The Pre-Trib Rapture

[ewq1938]

Our flesh and blood can not enter heaven, its sin stained.

Doesn't scripture say flesh and blood cannot INHERIT the kingdom or God? It does not say anything about not being able to ENTER.

Besides, the greatest sinner ever to exist, satan, entered heaven all the time.




50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.


Not enter.

 

[Naomi25]

For myself, possibly 15+ years ago, I felt if we are Israel that it was a grey area that was too closely linked with replacement theology. This was when I was Pre-TB. The idea that Israel is precious, Israel receives the blessing, Israel is the promised nation, Israel is given the land and Israel will be redeemed leads many in that camp to not see it any other way.

But I truly believe once you see outside of Pre-TB, everything falls into place with a very easy way to read the word. So easily, a child could see it the same way; if they could read KJV styled text :)

I think another issue is simply the church. It is a rare thing indeed, to hear a Pastor preach on dispensationalism on a Sunday service. The real meat, if it were, that the church needs. Most do not really understand the fundamentals of different types without purchasing a book on the topic and feeding yourself.

Im still trying to find out how someone believes there are 2 separate trees (Church and Israel) with the same holy root instead of 1 tree with 1 shepherd and 1 flock. I can’t find that scripture. :)

There were several issues that led me to believe that Dispensationalism was unsupportable in light of scripture. The strength and length Paul goes to to stress the unity among all believers, regardless if they are Jew or Gentile, was one of them.

It always baffles me speaking to Dispensationalists, because (I have found, anyway) you point out these passages and they’ll agree with you on pretty much every one of them…yes Israel is not saved outside of Christ. Yes to BE saved they must turn to Christ. Yes there is one tree that ‘believers’ are grafted onto. And yet…they still hold to a future time when, as you put it, one tree becomes two. And…like you, I have not seen scripture to support this.

Sometimes I’m not completely sure they understand the idea of progressive revelation.
Ah well…just as well this is a secondary issue. Certainly a precious one, but not ‘essential’.

 

[ewq1938]

There were several issues that led me to believe that Dispensationalism was unsupportable in light of scripture. The strength and length Paul goes to to stress the unity among all believers, regardless if they are Jew or Gentile, was one of them.

It always baffles me speaking to Dispensationalists, because (I have found, anyway) you point out these passages and they’ll agree with you on pretty much every one of them…yes Israel is not saved outside of Christ. Yes to BE saved they must turn to Christ. Yes there is one tree that ‘believers’ are grafted onto. And yet…they still hold to a future time when, as you put it, one tree becomes two. And…like you, I have not seen scripture to support this.

Agreed. They think that the last generation of Jews that deny Jesus will just accept Jesus because of the supposed pre-trib rapture but none of that is scriptural and it's weird in how only one generation would be saved while billions of Jews lived and died rejecting Christ so none of them will be saved.

They misunderstand what "all Israel shall be saved". Israel in this context is a spiritual matter; whether you accept Christ or not. If a Jew rejects Christ, they are removed from Israel spiritually. They are no longer an Israelite. If a Jew accepts Christ, their branch remains on the Israel tree. Gentiles that accept Christ are grafted onto that tree making them spiritual Israelites so that is how all Israel shall be saved because only Jesus believing saved people are connected to the spiritual tree of Israel.


Rom2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

 

[Naomi25]

Yes, I really do.

I've studied this literally for decades. I've adopted and held other views at times. You seem to be arguing in your post against a number of things I'm not saying.

What would it look like if you allowed genre and symbolism (in its correct place), used in both Revelation…plucked straight from the OT, and the OT, to speak for the truths they stood for…and didn’t try and shoe-horn them into Pre-trib Rapture?

But I guess you don't believe that of me. No worries! I've got more work to do at last! So I'll be spending the time on my job, thank You Lord!

Much love!

Forgive me if I misunderstood you or misrepresented me, that was not my intent.
I was, maybe in clumsy fashion, attempting to explain that if Pre-trib was the ‘only’ system that one could arrive at when one implemented a process of elimination, then either many people are idiotic and can’t do that, or that perhaps things are not so clear cut as you have suggested.
I appreciate that you have found them to be, and I certainly don’t begrudge you your certainty. However, I worry when people start insisting that their system is the ‘only’ rational system, or obvious system. Because in point of fact, you are, in a round about fashion claiming that others haven’t the mental capacity to make such observations.
Eschatology is a complex subject and the reason there have been several ‘systems’ down through the centuries is because most systems can be defended biblically. Which means most people who have spent a goodly amount of time, as both you and I have, studying the subject, will not necessarily arrive at the same location even when applying similar logic or ‘processes of elimination’.
My previous post was simply my attempt to show HOW a person CAN think logically about the topic and arrive at a different conclusion to your own.

 

[Timtofly]

When did I say the dead don’t rise or change? When did I say the living don’t change? I suppose you and I see the meaning of whom the twinkle applies to slightly differently. How you put it seems the living and dead both change instantly. Then, while changed. The dead rise and the living, who were already changed wait to meet them in the air. It doesn’t sound logical. But, we who are alive and remain…catch that? There is a separate window. Or, are you arguing the speed of the change and not the when?

First of all the "resurrected" those physically dead in Christ, don't come out of the ground. They come from Paradise with the Lord.

No living can precede the dead in being resurrected. That is Paul's point, not that the dead have to wait for a resurrection. That is one issue Amil have against all other views, and they are wrong, that there is only one physical resurrection, period.

Here is what Paul said:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Are you alive in Christ? Will you ever stop being alive in Christ? Yes, just before that he did say:

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

This is talking about how all are already resurrected in Christ, both physically and spiritually. So no one is waiting for some last day resurrection. The last day resurrection in the NT was the Cross. All the OT were physically resurrected and given permanent incorruptible physical bodies. Each time a soul leaves this corruptible tent, we already have a permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise. The resurrection in Christ is ongoing because Jesus said from that time on, no one would ever have to taste death again. They would literally never physically die, but they do leave this physical body. Instantly they are in their next physical body. The change is always instant. Even if sometimes this body is in pain and refuses to release the soul.

So back to the 3 times Christ collects the living. Because it was about all being made alive, and 3 times collected.

Christ the firstfruits includes the whole OT redeemed and Christ collected those living the week of the Cross, and they entered Paradise.

At the Second Coming Christ will change the living church who are dead in corruptible physical Adamic flesh. Those changed in the air come up to meet those coming from Paradise who are already changed. Then as one, the church is glorified.

The third time Christ presents the living is at the end of the millennium. This totally skips over the Resurrection of Revelation 20:4. Because that resurrection changed those in the GT, after the Second Coming collection. The 144k, the sheep, the wheat, and those beheaded are collected at the end of the Millennium. They come out of the world after the Second Coming and the church being glorified. They are given permanent incorruptible physical bodies at the start of the Millennium, but they are not collected until the end, and the end of Death itself. That little season after the 1,000 years were Satan deceives many, the last of humanity to physically die, by being consumed by fire.

Now folks can argue all they want about a bride a groom, wedding guest, all that symbolism, but Paul also gives us the 3 simple points of humans being gathered by Christ. All of these collected were living at the time of the collection. The OT were the only ones waiting for a physical resurrection. Those in Paradise do not need a resurrection, neither will those alive at the end of the 1000 years. They will not even need to be changed.

Literally the only ones who need changed or resurrected from dead bodies, are those still alive at the Second Coming. The church leaves at the Second Coming. Yet many currently alive right now will face physical death, and be resurrected to live in the Millennium. They are not the church, but they are redeemed, because they never were removed from the Lamb's book of life. Call them guest, but they and their offspring will live on earth and the New Earth, and escape the Lake of Fire.

 

[Naomi25]

Agreed. They think that the last generation of Jews that deny Jesus will just accept Jesus because of the supposed pre-trib rapture but none of that is scriptural and it's weird in how only one generation would be saved while billions of Jews lived and died rejecting Christ so none of them will be saved.

They misunderstand what "all Israel shall be saved". Israel in this context is a spiritual matter; whether you accept Christ or not. If a Jew rejects Christ, they are removed from Israel spiritually. They are no longer an Israelite. If a Jew accepts Christ, their branch remains on the Israel tree. Gentiles that accept Christ are grafted onto that tree making them spiritual Israelites so that is how all Israel shall be saved because only Jesus believing saved people are connected to the spiritual tree of Israel.


Rom2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

I think Romans 11 is…up for debate, on whether or not ‘all Israel’ is the collective whole of ‘spiritual Israel’ or if Paul truly does see a future in gathering of Jewish Nationals again. I can see it either way. The first is certainly true regardless of how you look at it. And the second? It has a certain…rhythm..to it that makes sense. First it was the Jew who had the fellowship with God…the Gentiles (apart from the occasional one) rejected. Then, after Christ, for the sake of the Gentiles, the Jews rejected God and the “times of the Gentiles” came…with only a few Jewish people believing in Messiah. I think we can see Paul saying that it’ll ‘flip’ one last time, at the end of the ‘time of the Gentiles’, when once again it will be the majority of Jewish people coming to relationship with God.
I’ve seen both views defended well, so I suppose all we can do is wait and see what God’s plan is.

 

[Timtofly]

People overcomplicate this tbh. Paul is telling us the Dead will be raised without any corruption, which means without any sin flesh, if we read the verses in like 40-50 we can understand this, the Dead are raised as spirit men, flesh and blood can not enter heaven.

So, likewise those of us who are alive must be CHANGED....But why? Because flesh and blood can not enter heaven. So, we basically die, and leave our flesh behind, and our spirit man is being called to go with Jesus, just like the dead spirits who leave the grave (or wherever they are at, seems its called Paradise in the earth somewhere).

The corruptible (Sin Flesh) must put on incorruption (spirit man made whole in Christ).

And by the way, the way reason Paul says the dead are raised first is he is trying to reassure the Corinthians that their loved ones are not going to be left behind. The truth is, it all happens at the sane time, if I walk into a grocery store with my wife and my foot enters the door first did we go in together or was I first? Paul, as a Pastor in a letter (not a THUS SAITH THE Lord Prophet) is trying to comfort his flock their loved ones will not be left when the Rapture happens.

How can we say a Blink of an eye is nit the exact same time? LOL

So you are saying that Jesus Christ did not raise with a permanent incorruptible physical body? He is just a "spirit man"?

It is not that flesh and blood cannot enter. It is Adam's sinful corruptible flesh and blood that cannot enter. Adam and Eve did once live in Paradise. No Scripture states Adam was always banned. Adam was only banned after he physically died, stopped being in a permanent incorruptible physical body. Adam did physically die that instant. He was changed instantly in the opposite direction we will be changed instantly into. Adam went from life to death. We will go from death to life. Yep, people sure make it more complicated that it needs to be.

 

[Taken]

Think you have that backwards

Ephesians 6:11 "Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil."

Does the verse say stand against or fly away ?

Not backwards. It’s both.

Yes. Arm oneself with the whole armor of God. That is a mans DEFENSE against ATTACK of evil (spirits) and wicked (men). It’s not a DEFENSE with a SWORD, rather DEFENSE with protective ARMOR.

2 Cor 2:
[11] Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

The OFFENSE is with Gods Word.

1 Cor 12:
[1] Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.


Should the ATTACKER not acquiesce, to the Word of God....ie REJECT the Word of God....WALK AWAY...
Let the ignorant be ignorant...

1 Cor 14:
[38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

In Luke 10:18, Jesus said; "
We have the power over all our enemies", and Satan is our enemy.

Yes. A person equipped WITH the Armor of God, has POWER to NOT BE SUBDUED “overtaken”, by the enemy.

WE are not given the POWER TO “overtake” subdue the Enemy.
THAT is God FIGHT.

Now is the time that we had better be preparing ourselves; to know what is going to transpire, and what we must have to use against Satan, and all his forces. We must know him and all his names; the Antichrist, the serpent, the king of Tyre, the devil, and all of his other names, which will alert us to his actions.

Jesus offered men 2,000 years ago, Protection FOR men against the enemy.
Sure, now, every day, IS THE TIME for “unprepared men” to reach out and TAKE Jesus’ offering.
However NOT to overlook, most of the men you are conversing with on this forum.......HAVE received Jesus’ Offering, and HAVE been daily warding off evil and wickedness SINCE “already have been PREPARED”.

The "wiles of the devil" refers to the lies, tricks, and deceitfulness he and his offspring [the Kenites] may use to bring down Christians. The "whole armour" is all the protection necessary to stand against those lies and deception. Your entire body has to be protected against Satan, or he will out wit you, and you will not stand.

Your “warning” is valid when given to one who is NOT “IN” Christ.
Why would you “warn” one who IS “IN” Christ?

The point is, that you put on the "whole armour", all of it, to stand against Satan, the Antichrist.

The point is; A man “IN” Christ, is already armed Against Evil spirits and Wicked men, OF this world, that men “IN” Christ encounter on a Daily Basis.

IOW, Evil and Wickedness is not going to SUDDENLY appear during the END of DAYS, of Gods Wrath.
Evil and Wickedness IS CURRENTLY everywhere on this Earth, and man ON this Earth “IN” Christ “IS” already daily PROTECTED AGAINST Evil and Wickedness ‘ON’ this Earth.

The doctrine of the rapture teaches and prepares one to be deceived

You call the doctrine of the rapture deception, but give no testament of WHAT you think IS the doctrine of the Rapture.
IOW, it is superficial. A disagreement without stating what “you think” the “doctrine” is, and why you disagree with “that doctrine”.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

.So does “the dead in Christ” include the dead not in Christ?

No.

 

[marks]

Did Jesus not know about the church and the rapture when he gave the Olivet discourse?

That's not what I said. Maybe a more careful reading?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Forgive me if I misunderstood you or misrepresented me, that was not my intent.
I was, maybe in clumsy fashion, attempting to explain that if Pre-trib was the ‘only’ system that one could arrive at when one implemented a process of elimination, then either many people are idiotic and can’t do that, or that perhaps things are not so clear cut as you have suggested.
I appreciate that you have found them to be, and I certainly don’t begrudge you your certainty. However, I worry when people start insisting that their system is the ‘only’ rational system, or obvious system. Because in point of fact, you are, in a round about fashion claiming that others haven’t the mental capacity to make such observations.
Eschatology is a complex subject and the reason there have been several ‘systems’ down through the centuries is because most systems can be defended biblically. Which means most people who have spent a goodly amount of time, as both you and I have, studying the subject, will not necessarily arrive at the same location even when applying similar logic or ‘processes of elimination’.
My previous post was simply my attempt to show HOW a person CAN think logically about the topic and arrive at a different conclusion to your own.

Really, I'm just trying to share my ideas, not make commentary on others.

Much love!

 

[marks]

And yet…they still hold to a future time when, as you put it, one tree becomes two.

@No Pre-TB

I'm not familiar with this, what does this mean, one tree becomes two?

Much love!

 

[Timtofly]

John was shown seven different visions, he merely recorded them as he was shown them. Like a painting painted in front of Him, first the broad background strokes, then each getting more detailed and in focus.

John was not shown 7 different visions. That is your symbolic painting of your interpretation. You are turning John's literal experience into your own painted masterpiece. That is the point of your post.

You will not even admit he had seven different visions on different occasions. He was taken to be an eye witness to the future. John literally witnessed the Second Coming, he witnessed the GT, and he witnessed the 42 months given to Satan in that order. The part about the 7 churches was the past, present, and future; because the church would at times over the next 1900 years exhibit these attributes over and over again.

I am not saying your interpretation is wrong. It just cannot replace the reality of what John actually did experience. John used his own symbolism. You are replacing his with a different type of symbolism. But I think you have a different conclusion than John's own experience. You blur the future too much into the past.

 

[marks]

Which means most people who have spent a goodly amount of time, as both you and I have, studying the subject, will not necessarily arrive at the same location even when applying similar logic or ‘processes of elimination’.

I have yet to find two people who agree in all points on the interpretation of prophecy. I've come to the conclusion that prophecy, unless there is a particular purpose given, such as concerning the rapture (so we would not be ignorant, so we can give each other comfort), that the purpose is to increase trust in Christ when the prophecy is fulfilled.

When we talk about unity in understanding the Scriptures, I think that can only come by a more literal interpretation of the passages. As sone as we say, "this symbolized such and such", if that such and such is not specified in the text, well, when people do that, they end up in those different places. If we say, for instance, the 144,000 Israelites are just what it says, we'll all say that very same thing, and have that unity.

So for process or method, I'll just say, believe what the Bible says on it's face, unless it tells us something is to be interpretted symbolically. And of course that becomes the next debate . . .

Much love!

 

[Timtofly]

Yes there is one tree that ‘believers’ are grafted onto. And yet…they still hold to a future time when, as you put it, one tree becomes two. And…like you, I have not seen scripture to support this.

What do you mean, one tree becomes two. Are you saying people cannot live on earth and in heaven at the same time?

There are two kingdoms. Always has been. One is dead, but now alive in Paradise. The other is on earth. One is physically in Paradise. The other physically on earth. That will not change until New Jerusalem comes down and connects with the earth. Then there will still be those inside the city, and outside all over the earth.

Your logic declares we cannot have cities at the same time we have those living in the country.

The point is the church represents all those living together in one big city. Israel represents all those who live outside the city all over the rest of the earth.

Between the Cross and the Second Coming there is no difference. Israel is not a representative of neither right now. The church represents all on earth, as well as all in Paradise.

 

[David H.]

Really, I'm just trying to share my ideas, not make commentary on others.

This is the typical "explaining away" of the simple language that is presented in the Olivet discourse that I am talking about that puts the rapture after the great tribulation.

 

[marks]

And yet…when it comes to Christ’s return…we don’t do this…or at least, Dispensationalists don’t do this…they separate. Why? Is there something particular in the text that demands we do this? Is there something fundamentally different between a text telling us that Christ returns in the clouds and Christ touches the earth? Must they be two separate returns, or might they be the one return that quite reasonable must first be coming down through the clouds to reach the earth? Where in scripture tells us we must separate these texts rather than combine them to gather a fuller understanding and picture of Christ’s return?

I'm wondering here, when you say "dispensationalists . . . separate", what exactly do they separate? BTW . . . I consider myself "dispensationalist", but I'm not thinking I'm doing what you describe. But I need to know exactly which parts "we" separate.

Much love!

 

[David H.]

John was not shown 7 different visions. That is your symbolic painting of your interpretation. You are turning John's literal experience into your own painted masterpiece. That is the point of your post.

You will not even admit he had seven different visions on different occasions. He was taken to be an eye witness to the future. John literally witnessed the Second Coming, he witnessed the GT, and he witnessed the 42 months given to Satan in that order. The part about the 7 churches was the past, present, and future; because the church would at times over the next 1900 years exhibit these attributes over and over again.

I am not saying your interpretation is wrong. It just cannot replace the reality of what John actually did experience. John used his own symbolism. You are replacing his with a different type of symbolism. But I think you have a different conclusion than John's own experience. You blur the future too much into the past.

When I use my view, revelation sinks up with the olivet discourse and 2 Thessalonians 2. It is a framework, nothing more just like the pretribbers use their own framework to draw their conclusions.

 

[marks]

Isaiah 59:19-21 KJV
19) So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.
20) And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21) As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If you recognize that in the OT, sin was covered by sacrifice, but not removed, so that sacrifices had to be continually offered, and if you likewise recognize that sin in the NT is removed in Christ, then you are dispensationalist. These are two different dispensations.

Much love!