Pre Trib or Post trib rapture?

[Amargosa]

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.

Darby? No.

Now, the term, “Premillenialist” means someone who believes Christ will return just before His millennial (thousand year) reign on earth. In reality, the early church believed in a “Pretribulation” return of Christ for His “Bride” the church, composed of believing Christians. The tribulation is a seven-year period of God’s wrath, foretold by the prophet Daniel that occurs before the millennial reign of Christ. This return is called the rapture. (Greek: harpazo = Latin: rapture) Saint Victorius, Bishop of Petau, wrote of the pretribulation return when he wrote a Revelation commentary about the church being taken out. So did Pseudo Ephraem in AD 372.

These were not mere theories of men but actual teachings from the Bible itself. In John 14:1-3 Jesus says he will return for His own. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 says that Christ will come for His people then, in 1 Thessalonians 5:3, comes the destruction and verse 9 calls it God’s wrath. This is verified by 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, 1 Corinthians 15:51-58 and James 5:7-9, all of which speak of the pretribulation return of Christ. Its purpose is to keep believers safe from the approaching global crisis.

There’s nothing secret about it, since it is found in the Bible verses I’ve listed. Darby did not come up with anything “new” and many mistakenly credit him with the idea of the pretribulation “catching away” of believers. Reverend Morgan Edwards’ “The Millennium” (1788) predated Darby by seventy years. Joseph Mede also wrote about the Rapture. (1586-1638)

In reality, the various beliefs in mid-tribulation, pre-wrath and other raptures are the “new” ideas, not the longstanding belief in the imminent, pretribulation rapture of the Christian church. Pre-tribulation simply means that the Rapture of the church must precede the seven years of tribulation.

The rapture of the church will be swift and without warning. This is why every Christian should live as though this is the day that Christ will return.

 

[presidente]

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?

Jesus said that as the days of Noah were, so shall also shall the coming of the Son of man be. There will be marrying and giving in marriage. He already set the time of the coming of the Son of man AFTER the tribulation of those days. Remember the scriptures also say that when they shall say 'Peace and safety' then sudden destruction shall come upon them.

There is nothing in all that that says there will be two second comings, two coming of the Son of man type events at the end of the age.

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

Don't be disingenuous. We have discussed this, and I have posted on it, especially the fact that the coming of the Son of man is set AFTER the tribulation, and that there are several analogies that warn against lack of preparedness-- Noah, the thief arriving at an unexpected hour, the master returning when the servants do not expect it, the wise and foolish virgins.

That flood analogy is eating your lunch big time.

No, but why don't you explain why you think you've proven something somehow about pretrib.

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.

The first resurrection is recorded in Revelation 20. If you keep reading in Revelation 14, the grapes harvest involves blood.

( Final nail in your beliefs coffin)

Game
Set
Match.

Your arguing from a passage that says that the coming of the Son of man happens after the tribulation.... to argue for a pretrib coming of the Son of man, then boasting and scoffing like this. It is not befitting.

 

[TMS]

The tribulation is a seven-year period of God’s wrath, foretold by the prophet Daniel that occurs before the millennial reign of Christ.

The 7 years spoken of by Daniel has past.

There is no Biblical reason to cut the last 7 years of the 70 weeks and put them in the future.

Many people do this but the Bible gives no reason.

Read Daniel

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

70 weeks were determined to do the things above.. The jews failed.

They did not anoint the Messiah Jesus.

Dan 9:25 KJV Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

The prophecy begins with the "going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" Daniel 9:25
This decree was issued in its most complete form by Artaxerxes Longimanus in the seventh year of his reign, which corresponds to 457 B.C.
Ezra 7:7-26

Starting in 457bc.

The first seven weeks (49 years) of the prophecy were allotted to the physical restoration of Jerusalem's streets and walls, a work completed amidst significant opposition.

The prophecy identifies the exact time for the manifestation of the Savior through a specific timeline.

The 69 Weeks: A period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (483 years) extends from 457 B.C. to "Messiah the Prince" Daniel 9:25 He was Baptised in A.D. 27. Reckoning 483 full years from the autumn of 457 B.C. brings us to the autumn of A.D. 27, the very year Jesus was baptized and began His ministry, declaring, "The time is fulfilled"

The final week of the seventy (7 years) focuses on the confirmation of the covenant and the sacrificial death of Christ. During this last week, the Messiah confirms the New Covenant with many, initially through His personal ministry and later through His apostles.

In the "midst" or middle of this final week—three and a half years after His baptism—the Messiah was to be "cut off" Daniel 9:26-27
This perfectly matches the crucifixion of Jesus in the spring of A.D. 31, at which point He caused the typical sacrifices and oblations to cease by offering Himself as the true Lamb of God Matthew 27:51.

The seventy weeks (490 years) ended in A.D. 34, three and a half years after the crucifixion
Rejection of the Gospel: This date is marked by the martyrdom of Stephen and the formal rejection of the gospel by the Jewish Sanhedrin Acts 7:54-60
At this conclusion, the special period allotted to the Jews expired, and the apostles began to carry the gospel message to the Gentiles Acts 13:46.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,....

This has happened.. the 70 weeks finished in 34 ad..

 

[Amargosa]

The 7 years spoken of by Daniel has past.

There is no Biblical reason to cut the last 7 years of the 70 weeks and put them in the future.

Many people do this but the Bible gives no reason.

Read Daniel

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

70 weeks were determined to do the things above.. The jews failed.

They did not anoint the Messiah Jesus.

Dan 9:25 KJV Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

The prophecy begins with the "going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" Daniel 9:25
This decree was issued in its most complete form by Artaxerxes Longimanus in the seventh year of his reign, which corresponds to 457 B.C.
Ezra 7:7-26

Starting in 457bc.

The first seven weeks (49 years) of the prophecy were allotted to the physical restoration of Jerusalem's streets and walls, a work completed amidst significant opposition.

The prophecy identifies the exact time for the manifestation of the Savior through a specific timeline.

The 69 Weeks: A period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (483 years) extends from 457 B.C. to "Messiah the Prince" Daniel 9:25 He was Baptised in A.D. 27. Reckoning 483 full years from the autumn of 457 B.C. brings us to the autumn of A.D. 27, the very year Jesus was baptized and began His ministry, declaring, "The time is fulfilled"

The final week of the seventy (7 years) focuses on the confirmation of the covenant and the sacrificial death of Christ. During this last week, the Messiah confirms the New Covenant with many, initially through His personal ministry and later through His apostles.

In the "midst" or middle of this final week—three and a half years after His baptism—the Messiah was to be "cut off" Daniel 9:26-27
This perfectly matches the crucifixion of Jesus in the spring of A.D. 31, at which point He caused the typical sacrifices and oblations to cease by offering Himself as the true Lamb of God Matthew 27:51.

The seventy weeks (490 years) ended in A.D. 34, three and a half years after the crucifixion
Rejection of the Gospel: This date is marked by the martyrdom of Stephen and the formal rejection of the gospel by the Jewish Sanhedrin Acts 7:54-60
At this conclusion, the special period allotted to the Jews expired, and the apostles began to carry the gospel message to the Gentiles Acts 13:46.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,....

This has happened.. the 70 weeks finished in 34 ad..

Not passed at all. Check out this link: The final week of the 70 weeks.

The Final Week of the 70 Weeks
Of the 70 “sevens,” 69 have been fulfilled in history. This leaves one more “seven” yet to be fulfilled. Many scholars believe that we are now living in a huge gap between the 69th week and the 70th week. The prophetic clock has been paused, as it were. The final “seven” of Daniel is what we usually call the tribulation period.

 

[Psalm1]

Jesus said that as the days of Noah were, so shall also shall the coming of the Son of man be. There will be marrying and giving in marriage. He already set the time of the coming of the Son of man AFTER the tribulation of those days. Remember the scriptures also say that when they shall say 'Peace and safety' then sudden destruction shall come upon them.

There is nothing in all that that says there will be two second comings, two coming of the Son of man type events at the end of the age.

We have his word.
You are definately confusing it beyond any doubt.
You take the postrib 50-50 rapture gamble.
Jesus said "before the flood" /pretrib, then
Jesus said "after the trib"/postrib.
(The "after one" with no rapture of 1 thes 4)
HE said BOTH.

Postribbers can not handle that.
So...enter postrib solution.

Let's seeee.....we got us a postribber crossroad here. Which do we choose????
We like "after"
"AFTER" IT IS !!!!
As a bonus...it "fits our deal" so "perfect"!!!!!
Now to seal the deal....go after any challenge with personal baloney.
Repeat if necessary.

Then a guy with a bible comes along.

""You do realize that you're one and only 'after the tribulation post tribber foundational Stone', says nothing of the rapture, of first thesalonians chapter 4?
You do realize that, hopefully?
Well, no, they don't, and so when they're shown that Jesus does not gather after the trib, But angels do the gathering, (with Jesus in another location), and the gathering is up in heaven, and not on Earth, they don't have any answer at all. So they just flat out won't talk about it. Enter the old "omission doctrine strategy", that "works", only in their camp.

It doesn't work in the Bible. It works in their camp.
A never ending strategy to fool themselves.
Bizarre.

The bible teaches three distinct comings, and if you're just obsessed with changing the bible, then have at it.

****************the 3 comings******************
1) 1 thes 4 ptetrib rapture coming is:
a) Matthew twenty five the virgin parable
b) Acts chapter one "like manner"
c) Matthew, chapter 24 before the flood one taken the other 1 left behind.
And others confirming the pretrib rapture. Complete with the pretrib normal life setting that is impossible to cram into some made up postrib rapture.
2) Rev 14
The Jewish gathering, which post triplers are not allowed to investigate.
If they do get permission, they change who the 144000 R. And they changed their number and they climbed. Jesus sitting on a cloud holding a sickle is not really Jesus. Sitting on a cloud holding a sickle
3) Revelation 19 for Jesus comes as a judge. An avenger and a warrior on a white horse with millions of white horses, blackening the sky, just the only coming of the of the three where he comes in power and great chlori, the others are in no way are any shaped form empower and great glory.

It is beyond dishonest and disingenuous, to try to lead anybody to believe, that those 3 Comings are one and the same. It is so vivid and crystal clear in the bible that it is just beyond words.

 

[Psalm1]

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.

....and yet the main pillar of your deal is that dead men of the early church with limited revelation, believed in a postrib rapture.
Your entire deal is based on men's flawed perspective.
BTW, your main advocate of that flawed unbiblical postrib rapture doctrine, Uraneous, believed the wine and bread of the communion table transsubstatiaed into the actual body and blood of Jesus.
( and he is your doctrines cornerstone.)

The Catholics burned pretribbers and their writings.
Your founders did that.

You were sayin?


Note that the only people hollering; "DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL",
Are the ones basing their debunked beliefs, off of man's skewed perspective.

.....and celebrate their skewed founders as their main talking point.
"None of the ancient church fathers believed in a pretrib rapture"

Could be...who cares?
Maybe all postribbers should also believe in the deity of the communion bread, just to be consistent.

 

[presidente]

@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."

I take the passage as scripture. I also point out there is nothing in this passage that mentions or hints at a pretribulational rapture. This is speaking of the coming of the Son of Man, set 'after the tribulation.'

Matthew 24:30-29-30

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.

See that the coming of the Son of man is post-tribulational. The verses later in the passage, which you quote, are already set after the tribulation. You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.

You present straw man arguments, pretending those who are speaking to you are saying something they are not. You don't present an actual case. You don't address the arguments and scriptures that poke holes in pretrib.

What's your next argument? Is it, "Na na na na boo boo. I'm right and you are wrong"?

You are presenting yourself in a very immature manner.

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."

Let's look at scritpure.
Revelation 14
14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.

17 Then another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
18 And another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire, and he cried with a loud cry to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, “Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe.” 19 So the angel thrust his sickle into the earth and gathered the vine of the earth, and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses’ bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs. (NKJV)

You make some assumptions. You assume the harvest is the rapture, I presume. You are also assuming chronology, that these events in chapter 14 precede the events of chaters 19-20 rather than present a different depiction if it. Now if you read I Thessalonians 4, the dead and Christ rise first before 'we which are alive and remain' will be raptured into the air with them. Pay attention to the harvest in verse 18, a harvest of grapes, but blood up to the horse's bridles.

Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection
(NKJV)

Notice 'first resurrection' in verse 5. The resurrection of the dead in Christ occurs at the rapture. Also, let's back up a few verses into Revelation 19 and look at the events that are mentioned before it mentions the first resurrection. Let's compare to II Thessalonians 2:8.

Revelation 19
20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. (NKJV)

Notice this happens in Revelation 19, after mentioning the Rider on the white horse, on whose robe and thigh is written 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords' After that, we continue reading the beast is cast into the Lake of fire.
(NKJV)

Now compare to II Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming
(NKJV)

Aren't these passages in Revelation 19 and II Thessalonians 2:8 referring to the same event?

Compare to II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8.

II Thessalonians 2:1
Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, (NKJV)
...
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming
(NKJV)

Why would the 'coming' in verse 1 be a different event from the 'coming' in verse 8. I have asked you this many times. And I am pretty sure the reason you have not answered is because it pokes a big hole in your doctrine and you have no answer for it.

Also notice the 'thief' verse from Revelation 16.
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Notice that this is AFTER the harvest verse of Revelation 14. pretribbers like to use the following verse to refer to a pre-trib rapture:

Matthew 24
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 the passage sets the coming of the Son of Man AFTER the tribulation, as quoted earlier.


Another question is, why is there this announcement of the marriage supper of the Lamb and the Bride having been made ready in Revelation 19. We both take the Rider on a white horse passage to be the Second Coming, right? So why wasn't there a marriage supper seven years before or for seven years? Why the announcement right before the Second Coming.

Again, problems with pre-trib.
1. Scripture doesn't teach it.
2. No passage actually teaches two Parousia events.
3. It has to be read into texts that have no evidence for it.
4. There are passages that contradict it.
5. It doesn't fit well with other passages that might not flat out contradict it.

The marriage supper issue in Revelation 19 is at least 5 if not 4.

So you pretend I wrote things I didn't write, accuse me, and post immature drivel like in your last post, posturing, pretending like you are winning some kind of argument, boast about how you defeat some position you disagree with. You have scarcely articulated any kind of argument against what I have presented, or answered these questions.

Proverbs has a lot to say about the mocker. If you want to have an adult conversation, answer my points and objections above. Otherwise, we can both do something more useful with our time.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

I take the passage as scripture. I also point out there is nothing in this passage that mentions or hints at a pretribulational rapture. This is speaking of the coming of the Son of Man, set 'after the tribulation.'

Matthew 24:30-29-30

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.

I really do wonder if they'll recognize they are in the gt when it happens and if they'll recognize the antichrist so that they don't give allegiance to him or take his mark.

The guy you're corresponding with already admitted he'd take the mark to "obey him". That shows the state of his faith. It's what faith looks like when it's not built up in Christ to endure to the end.


🕊

 

[presidente]

....and yet the main pillar of your deal is that dead men of the early church with limited revelation, believed in a postrib rapture.

Your entire deal is based on men's flawed perspective.

BTW, your main advocate of that flawed unbiblical postrib rapture doctrine, Uraneous, believed the wine and bread of the communion table transsubstatiaed into the actual body and blood of Jesus.[/quote]

The man's name was Ireneaus--- 'Peace' not 'Heaven'/'Sky'.

This helps illustrate the fact that readers of scripture don't come up with pretrib just from reading scripture. Someone had to introduce the idea first, so people could get that framework in their head so they could read those ideas into scripture. Also, some of these men were a couple of generations from the apostles and heard teachings from those who may have learned their eschatology from the apostles. Like Irenaeus who learned from Polycarp, who learned from John.

Now what specific quotes from Irenaeus do you object to? Jesus said, 'This is my body....' If he just affirmed that, do you think he was affirming transubstantiation? Give the exact quotes and why you object to that. But even if he did not have perfect understanding of the matter, how would that make his eschatology false?

The Catholics burned pretribbers and their writings.

By the time Darby was born in 1800, the Roman Catholic v. Protestant wars had died down. Can you name one pretribber who was burned by Roman Catholics? Historically, your claim doesn't make sense. I'm not saying it isn't possible. Maybe some street thug who happened to identify as Roman Catholic burned a passerby who happened to be a pretribber, but I don't think you will find any church-sponsored burning of pre-tribbers. If you can, support your claim.

Note that the only people hollering; "DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL, DARBY FOUL",

Are the ones basing their debunked beliefs, off of man's skewed perspective.

They are objecting to other people getting their eschatology from Darby.

 

[Psalm1]

@Psalm1


I take the passage as scripture. I also point out there is nothing in this passage that mentions or hints at a pretribulational rapture. This is speaking of the coming of the Son of Man, set 'after the tribulation.'

Matthew 24:30-29-30

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.

See that the coming of the Son of man is post-tribulational. The verses

You are presenting yourself in a very immature manner.



Let's look at scritpure.
Revelation 14
14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on

17 Then another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
18 And another angel came out from the altar, came out of the winepress, up to the horses’ bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs. (NKJV)

You make some assumptions. You assume the harvest is the rapture, I presume. You are also assuming chronology, that these events in chapter 14 precede the events of chaters 19-20 rather than present a different depiction if it. Now if you read I Thessalonians 4, the dead and Christ rise first before 'we which are alive and remain' will be raptured into the air with them. Pay attention to the harvest in verse 18, a harvest of grapes, but blood up to the horse's bridles.

Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had
(NKJV)

Now compare to II Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming
(NKJV)

Aren't these passages in Revelation 19 and II Thessalonians 2:8 referring to the same event?

Compare to II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8.

II Thessalonians 2:1
Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, (NKJV)
...
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming
(NKJV)

Why would the 'coming' in verse 1 be a different event from the 'coming' in verse 8. I have asked you this many times. And I am pretty sure the reason you have not answered is because it pokes a big hole in your doctrine and you have no answer for it.

Also notice the 'thief' verse from Revelation 16.
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Notice that this is AFTER the harvest verse of Revelation 14. pretribbers like to use the following verse to refer to a pre-trib rapture:

Matthew 24
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 the passage sets the coming of the Son of Man AFTER the tribulation, as quoted earlier.


Another question is, why is there this announcement of the marriage supper of the Lamb and the Bride having been made ready in Revelation 19. We both take the Rider on a white horse passage to be the Second Coming, right? So why wasn't there a marriage supper seven years before or for seven years? Why the announcement right before the Second Coming.

Again, problems with pre-trib.
1. Scripture doesn't teach it.
2. No passage actually teaches two Parousia events.
3. It has to be read into texts that have no evidence for it.
4. There are passages that contradict it.
5. It doesn't fit well with other passages that might not flat out contradict it.

The marriage supper issue in Revelation 19 is at least 5 if not 4.

So you pretend I wrote things I didn't write, accuse me, and post immature drivel like in your last post, posturing, pretending like you are winning some kind of argument, boast about how you defeat some position you disagree with. You have scarcely articulated any kind of argument against what I have presented, or answered these questions.

Proverbs has a lot to say about the mocker. If you want to have an adult conversation, answer my points and objections above. Otherwise, we can both do something more useful with our time.

QUOTE
"See that the coming of the Son of man is post-tribulational. The verses later in the passage, which you quote, are already set after the tribulation. You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary."
Yes his coming in power and glory WITH THE SAINTS, AFTER THE MARRIAGE SUPPER, is after the 7 yr gt.


QUOTE
"Now compare to II Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming"

Fits pretrib like a glove.
The second coming event has that action going on
QUOTE
"...Why the announcement right before the Second Coming."
Lol
The announcement is "the wedding feast is come and tge wide has made herself ready"
Go back and READ IT IN CONTEXT.
Rev 19
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready
See that?
The bride in heaven has become the wife in heaven.
( note, you will never see a postribber have any depth into the bride/ groom dynamic.)

QUOTE
"Matthew 24
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 the passage sets the coming of the Son of Man AFTER the tribulation, as quoted earlier."

Lol
In order to make your deal fit you leave out context.
Let's see what His word says:
(The context is left out by you on purpose)

Here are the verses YOU OMIT.
Mat 24
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.

Whew, .....that omission in the bible, is for doctrine damage control

SIDE NOTE:
I never said , and have never believed Rev 14:14 is the rapture of 1 these 4..
(for WIW.)


Quote
"Again, problems with pre-trib.
1. Scripture doesn't teach it.
2. No passage actually teaches two Parousia events.
3. It has to be read into texts that have no evidence for it.
4. There are passages that contradict it.
5. It doesn't fit well with other passages that might not flat out contradict it."

1) you , again misrepresented scripture and made a untrue statement.
....the sad thing is, you do it and are OK with IT.
2) you , again misrepresented scripture and made a untrue statement.
....the sad thing is, you do it and are OK with it.
3) SMH... WAY WAY OFF.
You are unable to answer my challenges. That is why
4) really? Jesus sitting on a cloud, holding a sickle, gathering the Jews, and Jesus on a horse as a warrior avenger and judge is the exact same thing.???
You do know changing Rev is forbidden????
5) yes you have proven and I showcased your deal in no way fits

Rev 14: 14.
Your hopeless dilemma you can not explain away.

Mat 24 the COMING Jesus vividly testifies as "before the flood/trib", that you have openly confused. Shamelessly reframed and changed it.

QUOTE
"Proverbs has a lot to say about the mocker. If you want to have an adult conversation, answer my points and objections above. Otherwise, we can both do something more useful with our time."

Are there any postribs anywhere that do not sink to the level of personal attacks, pretending to be moral police, while lying your heads off holding up your changed bible like you are superior.?

Every verse changed.
Your last one, of omitting the context of mat 24 is telling indeed.

You can not answer the 3 comings.
You can not do it.

Forget all your imagined personal gripes against me.

The tree comings and the dynamics of rev 14 are never going away.

Trying to reframe it is futile.
But have at it.

 

[presidente]

QUOTE
"See that the coming of the Son of man is post-tribulational. The verses later in the passage, which you quote, are already set after the tribulation. You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary."
Yes his coming in power and glory WITH THE SAINTS, AFTER THE MARRIAGE SUPPER, is after the 7 yr gt.

Jesus is able to come with the alive and remaining saints are 'caught up together with them' (the resurrected former dead in Christ) 'to meet the Lord in the air. You act as if Jesus coming with the saints is some kind of problem with the default, straightforward interpretations of either post-trib or historical premil viewpoints.... viewpoints that do not interject an extra coming of Jesus with no evidence at all into scripture interpretations. It isn't a problem. Back up and think of whatever perspective you are arguing about instead of eisegeting pretrib into passages where there is no problem with it.

Also, in Matthew 24, after the tribulation, the angels gather the elect from one end of heaven (horizon) to the other.

QUOTE
"Now compare to II Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming"

Fits pretrib like a glove.
The second coming event has that action going on[/quote]

Answer the issue I put to you. Why would the parousia, the coming, in II Thessaonians 2:1 passage... the same passage... clearly the same topic he's discussing in the later verses if you read the flow of argument.... why would that parousia be different from the one in verse 8?

1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,

See the topic here clearly laid out. Verse 8 is still in this section... concerning that coming... the coming in which we are gathered to Him.

Do you disagree that this is the rapture.....

At that coming in verse 8, the wicked one is destroyed. Revelation sets that in chapter 19, the chapter of the wedding supper of the Lamb anouncment... then boom, the second coming passage (as we both interpret it to be).... the beast and false prophet thrown into the lack of fire in this passage, going on into chapter 20, it explains about the FIRST resurrection.

And FIRST resurrection means there is no mass resurrection of the dead in Christ seven years before at the parousia, because the parousia is happening right there in Revelation 20. That IS a contradiction to your pre-trib view. The Lord returning with His saints/holy ones is not, because we go up to meet Him in the air when He comes. Pretrib just has Christ start to come back and return for 7 years.... where is the Bible to back that up. Where's it at? That doesn't deserve to be the 'default' view if there is no Bible to back it up.

"...Why the announcement right before the Second Coming."
Lol
The announcement is "the wedding feast is come and tge wide has made herself ready"
Go back and READ IT IN CONTEXT.
Rev 19
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready
See that?
The bride in heaven has become the wife in heaven.

So are you playing the role of a sneaky dealer at a poker table who has a card up his sleeve. I don't 'see that' about the wife being in heaven. That's not there. There is the anouncement that now it's time for the wedding... and He comes down. I Thessalonians shows that the saints meet the Lord in the air. I know a lot of pretribbers say there will be a seven year wedding feast in heaven, but here the feast is announced right before the second coming passage.

( note, you will never see a postribber have any depth into the bride/ groom dynamic.)

Pretribbers can have all kinds of stuff--- Jewish traditions that they might actually read about from other pretribbers, if there is every any historical source for it... making stuff up like pretending the passage says the wedding happens 'in heaven.' The issue is... where does the scripture back it up? And what about the contradictions with scripture.


e.g.
1. II Thessalonians 1 putting Jesus coming to execute wrath on them that believe not at the same time He comes back giving the church rest.
2. II Thessalonians 1 showing us the 'gathering' is at the parousia, and the destruction of the wicked one is at the parousia, in the very same passage.
3. The 'first resurrection' is write there in the Second Coming passage in Revelation 19-20 not seven years before.
4. Lots of verses pretribbers like to use about the coming of Jesus being set _after_ the tribulation in Matthew 24.

And on top of that, there is no scripture that actually lays out a pretrib rapture. It's tenuous arguments about not being appointed unto wrath, allegories about Jewish wedding feasts and other eisegesis.

"Matthew 24
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 the passage sets the coming of the Son of Man AFTER the tribulation, as quoted earlier."

Lol
In order to make your deal fit you leave out context.
Let's see what His word says:
(The context is left out by you on purpose)

Here are the verses YOU OMIT.
Mat 24
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.

Whew, .....that omission in the bible, is for doctrine damage control

Do you really believe you made any kind of point at all? What are you accusing me of 'omitting'. I didn't quote the entire Bible, and I didn't quote that verse that time. But there isn't anything in the passage that contradicts what I am saying. Up until the flood, people married and gave in marriage. Up until the coming of the Son of man, people marry and give in marriage. BEFORE the flood and BEFORE the coming of the Son of man. That's fine. Whose eschatology does that contradict?

The contradiction is with the passage setting the coming of the Son of man after the tribulation, and pre-tribbers trying to read their two parousia theory in without any evidence, and just assuming different verses refer to different time periods off of their end times chart, when there isn't any evidence for two time periods in the passage.

SIDE NOTE:
I never said , and have never believed Rev 14:14 is the rapture of 1 these 4..
(for WIW.)

Then why bring it up? How many raptures do you believe in?

Quote
"Again, problems with pre-trib.
1. Scripture doesn't teach it.
2. No passage actually teaches two Parousia events.
3. It has to be read into texts that have no evidence for it.
4. There are passages that contradict it.
5. It doesn't fit well with other passages that might not flat out contradict it."

1) you , again misrepresented scripture and made a untrue statement.
....the sad thing is, you do it and are OK with IT.

Then prove it. Where have you shown any evidence at all for it in all of our conversation? Show evidence and explain it. Don't just quote a verse that doesn't offer any proof of pretrib and assume we read in the same ideas you do... without even explaining your reasoning.

2) you , again misrepresented scripture and made a untrue statement.
....the sad thing is, you do it and are OK with it.

If that is wrong, show me where the Bible teaches two parousia events. If it does, you should have some actual scripture to back it up. Like, show me where the sequence is laid out. Show me where the rapture shows up in Revelation. Show me in Thessalonians. Show me that it is separate from the second coming.

Why does Paul treat the coming of Jesus at the 'gathering' as the same event as the coming where the man of sin is destroyed in II Thessalonians 2. Why don't you (or can't you?) even try to deal with that issue in one of your posts?

 

[presidente]

@Psalm1 wrote

3) SMH... WAY WAY OFF.
You are unable to answer my challenges. That is why

You haven't shown any challenges at all. You quote a verse about the days of Noah which do not present any kind of challenge, then pretend they do, then don't bother explaining whatever is in your mind in a way that makes sense. You started with something about the ark going up high to a mountain... when post-trib and possibly historical pre-mil have the rapture event occuring in the air. Where is your argument exactly? Do you even know what it is in your mind? Is it too vague to articulate?

Do you just know pretrib is true because you know it? Did your parents teach that to you, or a pastor who baptized you? Are the people at your church so much holier than those in churches that disagree? Those aren't reasons to believe in it. If you can't back it up with scripture, why hold on to it?

Now, if you do have some evidence, explain it. Don't just quote a verse that doesn't support your theory and pretend we can read your mind.

4) really? Jesus sitting on a cloud, holding a sickle, gathering the Jews, and Jesus on a horse as a warrior avenger and judge is the exact same thing.???

In the same passage the harvesting of the grapes results in blood up to the horses bridle. Is that about resurrection or physical death?

You do know changing Rev is forbidden????
5) yes you have proven and I showcased your deal in no way fits

I haven't added anything to the book of Revelation. If misunderstanding it puts all the curses on an individual, shouldn't be be concerned about having a resurrection before the FIRST resurrection, or wouldn't adding the idea of the bride being in heaven in Revelation 19 concern you. I don't think the curse is about people not understanding. Part of it acknowledges it has some mystery that requires wisdom to understand.

Rev 14: 14.
Your hopeless dilemma you can not explain away.

How is that even an issue? YOU don't believe it's the I Thessalonians 4 rapture, so why would you even consider it a problem for my viewpoint.

Mat 24 the COMING Jesus vividly testifies as "before the flood/trib", that you have openly confused. Shamelessly reframed and changed it.

The coming of the Son of man is compared to the flood. It doesn't say in that passage that the Son of man would come, there would be seven years of flood, then that He would come again. The passage even clarifies what the analogy is about. The people married and married up until the flood came.

"Proverbs has a lot to say about the mocker. If you want to have an adult conversation, answer my points and objections above. Otherwise, we can both do something more useful with our time."

Are there any postribs anywhere that do not sink to the level of personal attacks, pretending to be moral police, while lying your heads off holding up your changed bible like you are superior.?

I haven't been in on all your conversations, but I've seen how you post.

Instead of the posturing and rhetoric like in that last phrase, why not try to put an argument together for why you think scripture supports your viewpoint.

Every verse changed.
Your last one, of omitting the context of mat 24 is telling indeed.

You didn't quote the whole chapter either. That's not a sin. It's not a sin if I don't quote it. I've already asked you to try to give a cogent explanation for why you think a reference to the flood in the passage means Jesus is coming back twice. Does 'flood' mean 'two times' in your native language? It doesn't in mine. Just as there were people marrying and giving in marriage before the flood came, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. There are other analogies about being prepared-- the thief coming when the homeowner does not expect it, servants not knowing when the master arrives, even the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. There is a theme there.

But 'Look, it says the flood is coming... that means Jesus is coming back two times" isn't a theological argument. You haven't even argued that much. You quote a verse and pretend it supports your point of view. The flood took the ark up the mountains... and that's supposed to mean... what... seven years in heaven? Other eschatological viewpoints acknowledge meeting the Lord in the air.

Why does a reference to the flood offer any support whatsoever for pretrib. You expect people just to accept that idea without any kind of logical argument.

You can not answer the 3 comings.
You can not do it.

Where do you get three comings... of Jesus? You refer to revelation 14... which is about an angel harvesting wheat and grapes, and the grape harvest results in blood up to the horse's bridle... and that's supposed to prove that Jesus came back an extra time? huh?

Where do you get a first, pretrib coming before that extra rapture you squeeze in there? Where's your scripture before that. And I mean some kind of evidence... at least some kind of logical argument, besides quoting a verse that mentions the flood and pretending that we are going to accept a reference to the flood as evidence of a pretrib rapture... (which makes no sense.)

 

[Amargosa]

Revelation 3:10 “Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.”

Revelation 2:7 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Revelation 2:11 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Revelation 2:17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Revelation 2:29 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Revelation 3:6 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Revelation 3:13 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Revelation 3:22 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”




I hear The Spirit saying, “I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those that dwell on the earth.”

 

[Psalm1]

@Psalm1


I take the passage as scripture. I also point out there is nothing in this passage that mentions or hints at a pretribulational rapture. This is speaking of the coming of the Son of Man, set 'after the tribulation.'

Matthew 24:30-29-30

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.

See that the coming of the Son of man is post-tribulational. The verses later in the passage, which you quote,



Let's look at scritpure.
Revelation 14
14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.

17 Then another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
18 And another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire, and he cried with a loud cry to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, “Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather
You make some assumptions. You assume the harvest is the rapture, I presume. You are also assuming chronology, that these events in chapter 14 precede the events of chaters 19-20 rather than present a different depiction if it. Now if you read I Thessalonians

Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image,
Notice 'first resurrection' in verse 5. The resurrection of the dead in Christ occurs at the rapture. Also, let's back up a few verses into Revelation 19 and look at the events that are mentioned before it mentions the first resurrection. Let's compare to II Thessalonians 2:8.

Revelation 19
20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the

Notice this happens in Revelation 19, after mentioning the Rider on the white horse, on whose robe and thigh is written 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords' After that, we continue reading the beast is cast into the Lake of fire.
(NKJV)

Now compare to II Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming
(NKJV)

Aren't these passages in Revelation 19 and II Thessalonians 2:8 referring to the same event?

Compare to II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8.

II Thessalonians 2:1
Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, (NKJV)

Why would the 'coming' in verse 1 be a different event from the 'coming' in verse 8. I have asked you this many times. And I am pretty sure the reason you have not answered is because it pokes a big hole in your doctrine and you have no answer for it.

Also notice the 'thief' verse from Revelation 16.
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth

Another question is, why is there this announcement of the marriage supper of the Lamb and the Bride having been made ready in Revelation 19. We both take the Rider on a white horse passage to be the Second Coming, right? So why wasn't there a marriage supper seven years before or for seven years? Why the announcement right before the Second Coming.

Again, problems with pre-trib.
1. Scripture doesn't teach it.
2. No passage actually teaches two Parousia events.
3. It has to be read into texts that have no evidence for it.
4. There are passages that contradict it.
5. It doesn't fit well with other passages that might not flat out contradict it.

The marriage supper issue in Revelation 19 is at least 5 if not 4.

So you pretend I wrote things I didn't write, accuse me, and post immature drivel like in your last post, posturing, pretending like you are winning some kind of argument, boast about how you defeat some position you disagree with. You have scarcely articulated any kind of argument against what I have presented, or answered these questions.

Proverbs has a lot to say about the mocker. If you want to have an adult conversation, answer my points and objections above. Otherwise, we can both do something more useful with our time.

QUOTE
"See that the coming of the Son of man is post-tribulational. The verses later in the passage, which you quote, are already set after the tribulation. You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary."
Yes his coming in power and glory WITH THE SAINTS, AFTER THE MARRIAGE SUPPER, is after the 7 yr gt.


QUOTE
"Now compare to II Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming"

Fits pretrib like a glove.
The second coming event has that action going on


QUOTE
"Matthew 24
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 the passage sets the coming of the Son of Man AFTER the tribulation, as quoted earlier."

Lol
In order to make your deal fit you leave out context.
Too funny....sad actually.
Let's see what His word says:
(The context is left out by you on purpose)

Here are the verses YOU OMIT.
Mat 24
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.

Uh huh. Change the bible for doctrine damage control

I never said , and have never believed Rev 14:14 is the rapture of 1 these 4..


Quote
"Again, problems with pre-trib.
1. Scripture doesn't teach it.
2. No passage actually teaches two Parousia events.
3. It has to be read into texts that have no evidence for it.
4. There are passages that contradict it.
5. It doesn't fit well with other passages that might not flat out contradict it."

1) you , again misrepresented scripture and made a untrue statement.
....the sad thing is, you do it and are OK with a flat out lie.
2) you , again misrepresented scripture and made a untrue statement.
....the sad thing is, you do it and are OK with a flat out lie.
3) Why lie? You are unable to answer my challenges. That is why
4) really? Jesus sitting on a cloud, holding a sickle, gathering the Jews, and Jesus on a horse as a warrior avenger and judge is the exact same thing.???
You do know changing Rev is forbidden????
5) yes you have proven and I showcased your deal in no way fits

Rev 14: 14.
Your hopeless dilemma you can not explain away.

Mat 24 the COMING Jesus vividly testifies as "before the flood/trib", that you have openly confused. Shamelessly reframed and changed it.
SMH.
QUOTE
"Proverbs has a lot to say about the mocker. If you want to have an adult conversation, answer my points and objections above. Otherwise, we can both do something more useful with our time."

Are there any postribs anywhere that do not sink to your level of personal attacks, elevating yourselves into some self righteous martyrs, Using God's word as moral police, while holding up your changed bible like you are superior.?

Then you act like your challenger is off the rails insulting you.


You can not answer the 3 comings.
You can not do it.
That is why your, "out of gas, moral police deal" ,is invoked.
I addressed this earlier.
Every posrribber MUST go off topic at some point, to retreat, and paint their opponent as defective.
Pure damage control.

Forget all your imagined personal gripes against me.
Drop the side show, get a bible, and let's go.

 

[Psalm1]

My question to you earlier
"... really? Jesus sitting on a cloud, holding a sickle, gathering the Jews, and Jesus on a horse as a warrior avenger and judge is the exact same thing.???""

Your damage control answer
"In the same passage the harvesting of the grapes results in blood up to the horses bridle. Is that about resurrection or physical death?"

Remember what I said about changing Rev?

ReRead it .
Rev 14
17 And ANOTHER ANGEL came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

REALLY???? Reframing Revelation????
After i warned you?
Jesus is not doing any harvesting to destruction there .
In fact, Jesus is SENDING angels to do it.

But you are blinded to what is written

 

[Psalm1]

QUOTE by presidente:

"But 'Look, it says the flood is coming... that means Jesus is coming back two times" isn't a theological argument. You haven't even argued that much. You quote a verse and pretend it supports your point of view. The flood took the ark up the mountains... and that's supposed to mean... what... seven years in heaven? Other eschatological viewpoints acknowledge meeting the Lord in the air."

Any parable can be shot down.
Any analogy can also.
Not hard.
Every one of them has components pointing to or illustrating MEANING.

In the bible, they are both simplistic and hidden to the eye of mental understanding.
Enter omission of components.
Enter reframing of components.
Enter arguments to purposefully reframe meaning.

Noah and Lot analogies are used by Jesus in the same breath.
Luke 17
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Both prejudgemnt salvation.
Neither gathered or removed postrib.
Neither had a period of time in great tribulation before the fore or flood.
Neither got raptured post flood/ post fire


Both gathered pretrib.
The baby Jesus gathered pretrib and relocated.

Even you admitted the bride in mat 25 went to the grooms house, and did NOT return to her house ( earth)
The groom did a uturn back to heaven.
In postribber doctrine, they have the bride erroneously doing a uturn.

You mention rev14.
That chapter ain't going away or magically shifting in wording.

It is the single most damaging indeed.
Verse 14 is neither the rapture. A first test alone's four, nor can it even remotely be possible that it is the return on white horses.
Revelation 14 is exactly what it says it is. It's a 144000 Jewish first fruits that are found in heaven in the first few verses, and the reason they're called first fruits, is because, first fruits fruits always ties in to main harvest.
It never does not tie in to main harvest. So if we added to, or takeaway components, of revelation fourteen, you can probably make it say anything you want it to say.
But what is specifically says, is, there's a Jewish first fruit harvest of 144,000 ethnic Jews ,then a Jewish main harvest in verse 14..
It SPECIFICALLY says that.

I just read it knowing that romans has that prophecy in it.
I just read it knowing the book of Ruth illustrates it.
It ties in to Jesus exact wording of end times events.
It ties into the purpose of the trib.

Hard to wiggle out of all that.
But I know...you MUST cast it all down.
Every bit of it.

 

[Psalm1]

Jesus is able to come with the alive and remaining saints are 'caught up together with them' (the resurrected former dead in Christ) 'to meet the Lord in the air. You act as if Jesus coming with the saints is some kind of problem with the default, straightforward interpretations of either post-trib or historical premil viewpoints.... viewpoints that do not interject an extra coming of Jesus with no evidence at all into scripture interpretations. It isn't a problem. Back up and think of whatever perspective you are arguing about instead of eisegeting pretrib into passages where there is no problem with it.

Also, in Matthew 24, after the tribulation, the angels gather the elect from one end of heaven (horizon) to the other.

QUOTE
"Now compare to II Thessalonians 2:8
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming"

Fits pretrib like a glove.
The second coming event has that action going on

Answer the issue I put to you. Why would the parousia, the coming, in II Thessaonians 2:1 passage... the same passage... clearly the same topic he's discussing in the later verses if you read the flow of argument.... why would that parousia be different from the one in verse 8?

1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,

See the topic here clearly laid out. Verse 8 is still in this section... concerning that coming... the coming in which we are gathered to Him.

Do you disagree that this is the rapture.....

At that coming in verse 8, the wicked one is destroyed. Revelation sets that in chapter 19, the chapter of the wedding supper of the Lamb anouncment... then boom, the second coming passage (as we both interpret it to be).... the beast and false prophet thrown into the lack of fire in this passage, going on into chapter 20, it explains about the FIRST resurrection.

And FIRST resurrection means there is no mass resurrection of the dead in Christ seven years before at the parousia, because the parousia is happening right there in Revelation 20. That IS a contradiction to your pre-trib view. The Lord returning with His saints/holy ones is not, because we go up to meet Him in the air when He comes. Pretrib just has Christ start to come back and return for 7 years.... where is the Bible to back that up. Where's it at? That doesn't deserve to be the 'default' view if there is no Bible to back it up.



So are you playing the role of a sneaky dealer at a poker table who has a card up his sleeve. I don't 'see that' about the wife being in heaven. That's not there. There is the anouncement that now it's time for the wedding... and He comes down. I Thessalonians shows that the saints meet the Lord in the air. I know a lot of pretribbers say there will be a seven year wedding feast in heaven, but here the feast is announced right before the second coming passage.



Pretribbers can have all kinds of stuff--- Jewish traditions that they might actually read about from other pretribbers, if there is every any historical source for it... making stuff up like pretending the passage says the wedding happens 'in heaven.' The issue is... where does the scripture back it up? And what about the contradictions with scripture.


e.g.
1. II Thessalonians 1 putting Jesus coming to execute wrath on them that believe not at the same time He comes back giving the church rest.
2. II Thessalonians 1 showing us the 'gathering' is at the parousia, and the destruction of the wicked one is at the parousia, in the very same passage.
3. The 'first resurrection' is write there in the Second Coming passage in Revelation 19-20 not seven years before.
4. Lots of verses pretribbers like to use about the coming of Jesus being set _after_ the tribulation in Matthew 24.

And on top of that, there is no scripture that actually lays out a pretrib rapture. It's tenuous arguments about not being appointed unto wrath, allegories about Jewish wedding feasts and other eisegesis.



Do you really believe you made any kind of point at all? What are you accusing me of 'omitting'. I didn't quote the entire Bible, and I didn't quote that verse that time. But there isn't anything in the passage that contradicts what I am saying. Up until the flood, people married and gave in marriage. Up until the coming of the Son of man, people marry and give in marriage. BEFORE the flood and BEFORE the coming of the Son of man. That's fine. Whose eschatology does that contradict?

The contradiction is with the passage setting the coming of the Son of man after the tribulation, and pre-tribbers trying to read their two parousia theory in without any evidence, and just assuming different verses refer to different time periods off of their end times chart, when there isn't any evidence for two time periods in the passage.



Then why bring it up? How many raptures do you believe in?


Then prove it. Where have you shown any evidence at all for it in all of our conversation? Show evidence and explain it. Don't just quote a verse that doesn't offer any proof of pretrib and assume we read in the same ideas you do... without even explaining your reasoning.



If that is wrong, show me where the Bible teaches two parousia events. If it does, you should have some actual scripture to back it up. Like, show me where the sequence is laid out. Show me where the rapture shows up in Revelation. Show me in Thessalonians. Show me that it is separate from the second coming.

Why does Paul treat the coming of Jesus at the 'gathering' as the same event as the coming where the man of sin is destroyed in II Thessalonians 2. Why don't you (or can't you?) even try to deal with that issue in one of your posts?
[/QUOTE]
QUOTE
"So are you playing the role of a sneaky dealer at a poker table who has a card up his sleeve. I don't 'see that' about the wife being in heaven. That's not there. There is the anouncement that now it's time for the wedding... and He comes down. I Thessalonians shows that the saints meet the Lord in the air. I know a lot of pretribbers say there will be a seven year wedding feast in heaven, but here the feast is announced right before the second coming passage."
Re read it
Rev 19
1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
(SAINTS IN HEAVEN DURING THE TRIB)

5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
Huh?...ALL his servants, both small and great? In heaven ?

5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
( the pretrib raptured church in heaven..check)
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.
( bride is now called the wife in heaven)
Authenticated by 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"

Even you admitted the bride went to the grooms house.
Authenticated also here;
Mat 26
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Jesus also said " In my father's house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you. That where I am you may be also

Now remember the postrib invented uturn?
Ahem...they never see heaven, supposedly.
Remember, they redo mat 25 to infer the bride does the uturn , not the groom, back to her house (earth). (Inverted for doctrine sake)

Once you see the 3 comings.(2 of them only to the clouds)
..and what rev 14 actually says.
...and that the rapture is the gathering of the bride.
...and the PURPOSE of the gt.
...and the 144,000 firstfruits are who the bible says.
...and romans vivid depiction of the covenant Jews, ASIDE FROM the church, GRAFTED BACK IN.

Once you see that....you will be glad...and run from postrib rapture misalignment.
Postrib rapture doctrine has NOTHING of what I just posted.

 

[Psalm1]

Mat 24 the door was shut. After Noah enters the ark ( ark is a type of heaven)

Mat 25 the door was shut, after the bride enters the wedding chamber.

Mat 26
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom
( the bride and groom prophesied to be united in heaven)
Jesus said "In my father's house are many mansions behold. I go and prepare a place for you that where I am you may be also.
Rev 22
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

The Bibles final parting words are, "Jesus, the Spirit and the bride, longing to be united."

Heaven sees end times through the bride and groom prism.

What prism are you holding up?

 

[wolfwint]

We do answer with scripture, but none of you accept it. So now we're just going to let the great tribulation tell you how false your doctrine is.

That's how sure post-trib rapture is. It's simple and doesn't need a lot of scripture twisting. It will prove itself.


️

The best way insteadt to debate about it, is to wait. The time will reveal it. I believe in pretrib. If I am wrong, then fine. If i am right thats much more fine.

 

[presidente]

@Psalm1

Could you write your messages a bit shorter with no quotes, or else turn the quotes into quotes? I know the forum got messed up here recently where the quote function isn't automatic, and it puts our posts in a quote box. But you can quote manually using [*quote] before the quote and [*/quote] after the quote.... taking away the * from that code, and it will make a quote.

>>The old fashioned use net style with the carrots next to it<<
>>for a quote also work if you want to go old school<<

"And quotation marks are better than nothing."

Rev 19
1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
(SAINTS IN HEAVEN DURING THE TRIB)

5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
Huh?...ALL his servants, both small and great? In heaven ?

5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
( the pretrib raptured church in heaven..check)
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.
( bride is now called the wife in heaven)

And if we take away your parenthetical comments which aren't in the text of scripture (there is a warning about adding to Revelation, too) there is no evidence for pretrib for that.

A lot of pretribbers say the church goes away for seven years, like a seven day bridal feast, but here we are at the end of it, and the wedding hasn't taken place. What I see here is that the bride is made ready, so Christ goes back to the earth to get the bride for the wedding. Just like I Thessalonians 4 says, the dead in Christ and they which are alive and remain are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. They don't do that until Jesus comes back. And that resurrection there is 'the first resurrection.' The first resurrection isn't mentioned in Revelation until chapter 20 at bit AFTER this verse you quote.

So this first with a more historic, straightforward reading of scripture, and that first resurrection part contradicts pretrib.

In verse 5.... people don't have to be in heaven to praise God. Yours is not a valid point. Also, there are dead in heaven in the vision. The saints under the altar for example.

Even you admitted the bride went to the grooms house.

I believe you made that point. I don't know that weddings were always held at the groom's house. They could have had rented spaces, gone to the house of an uncle with a large house, etc. The parable doesn't say. And it doesn't say that's the point of the parable. A lot of these parables tell us the point of the parable-- e.g. at such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh... not make the flood represent whatever you want it to.

The JWs take the wise and faithful servant (the faithful and discreet slave in their terminology) out to be the Watchtower organization. Just plugging an idea into an analogy in scripture isn't going to prove your viewpoint to someone who does not share your presuppositions.

Now remember the postrib invented uturn?
Ahem...they never see heaven, supposedly.
Remember, they redo mat 25 to infer the bride does the uturn , not the groom, back to her house (earth). (Inverted for doctrine sake)

Pretribbers think Jesus does a U-turn. Revelation does actually show the New Jerusalem in heaven AFTER the thousand years. Maybe that's when or after the elements melt with fervent heat. Versions of dispensationalism have the great conflagration after the thousand year reign. John is told to come see the bride. The New Jerusalem is adorned like a bride adorned for her husband. The apostles names are on the foundation. That's the part in scripture about the bride being in heaven after the resurrection. The first resurrection is in Revelation 20, not in Revelation 3 or 4 or 14.

Regarding U-turns, the two men in Acts 1 say that the Lord will return the way He ascended. He did not ascend part-way, come back for seven years, then go up again, in the passage.

In Revelation 14, there is a blessing pronounced on those who _die_ in the Lord. Then a grain harvest, by an angel with a sickle. With a grape harvest where there is a lot of blood mentioned. So why wouldn't the grain harvest involve death if the grape harvest does? Look at the passage. It doesn't present resurrection.

Also, answer my question about why the Parousia in II Thessalonians 1 would be a different event from verse 8. Walk me through and show me where the topic changes. Justify that in your interpretation system?

My big question is, if these are your reasons, why are you pre-trib? Is it something that you hold in your heart as more important than scripture? If this is all you have to argue, and you don't have anything really solid to offer to support pre-trib, why not deal with the contradictions to it that I have raised? The II Thessalonians 1 and 2 issues, and the first resurrection in Revelation 20, for example.

Do you have some clear scripture that teaches a pretrib rapture to justify reading it into allegorical passages the way that you do?