The Galilean wedding is the model for the pre-trib rapture

[Davy]

Isn't that sort of a slightly ridiculous statement to make? It says you're not even willing to give a close enough look at the material presented and that the best we get from you you is, Uh-uhh...? Is it impossible that you were ever wrong? Are you even able to learn anything new?

No, it is not ridiculous what I said. I've heard it all before, and so have many here also heard the Jewish wedding being pushed as a model for Christ's future return, and used to push what doctrine? A false pre-trib rapture theory.

Taking Bible Scripture out of context is the only way pre-tribbers try to establish the false pre-trib rapture theory, simply because no such theory is written in God's Word. That's why their followers revert to speculation, pop slogans, man's philosophy and doctrines, and NOT staying with the actual Bible Scripture that reveals when Jesus said His return and gathering of His Church will be!

Even Apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16 showed when Jesus comes, when he showed the asleep saints must be resurrected for Christ to bring them with Him when He comes. The future resurrection is on that LAST DAY of this world per Jesus. Thus, that puts 1 Thess.4 showing Jesus' coming on the last day of this world, which so does what Jesus said in Matt.24 and Mark 13.

So no, I don't have to LISTEN to a bunch of malarkey made up by pre-tribbers, as I've already heard it before, and God's Word already reveals their doctrine is a LIE.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no explicit statement of rapture timing period. So that fact helps neither you nor me, since it's not said either way. However, there are several statements which presuppose those who are in Christ are removed pre-trib.

If you place the rapture post trib, it will be required that you cannot accept the plain sayings of passages like the sheep/goats judgment, the gathering of the chosen, the sealing of the 144,000. There are others also.

Much love!

I provided the Scriptures that said precisely what you say is not said. Not much more I can say about it? If you don't want to believe the plain words of Scripture, that is on you. I've done my job in speaking the truth boldly.

I'm not surprised you didn't quote my entire message, because that contains the information you wish to omit. That is unfortunate. Here it is again for those who are more open-minded....

2 Thes 2.3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
....8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

"That day will not come..." What "day" is this? We are told that it is the day that Christ is coming for his People.

2 Thes 2.1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him...that day will not come...

So, the Rapture of the Church will *not* take place until the revelation of Antichrist at the time of his destruction.

This is all based on the prophecy of the Little Horn in Dan 7, who is defeated at the coming of the Son of Man to establish God's Kingdom on earth.

Dan 7.11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire...13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Usually when I point out to Pretribbers that there is no explicit Pretrib Theology in the Bible they just claim that neither position is explicit, Postrib or Pretrib. But that is not true. God isn't trying to make friends with advocates of every position. He fearlessly states the truth and lets others choose to believe or not.

Pretribbers get confused because they are told there is such a thing as a Pretrib Rapture. It was not taught before John N. Darby in about 1830 except perhaps as part of some eccentric offering. It was never part of mainstream biblical eschatology up until Darby.

And so, once Pretrib eschatology was established via the Scofield Reference Bible it came to be presumed as true. And that's why Pretribbers can't believe the Bible solves this dilemma because biblically no such dilemma ever existed. There never were two positions on Christ's Coming, before or after the Antichrist. This was concocted by Dispensationalism and unfortunately got connected to popular Futurism.

I have nothing against Future Prophecy--I believe in it myself, as all Christians should. But we need to disconnect it from a Pretrib Rapture, since this is extra-biblical and man-made.

 

[Davy]

There is no explicit statement of rapture timing period. So that fact helps neither you nor me, since it's not said either way. However, there are several statements which presuppose those who are in Christ are removed pre-trib.

If you place the rapture post trib, it will be required that you cannot accept the plain sayings of passages like the sheep/goats judgment, the gathering of the chosen, the sealing of the 144,000. There are others also.

Of course what you say above is false, since you've allowed pre-trib preachers to deceive you.

1 Thessalonians 4 by Apostle Paul DOES... reveal when the rapture will occur. Thing is, pre-trib rapture preachers won't teach what Paul actually said there, but they instead just bypass even important timing Scripture in 1 Thess.4. I've noticed over the years that those on the false pre-trib rapture theory actually do NOT understand the 1 Thess.4 Scripture...

1 Thess 4:13-16
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.

Paul's subject there is about the asleep saints that have died. Paul says Jesus will bring them with Him when He comes.

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (precede per the Greek) them which are asleep.

Paul says there those of us still alive will not... precede the asleep saints that have died. Why? because per 2 Corinthians 5, they are already with Jesus.

16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
KJV

That's about the asleep that have already died which Paul said Jesus will bring with Him when He comes. And that reveals those asleep saints MUST be resurrected first in order for Jesus to bring them with Him.

So WHEN is the future resurrection?

John 6:39-40
39 And this is the Father's will Which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of Him That sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
KJV

And there it is, Paul revealed WHEN the asleep saints will be resurrected so Jesus will bring them with Him when He returns. And that timing was written there in 1 Thess.4 all along. All one needed to do is simply read it.

Then the following 1 Thess.4:17 verse is about Christ's future coming to gather His saints that's still alive on earth... what some call the 'rapture'...

1 Thess 4:17
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
KJV

Therefore:
1. the asleep saints that have died are resurrected first at the future resurrection, and then Jesus brings them with Him when He returns.

2. those of us still alive on earth at that same time, will be "caught up" to them and Jesus.

Paul thus proved that Christ's future coming and gathering of the Church will be on the LAST DAY of this present world, and that means a POST-Trib return by Jesus Christ.

 

[marks]

Of course what you say above is false, since you've allowed pre-trib preachers to deceive you.

And that's as far as I'm going to read of your post. Life is too short.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

All the theologians, scripture scholars, bishops, saints and reformers were incapable of interpreting God's word....until....
...John Nelson Darby came along. He broke off from the Plymouth Brethren over theological disputes. Founder of the Exclusive Brethren sect, Darby invented pre-tribulation rapture theology in 1830 that was totally foreign to all of Christianity.

His theory was further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible. The footnotes were made doctrine by American dispensationists.

...fast forward to 1970...

The biggest-selling work of non-fiction (other than the Bible) since 1970 is dispensationalist Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth (Bantam, 1970), which sold more than 40 million copies and established the blueprint for a number of other popular, self-described “Bible prophecy” experts (including Tim LaHaye, creator and coauthor of the Left Behind series)

LaHaye’s first work of “Bible prophecy” was The Beginning of the End (Tyndale, 1972), essentially a carbon copy of Lindsey’s mega-seller. In the years that followed, Lindsey and LaHaye, along with authors such as Salem Kirban, David Wilkinson, Dave Hunt, Grant Jeffrey, John Walvoord, and others, produced a string of best-selling books warning of the rapidly approaching pretribulation Rapture, the Antichrist, and the tribulation.

One message of LaHaye’s that comes across clearly in books such as Are We Living in the End Times?, Rapture Under Attack, and Revelation Unveiled is that the Catholic Church is apostate, Catholicism is “Babylonian mysticism” and an “idolatrous religion,” and Catholics worship Mary, knowing little about the real Jesus Christ. It’s difficult to overstate the dislike — even hatred — LaHaye has for the Catholic Church or to exaggerate the ridiculous character of his attacks. He condemns the use of candles in Catholic churches, insists there’s hardly any difference between Hinduism and Catholicism, and emphatically declares that the Catholic Church killed at least 40 million people during the “dark ages.”

When I asked LaHaye, via e-mail, why he never refers to Catholic sources or official documents in his writings, he replied:

Because I think that for centuries the Catholic Church has presented church history in a manner protective of “Mother church.” . . . I have seen more concern on the part of your church for Hindus, Buddhists, and other pagan religions than they do [sic] for those who love Jesus Christ as He is presented in the Bible and are committed to making Him known to the lost so they will not be Left Behind.

In other words, the Catholic Church is simply wrong and doesn’t deserve a fair hearing. LaHaye has not only revealed himself to be an anti-Catholic polemicist but a theologian with a seriously skewed view of God’s salvific work. In a newspaper interview, LaHaye said, “We’ve [himself and Jenkins] created a series of books about the greatest cosmic event that will happen in the history of the world.” What is that “greatest cosmic event”? The Incarnation? The Cross? The Resurrection? No, the Rapture — a modern, man-made belief based on a distorted Christology and an anemic ecclesiology.

The Rapture

Discover Catholic teachings on the Rapture. Pre, Mid, or Post? Find clarity on the 'end times'. Here's what the Church teaches about the apocalypse."

www.catholic.com

It's ironic; all this talk about "end time persecution" and/or "great tribulation" while guys like Lahaye inflict it on Catholics.

Yes, it's pathetic how those who think to evangelize the world cannot even treat brother Christians in a respectful way. Raised with Protestant convictions I also have some issues with Catholic traditions. However, I know there are good upstanding Christians in the Catholic Church. I don't like the present Pope, but how can we hope to reason with those we insult and ridicule, and prejudge?

I've written letters to men like David Wilkerson, Chuck Smith, Oral Roberts, and Hal Lindsay. It did no good. They are/were committed to their own traditions. It seems that once you've written a book, pride takes over and there ceases to be the possibility of correction or change? God help us all!

 

[marks]

If you don't want to believe the plain words

You know . . . same as Davy. Life's too short for this nonsense.

Much love!

 

[Davy]

And that's as far as I'm going to read of your post. Life is too short.

Much love!

Well, you'd have to not read the Scripture proof I provide that shows the pre-trib rapture theory is false. That so you can keep your deceived belief on a false pre-trib rapture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I attend a Pretrib church--the Assemblies of God. My pastors are committed to Pretrib, and nobody, including my wife, is willing to embrace my own Postrib due to the power of the "group." So don't accuse me of being disrespectful or unfair with those of an opposite position. I have to listen to sermon after sermon with Pretrib references, while I'm not afforded the opportunity to speak on behalf of Postrib.

All of the pastors have said they're willing to engage me on this subject. Only one met with me, and never discussed anything more than to accept we allow for different opinions--no discussion of the subject itself. Previous pastors promised to meet with me, and didn't. They suggested I call or email, and then never responded.

I don't hate these people. They are my brothers and sisters. They just refuse to buck the tradition of their own sect or group. I get authority from the Bible itself, from the apostles--not from pastors or church denominations. I don't hate them--disagreement is not hatred. Disrespecting belief without authority is not an insult--it is an appeal to the conscience coupled with sincere emotion and persuasion.

 

[marks]

They just refuse to buck the tradition of their own sect or group.

It's really difficult to imagine that you truly think this of me! Do you truly think this is me?

Much love!

 

[marks]

So don't accuse me of being disrespectful or unfair with those of an opposite position.

I provided the Scriptures that said precisely what you say is not said. Not much more I can say about it? If you don't want to believe the plain words of Scripture, that is on you. I've done my job in speaking the truth boldly.

I'm not surprised you didn't quote my entire message, because that contains the information you wish to omit. That is unfortunate. Here it is again for those who are more open-minded....

You can choose how you address and describe others. Do you consider it the best option to broadcast your poor opinions of others?

Maybe there is a higher road?

Much love!

 

[MA2444]

No, it is not ridiculous what I said. I've heard it all before, and so have many here also heard the Jewish wedding being pushed as a model for Christ's future return, and used to push what doctrine? A false pre-trib rapture theory.

Taking Bible Scripture out of context is the only way pre-tribbers try to establish the false pre-trib rapture theory, simply because no such theory is written in God's Word. That's why their followers revert to speculation, pop slogans, man's philosophy and doctrines, and NOT staying with the actual Bible Scripture that reveals when Jesus said His return and gathering of His Church will be!

Even Apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16 showed when Jesus comes, when he showed the asleep saints must be resurrected for Christ to bring them with Him when He comes. The future resurrection is on that LAST DAY of this world per Jesus. Thus, that puts 1 Thess.4 showing Jesus' coming on the last day of this world, which so does what Jesus said in Matt.24 and Mark 13.

So no, I don't have to LISTEN to a bunch of malarkey made up by pre-tribbers, as I've already heard it before, and God's Word already reveals their doctrine is a LIE.

So why reply to the thread at all? Like I said, I took good notes and can walk you right through the scriptures about it and show you things that you aint never thought about before. So my question now becomes, if you're unwilling to do that, then what good is it for you to post at all about this topic? You add no value to this thread at all. So you dont believe it, so what? Such is your right. But your brand of debate is deplorable as a brick wall. Have some class and stay clear if you dont want to discuss this malarky as you say, lol

You're in all these thread I see. All of them about pretrib rapture being false. But you dont impress me. You cant even approach a discussion without setting aside all of your preconceived notions and you refuse to do that, so isnt that sort of like being a punk? You have no class Brother, and you're being short sighted.

We Christians who want to grow and learn will read these discussions and honestly by setting aside any preconceived notions when considering the back and forth on a topic, and try to follow what they are saying as if I may be wrong...in that way we are able to double check ourselves through study. In that way, we are following the wisdom which is spoken of in Proverbs 18:13 and sometimes...we realize that we were wrong on something, so we learn and grow. If you can't do that, then...you can't be a teacher either. How do you expect to teach people the supposed truth when your posts don't even sound like a verisimilitude. They're just opinions that you have. You see my point? The more we study to show ourseleves approved, the more we must be able to have discussion that holds any ethical values whatsoever. Just mere arrogant opinion and no real engagement. Some teacher, lol.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You can choose how you address and describe others. Do you consider it the best option to broadcast your poor opinions of others?

Maybe there is a higher road?

Much love!

Brother, what you said quite plainly is that there is no proof, right after I said there was, of the Postrib position. And I quoted for you the passage that gave that explicit proof. So what you did was omit the Scripture I used to prove my point, and proceeded to say that no proof existed.

That is why I said you omitted the Scriptural reference which in fact you did. I have a high opinion of you, but not in matters like this where you clearly deny that there is proof that has just been provided.

So I offered you the same proof again, and you provided absolutely no rebuttal--just concern that you're being unfairly treated. This is what I get *all the time* on this one issue. My pastors say they want to discuss the issues, and then ignore me. This has gone on for years.

Could it be that those who have no answers simply can't answer? I have no wish to insult, but if there is no answer from your side, then you have to admit it, or feel "abused."

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's really difficult to imagine that you truly think this of me! Do you truly think this is me?

Much love!

I can come to no other conclusion. You're a nice guy, and probably sincere. However, in the face of the evidence you turn to feeling "insulted," as opposed to trying to respond. And you omit the Scriptural evidence I gave, rather than question what it meant.

So yes, it is absolutely your tradition in eschatology that determines how you view this matter. There is absolutely no Pretrib theology in the Bible.

Sorry, I've been on this topic since about 1972 or 73. I've heard it all. There absolutely is no answer from your side on this. Dr. Walvoord, Hal Lindsay, Chuck Smith--I don't care. I heard all of the argument more than 30 years ago. John Darby messed up--we should acknowledge that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So why reply to the thread at all? Like I said, I took good notes and can walk you right through the scriptures about it and show you things that you aint never thought about before.

I'm absolutely willing to listen to anything you have to say on this subject. I've been studying it for years, and I have no wish to act in an insulting way. All I ask is honesty in the matter, without diversions and underhanded methodologies of escaping responsibility.

I've been wrong many times in my life, and it's never pleasant. But in the end, we just want to be on board with Jesus, right? That's my sole interest here--even if he doesn't want me to talk about it at all. But I think he's good with it, assuming it remains edifying among Christians. Of course edification does not exclude reproofs!

I've not been following your particular comments, but am I to assume you're good with the "wedding" symbolism of Pretrib?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Brother, I believe that you have hit the nail on the head. That is exactly how I learned it, except you filled me in on a couple new points! That is encouraging to me that, I cant disagree with anything you posted about it. That there is evidence that the Holy Spirit (that will lead us into All truth) is on the job and teaching the same truths to different people!

The rapture is pretrib. Jesus Loves His Bride. Jesus would not subject His Bride to the 70th week of Daniel, these things are promised in scripture. The great tribulation is all about Israel even though it affects everyone on earth.

Jesus wil show up for His Bride and say, hey honey we're going to dinner after we stop by a gang fight and I let them beat the crap out of you....!! No. He comes by surprise just like in the Hebrew/Galliian wedding. Did he not say, I go to prepare a place for you? I will return so be ready because I come when you think not!

I just looked out the window Brother and it's not today I think. Not a cloud in the sky. (The Angels said, He will come in the clouds)...and it's not a cloud in the sky today. But I'm with you on this, Brother! I get it. I agree.

Apparently one of the (very) few,.

John Darby does not deserve so many followers. Pretrib was never a school of theology before him. You claim all of your points without a shred of Bible doctrine--you just quote things and apply them as you see fit, regardless of whether they actually fit.

You say Jesus promised that the Church will not suffer Daniel's 70th Week? Where? Nowhere! Daniel's 70th Week was the end of God's acceptance of Temple offerings, indicated by the death of Jesus in the middle of that Week.

But what followed that fateful Week was the fall of Jerusalem, along with the Temple itself. And this was to begin an age-long great tribulation for the Jewish People, cast out of their country until the time of their restoration.

Christians would suffer the rejection of the Jews at this time, and Christians would also suffer in the countries where they are rejected, just as the Jews rejected Christianity. There is no promise of escape from this. Jesus said, "in the world you will have tribulation." The only escape promised Christians in Jesus' generation was escape from the Roman siege of Jerusalem, if they were willing to heed Jesus' advice and flee to the hills.

Yes, sometimes God gives us an avenue of escape. But generally speaking, when we live in the world we suffer many of the world's problems. Your vague "promise of escape from tribulation" is false.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Put all together, this symbolism may present a perfect picture of the Pretrib Rapture to you, if indeed a Pretrib Rapture even existed. But it doesn't. That's why it's so dangerous to build doctrine on symbolism, in which people can fasten any particular meaning to it they wish to attach.

True biblical doctrine is spelled out, and not hinted at, in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. He doesn't make vague suggestions, but says what He wants us to believe. There is absolutely zero Pretrib Doctrine spelled out in the NT Scriptures!! So, all of this symbolism can be attached to Pretrib Doctrine, Midtrib Doctrine, Postrib Doctrine, or any doctrine that one wishes to presuppose and then rationalize.

Let's take just your points here, and see how they fit into Postrib Doctrine, as well.

1. There is an element of surprise. No one knew when the wedding would take place except the father.

The Beast in the book of Revelation reigns without contest for 1260 days. Then the world rises up at Armageddon, which is a mobilization that obviously takes some time. Nobody knows when the trigger will be pulled on this apparently-nuclear war. It has the element of surprise.

We are told in Scriptures that even though Christians do not know the day or the hour, it is the unbelievers who will be surprised--not believers. And the book of Revelation indicates that Christ comes as a thief *at Armageddon!* Rev 16.15

2. There is a sense of imminency. The bride and her bridesmaids had to always be ready because they didn’t know the exact hour of the wedding.

Our readiness for Christ's Coming is said, by Jesus, to be a matter of doing good works, of doing the service of the Kingdom. This is not an any-minute expectation of the Kingdom! We do jobs not expecting an unexpected interruption, but rather, to maintain worthiness. It is *being worthy* that makes us ready--not intellectual alertness with the paranoia we could be caught in a sin! It's more like being a responsible worker than being a watchman expecting the enemy at any moment.

3. There is a seven-day period where the groom and bride are secluded.
a. This corresponds to Daniel’s Seventh Week, where one week represents seven years.

There is no future 70th Week of Daniel to be fulfilled. It took place as only a Half-Week immediately following the 69th Week, which was in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. And it was to be followed by the fall of Jerusalem, which is what happened in 70 AD. There is no future Week of Daniel!

You might as well say the "seven-day period" refers to 7000 years of human history in which mankind waits to fully enter into immortality with Christ. You can make symbols mean whatever you want them to mean--this is not biblical doctrine!

4. There is a wedding feast during this period that culminates in the grand marriage supper.

All Christians are already betrothed to Christ and married by contract, even though our future immortality has not yet been settled. That will be the wedding feast, when we enjoy immortality and everlasting joy. This is as Postrib as you can get.

The Church cannot be glorified until the time of the resurrection of the saints. And that takes place, according the NT Scriptures, at the 2nd Coming of Christ, which is the last day of the age. It is when we become Christians that our engagement period begins, already finalized as a contract.

a. Those who were invited but did not come were locked out of the celebration in outer darkness, where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It goes without saying that when Christ comes again on the last day, the wicked and false believers will be excluded and sent off into outer darkness, while those who were faithful are invited into the glorious city of Christ.

None of this is necessarily Pretrib. Pretrib applications "do not fit" because there *is not Pretrib Doctrine in the Bible!!* By contrast, Postrib Doctrine is explicitly taught in the Bible, in Dan 7, in the Olivet Discourse, in 2 Thes 2, and in the book of Revelation. No Jewish marriage ceremony suggests otherwise.

I think your error is to state,true biblical doctrine is spelled out not hinted at....

Yeshua, his name was not actually Jesus,and maybe the reason the world has fallen into its current dilemma is because for over 2000 years believers have called on the wrong name, told his Disciples the reason he taught in parables was so that not all would understand and be redeemed. His Disciples understood because as Yeshua said,it was given them to understand.

Therein Yeshua tells us his word is not clearly spelled out.

 

[BlessedPeace]

The ancient Galilean wedding ceremony is the model for the rapture, specifically the pre-trib rapture. When the Scriptures are compared to the Galilean wedding ceremony, it explains the purpose of the rapture, why the church won’t go through the tribulation, and puts certain biblical passages into proper context. There are very few who understand the significance of the Galilean wedding ceremony, and even fewer who understand the parallels with the pre-trib rapture. That significance, however, would not have been lost on Jesus or His disciples, all of whom were Galilean except for Judas. Nor would it have been lost on the Galileans of the first century, whom Jesus spent most of His time around.

It may be no coincidence that Jesus’ first recorded miracle was turning water into wine at a Galilean wedding. It was as if He was trying to draw attention to the wedding for reasons that will soon become apparent. It’s been said that Jesus taught about the resurrection but not the rapture. Yet, when the words and actions of Jesus are compared with the Galilean wedding ceremony, a different picture emerges. Before we get to that picture, we must first understand the customs and culture that shaped the Galileans in Jesus’ day.

Galilee was originally settled by the tribes of Naphthali and Dan. After the Assyrian invasion in the eighth century BC, the northern ten tribes of Israel were dispersed throughout the vast Assyrian empire. In their place, Assyria repopulated the region with people from all the nations they conquered. In fact, the Book of Isaiah refers to the region as g'lil ha-goyím, meaning 'Galilee of the Nations' or 'Galilee of the Gentiles' (Isaiah 9:1).

Perhaps it was due to this foreign influence that the inhabitants of Galilee developed their own unique customs, traditions, and even speech that differed from the Jews in Judea. This is what made the Galilean wedding ceremony unique. Rabbi Judah (135–217 AD) said, “In Judea they made inquiry concerning the bridegroom and bride three days before the wedding: but in Galilee they did not so. In Judea they allowed the bridegroom and bride private company one hour before the wedding; but they did not so in Galilee. It was a custom in Judea that the married persons should have two friends, one of the family of the bridegroom, and the other of the family of the bride: but it was not so in Galilee. In Judea those friends slept in the same place where the bridegroom and bride slept: but in Galilee it was not so."

One objection may be: how do we know what an ancient Galilean wedding was like? That’s a fair question, however, we do know quite a bit about what a typical Jewish wedding was like in antiquity. And while there were variations between a Jewish wedding in Judea and a Jewish wedding in Galilee, there is enough overlap to give us a pretty good idea of what was involved. The rest can be pieced together from various sources, including the Bible, extra-biblical sources, historical records, rabbinic literature, archaeological findings, scholarly works, and so on, to give us a complete picture of the ceremony.

To best understand the parallels with the Galilean wedding ceremony and the parallels with the pre-trib rapture, we will need to examine an outline of the sequence of events and how they correspond to what Jesus and others spoke of in Scripture. The Galilean wedding ceremony can be divided into three distinct stages: contract, consummation, and celebration.

Great teaching. :)

Years ago a documentary on the wedding was made. "Before The Wrath".

I think you may find it interesting.

Featured by Vimeo:

 

[Davy]

So why reply to the thread at all? Like I said, I took good notes and can walk you right through the scriptures about it and show you things that you aint never thought about before.

Now why would you flat tell a lie like that? you have yet to walk anyone... through Bible Scripture that proves the false pre-trib rapture theory. Nor can you, without first 'changing' what the Scriptures actually teach, as written.

There is NO Bible Scripture that supports a gathering of the Church prior to the "great tribulation". And that is what you 'must' have in order to prove a pre-trib rapture. So please don't damage your soul with telling lies that you can prove it by Bible Scripture when you well know you cannot.

 

[RedFan]

Neither the bride nor groom knew the exact day when the wedding would take place. No one knew except the groom’s father.

OK, you're going to have to show me some historical evidence for this. Whether you think the groom's father announced the date a day before, a week before, or a month before the wedding date doesn't matter to me -- I'm just looking for ANYTHING which supports your statement that the groom's father kept the date he had decided on secret until closer to the wedding day.