unanswered question remains: Why isn’t the church mentioned after Revelation chapter 3?
'Church' in the book of Revelation is only used of congregations (at the city level) not for the body of Christ throughout the earth.

But the word 'church' is used to refer to the church at the end of the tribulation/(trouble, see Greek word) in II Thessalonians 1, when Christ comes back executing wrath on them that no not God when He comes to be glorified in the saints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
Look at the actual 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.

It's the lack of preparedness, the eating and drinking, etc. up until the day that is the same.

You asked for a timeline. I do not believe the flood happens right before the tribulation or right after it or right before or after the coming of the Son of Man.

The flood happened thousands of years before Jesus was born. I don't think any pretribber would agree with you if you disagree with that.

And don't be a smart alec with that part in capital letters. Your saying stuff like that doesn't convince other people, either. Also, why don't you explain why II Thessalonians has the unbelievers getting wrath executed on them when Jesus comes to be glorified in the saints, and 'parousia' changing in meaning between II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8. Does the word refer to the same event in those verses or not. Don't dodge the question.

If you want to see what you confused in my last posts or ideas you attributed to me, go back and re-read my messages carefully where I pointed it out. I don't have time to guess at what you are trying to say or guess at what you think I am saying if you won't spell it out.
When is the wicked removed in Jesus analogy?
Skip all the defectiveness you find in me.
I don't have time for that nonsense.
Answer honestly.
I don't have time to guess at your generalization of mat 24.
Address the timeline of the wicked gathered.
We all know the flood represents the trib.
When, in relationship to the setting of Jesus analogy are the "supposed wicked of your doctrine " group taken?

When?
 
'Church' in the book of Revelation is only used of congregations (at the city level) not for the body of Christ throughout the earth.

But the word 'church' is used to refer to the church at the end of the tribulation/(trouble, see Greek word) in II Thessalonians 1, when Christ comes back executing wrath on them that no not God when He comes to be glorified in the saints.
Let me guess.
The special word for church you are getting at , is due to the problems you have with Jesus escape verse.
Ahem to the church.

Rev 3
....... I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth
 
  • Heart
Reactions: Amargosa
When is the wicked removed in Jesus analogy?
Skip all the defectiveness you find in me.
I don't have time for that nonsense.
Answer honestly.
I don't have time to guess at your generalization of mat 24.
Address the timeline of the wicked gathered.
We all know the flood represents the trib.
When, in relationship to the setting of Jesus analogy are the "supposed wicked of your doctrine " group taken?

When?
It's in the passage. It's at the coming of the Son of Man. Compare this to II Thessalonians 1.
  • When will the church receive rest from tribulation?
    When our Lord Jesus Christ is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels.
  • When will God recompense trouble to those who trouble His people?
    At the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ from heaven.
  • When will those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ be punished?
    When He comes to be glorified in His saints.
Stop avoiding the questions. Why does this passage teach that the church receives rest from tribulation/trouble (θλῖψις) at the revelation of Jesus from heaven, if you teach that the church won't be here for the tribulation?

And why are the saints here for Jesus to be glorified when Jesus comes executing vengeance on them that know not God?

And is the coming/parousia in II Thessalonians 1:1 the same as the coming in 2:8, just seven verses later.
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
...
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Why would it change in meaning within just that many verses? and if you believe it does, what evidence could you point to from the context for this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
Let me guess.
The special word for church you are getting at , is due to the problems you have with Jesus escape verse.
Ahem to the church.

Rev 3
....... I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth
That first bit was word salad. I am not sure what you are saying.


If you think think that verse is referring to the tribulation, what about the 'church' people in all the other churches?

I've also heard the church ages interpretation, which puts this at an age prior to the tribulation. There is no mention of keeping that particular congregation from the trial by means of the rapture mentioned in that verse.
 
Umm… The first three chapters of Revelation are all about the church.
No, not really. Revelation 1:1 says the book is about things which must shortly come to pass. Revelation 1:19 says John is to write the things which he has seen, what is, and what will come hereafter. Writing about the church was simply writing about what is at that time. So that's why he wrote what he did in chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 1 isn't about the church. It's about the risen Christ.

Can you give me a 1 or 2 sentence overview of the book of Revelation?

Is there another book you know in the Bible that has the same outline as the book of Revelation?