The absurdity of Pretrib logic

[Spiritual Israelite]

You just admitted here what I alleged in the Op: Pretrib has nothing in Scripture that teaches a rapture of the Church, followed by seven-year tribulation, followed by a third coming of the Lord. What you presented exposes Pretrib. You present Pretrib as some mythical cryptic esoteric incomprehensible theory that can only be worked out by those who have read The Left Behind novels. It seems to be the key to unlocking your doctrine. No! Never! The Holy Spirit does a better job!

I will repost.

Jesus said in Luke 17:24-34: “For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.”

“one shall taken, and the other shall be left”

If we look closer at this passage we learn, “in that night (when He shall Come) there shall be two in one bed; the one shall be paraleemftheésetai (or) taken, and the other shall be afetheésetai (or) left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be paraleemftheésetai (or) taken, and the other afetheésetai (or) left.”

It is interesting when we look at the meaning of this Greek word paraleemftheésetai used here. Strong’s says that it indicates, “to receive near, i.e. associate with oneself in any familiar or intimate act or relation.” The word is interpreted elsewhere in the King James Version as ‘receive’, ‘take unto’ or ‘take with’. The company that are therefore received by Christ in this passage are those that have been brought into an intimate mystical union with Him through salvation; they are His elect. This narrative is unquestionably referring to the catching away of the saints, and the marriage of the lamb.

This is the same word that Christ used in John 14:3 when He promised His disciples that He would come again to receive them, saying, “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and paraleémpsomai (or) receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”

Interestingly, the word used here to describe the second party in view is the Greek word afetheésetai, which carries the meaning to forsake, put away or lay aside. This is the fate that awaits the wicked alone when Christ comes in all His glory.

No one that has taken the time to examine the meaning of the Greek words for “taken” and “left” can surely deny that the definition of “taken” is manifestly positive and the definition of “left” is patently negative.

Q. What then happens to those left behind?

A. The Lord’s solemn warning in the midst of the aforementioned narrative confirms the answer, and is in complete agreement with Christ’s unambiguous preceding comments in the same chapter, and every other explicit passage in Scripture. He makes it abundantly clear that instant and complete destruction befalls the wicked. He solemnly counsels the disciples, “Remember Lot's wife.”

Remember Lot's

Q. Why must we “remember Lot's wife”? What befell her?

She got caught in the escape out of Sodom because her heart was still there. Despite being fully aware of the impending destruction, Lot's wife’s heart was located in Sodom and towards the awful iniquity; this was despite the fact that she also desired to be with the people of God. Notwithstanding, Genesis 19:26 says of Lot, “his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.”

Her foolish refusal to once-and-for-all turn her back on Sodom caused her to be instantly and completely destroyed. Through her un-preparedness, she was immediately cast into a lost hell – damned and doomed for all eternity – without hope and without Christ.

What Christ is therefore warning in this reading is this: ‘Remember Lot's wife because she was found wanting on the day when God finally poured out His judgment upon the wicked; be warned because His second coming will similarly expose the heart of every hypocrite, although on this occasion it will be for the very final time. Those left behind will face the same punishment as Lot’s wife – total destruction.

When Noah left the world of his day and entered into the ark
there were many left lying in beds and grinding at mills to receive
the wrath of God and therefore destruction. The same happened in Lot's day. The same will happen at Christ's Coming.

After Christ described the destruction that accompanies His return, He talks about one being rescued the other being destroyed. Jesus tells us that those left behind will suffer the same total, immediate and awful doom that Noah's world and Sodom suffered in their day (Luke 17). Once the ark door closes that is it. It is too late.

Where ever the carcass is there the eagles will be gathered together

The disciples then ask: “Where, Lord?” Christ replies: “Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.” Eagles flock to where there is prey. Where bodies lie that is where they will congregate. Death and destruction mark the aftermath of God’s judgment. Whilst God’s people are rescued the wicked perish in destruction.

The eagles devour those left behind. Rev 19 correlates.

It couldn't possibly be more clear that the ones who are left behind are killed. It very clearly says it will be like it was with the flood. All unbelievers were left out of the ark and were killed in the flood and that is how it will be when Jesus comes. And Jesus indicated that those who are left will have their dead bodies eaten by eagles or vultures. So, He very clearly taught that all who are left behind are killed. Those who are taken up, which are believers, will be changed to be immortal and caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

So, with all of that in mind, why do pre-tribs still think that those who are left behind are left to face an imaginary Antichrist during an imaginary tribulation period after the rapture occurs? That can't happen when they're dead. So, the only reason I can think of that pretribbers believe that is because that's what they want to believe. It makes for a more exciting story or something. It makes for entertaining fictional novels and movies. But, is it worth exchanging the truth taught in scripture for made up stories just because what scripture teaches may not be as interesting and exciting as their make believe, sensationalzied pretrib rapture scenario? I just don't get it.

Again, Jesus could not possibly have been more clear that those left behind will be killed. I can't even fathom why anyone would deny that. It's truly mind boggling.

When Paul mentions "those who are alive and remain" in 1 Thess 4:14-17, what do pretribbers think it means for them to "remain"? That implies that they are the ones who have survived something while the rest did not. They are the ones who remain alive after something happens. After what happens? The tribulation of those days (Matthew 24:29-31). This shows that one being taken and one left has to do with a post-trib rapture, not a pre-trib rapture. The only ones who remain alive when some are taken and the rest are left are those who are taken. Those who are left become food for the birds just as is indicated here:

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

Scripture is clear. The rapture is post-trib and no unbelievers (none of those who are left behind on the earth) will survive the second coming of Christ.

 

[MA2444]

We all believe in His impending coming. That proves nothing. Where is your Pretrib rapture in Revelation?

Not imminent, impending. It is approaching.

You're backing off from that now? In the 1st post you said it was imminent. Then you say impending which is not imminent?

Your playing word games because you dont want to admit that the scriptures say that the rapture is imminent. I always thought impending did mean imminent, so I had to look that one up to try to decipher what you were supposedly really tring to say. Want to know what I found?

impending​

[ im-pen-ding ]
Phonetic (Standard)IPA

adjective​

1. about to happen; imminent:
   their impending marriage.
2. imminently threatening or menacing:
   an impending storm..../Dictionary.com

Well how about that! If we cant get on the same page about anything then you are useless to talk to.

 

[Douggg]

Not like there would be if millions of people around the world all disappeared at once! Goodness gracious. Why are you trying to downplay how chaotic and insane it would be if that happened? You're comparing that to a normal day? Please be serious here.

Don't try and turn around what I wrote. You demanded scriptural description of the shocking after affects of the rapture. I said that there are none. You were not satisfied with that answer, and demanded again that I give scriptural description of the shocking after affects.

I gave you one example of the two persons in the car, one taken, one left.... resulting in a car crash. Which I said car crashes are not in scripture, although they happen every day. So what I say about there not being any scriptural description of the shocking after affects of the rapture remains true.

 

[The Light]

LOL. Where is the clear, straightforward scripture which supports your doctrine? All you have to support your doctrine are highly debatable verses from the most highly symbolic book in all of scripture. That's a very shaky foundation for a doctrine!

When we realize that there are two raptures, which there are, all your supposed proof there is not a pretrib rapture goes up in smoke. The FACT that Lord says we can be worthy to escape ALL THESE THINGS is positive proof there is a pretrib raputre.

Luke 21
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Why are you unable to provide proof of when you think the rapture is in the book of Revelation?

Why do you have the Church going through the wrath of God when we are not appointed to wrath.

None of your beliefs hold up with any scriptural support.

The fact of the matter is we are not told who exactly the 24 elders are and it says they have crowns of gold. What we are said to receive when Jesus returns is the crown of life.

Well you can get a silver crown it

Rev 3
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Or is it the crown of righteousness.
2 Tim 4
8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Revelation 22
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

So, where does it say that the elders are human beings that have been caught up to meet Christ at His return and have received the crown of life? Oh yeah. Nowhere.

Is this all you have? You have no clear scripture at all to back up your doctrine? That appears to be the case.

I've got plenty more.

So where in Revelation is your rapture?

 

[WPM]

You mean like I showed you the 24 elders in heaven with crowns proving that Jesus has come and the kings and priest in heaven in Rev 5 that you cannot refrefutet

You previously told me they were not the Church. Which is it?

 

[MA2444]

LOL. Where is the clear, straightforward scripture which supports your doctrine? All you have to support your doctrine are highly debatable verses from the most highly symbolic book in all of scripture.

Is this all you have? You have no clear scripture at all to back up your doctrine?

You want to see it in Revelation. But you know that Matthew 24 has a lot to with it also? SO I draw your sttention to
Matthew 24:15
15 “The day is coming when you will see what Daniel the prophet spoke about—the sacrilegious object that causes desecration[d] standing in the Holy Place.” (Reader, pay attention!) .../KJV

Now that is Jesus talking to the disciples. So what Jesus says is got to be important, am I right? Ok, I believe that's a given here.

So what is Jesus talking about Daniel the Prophet for in the middle of His end times discussion? Is Daniel the Prophet important?

The fact of the matter is, if you dont understand the book of Daniel, then you will never understand the book of Revelation. You have had many scriptures given to you and you ignore them as if you thnk thry're not relevant.

So my question is: Is what Jesus said, irrevelant?

 

[MA2444]

Don't try and turn around what I wrote. You demanded scriptural description of the shocking after affects of the rapture. I said that there are none. You were not satisfied with that answer, and demanded again that I give scriptural description of the shocking after affects.

I gave you one example of the two persons in the car, one taken, one left.... resulting in a car crash. Which I said car crashes are not in scripture, although they happen every day. So what I say about there not being any scriptural description of the shocking after affects of the rapture remains true.

I was thinking about that before. What if Jesus isnt like that? Two men flying a plane, one taken one left...so the plane crashes? Cars on the highway going full speed with no one driving? That would be chaos and...I dont think Jesus would let that happen. I think maybe some people will find themselves on the side of the road wondering how they got there. They cant remember the plane landing but they sure are on the ground, and the pilot really is missing. So it will be instant I think. no worldwide car crashes, just a question of where did all the missing people go?

I think the government may unveil the Aliens at that time and concoct a cover story that says a lot of bad people were removed from earth for re-education by the aiens. Which is a lie because there arent any aliens, they are in reality inter-dimensional Demonic beings.

So there will be definite effects of the rapture, but...how could Jesus allow a lot of innocent people die in their sins with no hope at that point?

Just a thought...

 

[WPM]

You're backing off from that now? In the 1t post you said it was imminent. Then you say impending which is not imminent?

Your playing word games because you dont want to admit that the scriptures say that the rapture is imminent. I always thought impending did mean imminent, so I had to look that one up to try to decipher what you were supposedly really tring to say. Want to know what I found?

impending​

[ im-pen-ding ]
Phonetic (Standard)IPA

adjective​

1. about to happen; imminent:
   their impending marriage.
2. imminently threatening or menacing:
   an impending storm..../Dictionary.com

Well how about that! If we cant get on the same page about anything then you are useless to talk to.

You Pretribbers have a lovely way of talking.

I use the word "impending" in its common sense as approaching. The word imminent suggests immediately. That could never be true unless He is coming today. That is a Pretrib distortion that you have bought into.

Just because you have no prooftexts does not justify your insults.

 

[WPM]

You want to see it in Revelation. But you know that Matthew 24 has a lot to with it also? SO I draw your sttention to
Matthew 24:15
15 “The day is coming when you will see what Daniel the prophet spoke about—the sacrilegious object that causes desecration[d] standing in the Holy Place.” (Reader, pay attention!) .../KJV

Now that is Jesus talking to the disciples. So what Jesus says is got to be important, am I right? Ok, I believe that's a given here.

So what is Jesus talking about Daniel the Prophet for in the middle of His end times discussion? Is Daniel the Prophet important?

The fact of the matter is, if you dont understand the book of Daniel, then you will never understand the book of Revelation. You have had many scriptures given to you and you ignore them as if you thnk thry're not relevant.

So my question is: Is what Jesus said, irrevelant?

Your arguments are all over the place. It doesn't add up.

 

[MA2444]

You Pretribbers have a lovely way of talking.

I use the word "impending" in its common sense as approaching. The word imminent suggests immediately. That could never be true unless He is coming today. That is a Pretrib distortion that you have bought into.

Just because you have no prooftexts does not justify your insults.

Common sense to who? Not me, I thought it meant implicitly. So I wanted to make sure we were on the same page about that, and lo and behold, you have changed the definition for impending or else you had a poor choice of words, when you saw where I was going with it, lol. That's funny and can you see you doging and squirming away from any agreement by, well I used that word to mean something else than what it means...

So since you refuse any agreement on even some small point, you are showing yourself to be useless to talk to. Go play games if you want. Not with me.

Your arguments are all over the place. It doesn't add up.

That's the best you got? No wonder it doesnt add up for you, what I posted is for those with ears to hear. All jabs aside, I can tell that you dont pray while reading your bible and ask for guidance rom the Holy Spirit. And ask for wisdom & understanding and discernment also. You shouldnt ever read not as if you were in class and listening.

 

[Douggg]

I was thinking about that before. What if Jesus isnt like that? Two men flying a plane, one taken one left...so the plane crashes? Cars on the highway going full speed with no one driving? That would be chaos and...I dont think Jesus would let that happen. I think maybe some people will find themselves on the side of the road wondering how they got there. They cant remember the plane landing but they sure are on the ground, and the pilot really is missing. So it will be instant I think. no worldwide car crashes, just a question of where did all the missing people go?

I think the government may unveil the Aliens at that time and concoct a cover story that says a lot of bad people were removed from earth for re-education by the aiens. Which is a lie because there arent any aliens, they are in reality inter-dimensional Demonic beings.

So there will be definite effects of the rapture, but...how could Jesus allow a lot of innocent people die in their sins with no hope at that point?

Just a thought...

There are a lot of questions we don't have the answers to.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're backing off from that now? In the 1t post you said it was imminent. Then you say impending which is not imminent?

Your playing word games because you dont want to admit that the scriptures say that the rapture is imminent. I always thought impending did mean imminent, so I had to look that one up to try to decipher what you were supposedly really tring to say. Want to know what I found?

impending​

[ im-pen-ding ]
Phonetic (Standard)IPA

adjective​

1. about to happen; imminent:
   their impending marriage.
2. imminently threatening or menacing:
   an impending storm..../Dictionary.com

Well how about that! If we cant get on the same page about anything then you are useless to talk to.

It's not possible for the rapture to have always been imminent because scripture very clearly indicates that certain things had to happen first before it would occur. Whether it is imminent now or not depends on one's interpretation of passages like this:

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

So, first, Paul references the day that he had formerly taught the Thessalonians about in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 which is the day when Jesus will come from heaven and His people will be gathered to Him "in the air". Paul referred to that day as "the day of Christ" or "the day of the Lord". Then he said "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed". Can you see here that Paul taught that a mass falling away from the faith and the revealing of the man of sin had to happen first before the rapture? So, at the time he wrote that going forward in time until those things actually happen, the rapture was not imminent. Once those things do start to happen, then it becomes imminent.

So, if someone interprets the falling away and revealing of the man of sin in such a way that they believe it has already started and is ongoing now, then they would believe that the rapture is imminent. This is why WPM said it is imminent because he believes the falling away has already started. But, that doesn't mean he believes it was always imminent. It wasn't imminent before that because certain things have to happen first before the rapture. Any post-tribber who does not believe that the falling away has begun yet believes the rapture is impending rather than imminent.

 

[Davidpt]

It's amazing to me that you have the gall to criticize our interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 when you are not even able to give a coherent explanation of how it should be interpreted yourself. That makes no sense.

Instead of typically being amazed at what I say at times, maybe you should take the time to consider what I submit rather than speedily rejecting what I submit? That aside.

Maybe you try understanding it like you do the fleeing in Revelation 18, for example. You don't take any of that in the literal sense, that it involves a literal city where ppl are to literally flee from it.

That aside since you might argue that Revelation is full of symbolism, the Discourse isn't. You would think, if nothing else, Daniel 12 undeniably proves that Matthew 24:21 can't fit the first century. But somehow, even though you are highly intelligent, you think it is reasonable that the following are not describing the same time period same events.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Your interpretation turns these passages into blatant lies, and how you cannot see that, is beyond me?

You would have us believe that 2000 years earlier this took place first----such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Then sometime later the following takes place---and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

First of all, who would argue and expect to be taken serious that great tribulation is not a time of trouble? Therefore, it would not be incorrect to understand Matthew 24:21 like such---For then shall be a time of trouble, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

We then have one passage saying, in regards to a time of trouble, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

We then have the other passage saying, in regards to a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Let's look at these two side by side, where you take the former to be meaning something that takes place before the latter takes place.

such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

What you are not grasping here is that the beginning of the world is involving nations, not the literal beginning of the world when Adam and Eve were created. There was no time of trouble in the beginning involving Adam and, but there was the serpent deception, but that does not qualify as a time of trouble. A time of trouble makes no sense unless it involves nations. Therefore, if Matthew 24:21 is also meaning since there was a nation, and that it says, no, nor ever shall be, what part of no, nor ever shall be, are you not comprehending?

How can you expect to be taken serious if you have Matthew 24:21 meaning that takes place first, and though it says it can never be equalled nor surpassed, you have it doing exactly that, something that it can't do, because you have Daniel 12:1 meaning different events, a different time period? Why don't you try combining these accounts? Maybe like such.

For then shall be great tribulation, a time of trouble, such as was not since the beginning of the world, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time, no, nor ever shall be.

You have this part happening 2000 years ago---no, nor ever shall be---then flat out contradict it by insisting Daniel 12:1 is not involving the same events same time period. No person who is not letting doctrinal bias get in their way would think this part makes sense if there is then later on something that equals it or surpasses it in greatness---no, nor ever shall be. Your interpretation makes Jesus out to be a liar here because you have later events equaling this or even surpassing this, even though Jesus plainly said, no, nor ever shall be. As in it can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness.

Per your view since you are applying Matthew 24:21 locally, and then applying Daniel 12:1 globally, how can you possibly think that something globally can't surpass something locally in greatness? Yet, Jesus said that what Matthew 24:21 is involving, it can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness. After all, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that is what He was meaning when He said this--no, nor ever shall be. Let that sink in if that's possible in your case, that Jesus said what you take to be a local event, that it can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness, which then means if you are correct, something involving local can surpass in greatness something involving global.

There you go then, I don't even need to bother trying to explain Matthew 24:15-21 in some coherent manner that might please you, since Matthew 24:15-21 can't fit the first century to begin with. And Daniel 12:1, for one, undeniably proves it. Only someone with doctrinal bias would dispute that Daniel 12:1 proves that Matthew 24:21 can't fit the first century. No person being objective would.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Don't try and turn around what I wrote.

I'm not. I went by what you actually said.

You demanded scriptural description of the shocking after affects of the rapture. I said that there are none. You were not satisfied with that answer, and demanded again that I give scriptural description of the shocking after affects.

How can anyone be satisfied with that answer? Why would such a hugely significant event that resulted from the fulfillment of Bible prophecy not even be described anywhere in scripture. Please explain that to me in a convincing way if you can. So far, it doesn't look like you can.

I gave you one example of the two persons in the car, one taken, one left.... resulting in a car crash. Which I said car crashes are not in scripture, although they happen every day. So what I say about there not being any scriptural description of the shocking after affects of the rapture remains true.

An individual car crash would only be one of many disasters that would happen if millions of people around the world suddenly disappeared. To say that car crashes are not in scripture is not an explanation for why a massive, worldwide disaster being caused by the supposed pre-trib fulfillment of 1 Thess 4:14-17 would not be described in scripture.

You mentioned one in the car being taken and one left. Can you explain why you would believe that many of the ones left behind would survive and face a supposed Antichrist during a supposed period of tribulation instead of all being killed as scripture teaches?

Please tell me how you interpret the following passage:

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. 31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

I have color coded this to contrast the representations of what will happen to those taken (red text) with what will happen to those left (blue text). It couldn't possibly be more clear that at the rapture when everyone is either taken or left, the ones left will be killed and feasted on by the eagles. The ones taken are compared to Noah going on to the ark and Lot leaving Sodom. What happened to those who were left on earth and out of the ark and the ones who were left in Sodom? They were all killed. Without exception. So, how you can think that anyone will survive when the rapture occurs is beyond me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Instead of typically being amazed at what I say at times, maybe you should take the time to consider what I submit rather than speedily rejecting what I submit? That aside.

What makes you think I haven't? How many times have we discussed this? I've lost count. But, you somehow think I haven't yet considered what you've said about this already many times before? No, I have. I haven't read the rest of your post yet and will in a little while, but I just thought I would say this for now because it seems like you somehow think I've never considered your view despite you presenting it many times before already.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Maybe you try understanding it like you do the fleeing in Revelation 18, for example. You don't take any of that in the literal sense, that it involves a literal city where ppl are to literally flee from it.

Context is very important and I believe you miss the context of scripture sometimes. Revelation 18 is contained within probably the most highly symbolic book in all of scripture. Matthew 24, unlike the book of Revelation, was not said to be "signified" (Revelation 1:1). There is no indication that Jesus was intending to be anything but straightforward and clear in the Olivet Discourse which is unlike what was intended for the book of Revelation which was purposely "signified" rather than being written in a straightforward way. While there is undeniably some figurative text in Matthew 24, it is primarily literal and straightforward unlike the book of Revelation which is primarily symbolic with some literal text as well.

That aside since you might argue that Revelation is full of symbolism, the Discourse isn't.

Ah, I see that you foresaw how I might respond. Well done. It's as if we've talked about this stuff before. ;)

You would think, if nothing else, Daniel 12 undeniably proves that Matthew 24:21 can't fit the first century.

Why would I think that? I would only think that if I only considered those passages and no other scripture. My doctrine is based on ALL scripture, not on assumptions being made from what is written in a couple verses.

But somehow, even though you are highly intelligent, you think it is reasonable that the following are not describing the same time period same events.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Somehow? I have explained how to you many times already. Yet, you still don't know how I do that? Does this mean that you don't actually read what I say or does it mean you have a bad memory? I'm not sure why I should bother explaining it to you yet again when you apparently will forget what I say, anyway.

Your interpretation turns these passages into blatant lies, and how you cannot see that, is beyond me?

Okay, it's clear to me after you say things like this that you are not willing to even give me a chance to explain and are not willing to even consider what I have to say about this. Even though I have already explained it to you many times before. Why do it again when you clearly have no interest in considering my view on this?

Do you really think your view is so convincing when you deny that Jesus answered the first question the disciples asked in Matthew 24? Talk about turning something into blatant lies! Do you really think that your view is so convincing when you can't even give a coherent explanation of what Matthew 24:15-21 is saying? You can't even offer a guess as to what it would mean in a non-literal sense for it to be a problem for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee. You can't even offer a guess as to why it would be difficult to flee during the winter or on the sabbath in a non-literal sense. But, you are somehow the one whose interpretation should be trusted?

You would have us believe that 2000 years earlier this took place first----such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Then sometime later the following takes place---and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

What is the context of Daniel 12:1-2? Local or global tribulation? Global, right? The resurrection of the dead that occurs once it's over is global, right? How about Matthew 24:15-21? Local or global tribulation? Clearly local only! The parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24 makes it even more clear. Jesus said when JERUSALEM is surrounded by armies, then you know its desolation is near. He said those in JUDEA would have to flee. You want to talk about turning a passage into blatant lies? Trying to turn a clearly local tribulation into a global tribulation is exactly that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

First of all, who would argue and expect to be taken serious that great tribulation is not a time of trouble? Therefore, it would not be incorrect to understand Matthew 24:21 like such---For then shall be a time of trouble, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

We then have one passage saying, in regards to a time of trouble, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

We then have the other passage saying, in regards to a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time

Yep. But, again, each verse has a different context which you fail to recognize. Matthew 24:15-21 is talking about tribulation in the form of God's wrath against unbelieving Jews that involves the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time whereas Daniel 12:1 should be understood to be talking about God's global wrath that will occur when Jesus returns and the dead are resurrected.

One thing that makes it so that you don't understand the context of Matthew 24:15-31 is that you don't also consider what is written about the same thing in Luke 21. The following passage shows the contrast between the tribulation/wrath that occurred in 70 AD and the global tribulation/wrath that will occur when Jesus returns:

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

I have color coded this to show the contrast between the local tribulation/wrath that occurred in 70 AD (shown in red) and the global tribulation/wrath that will occur when Jesus returns. It's clear to me that Luke 21:20-24a is parallel to Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:25-28 is parallel to Matthew 24:29-31. But, what I believe you miss is the time period in between those events that Luke calls "the times of the Gentiles" which is marked by Jerusalem being trampled on by the Gentiles which I believe relates to Jerusalem no longer having its temple and no longer being able to practice their religion that involved animal sacrifices and other activities at the temple. I believe Matthew 24:23-26 references things that happen after the local tribulation previously described during "the times of the Gentiles" and it is after THAT tribulation of a high level of deception that Jesus will return.

That matches up with what Paul taught in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Do you see Paul saying that physical tribulation had to happen first before Jesus comes and we're gathered to Him? No, he said a spiritual falling away had to happen first. Why do you not take things like that into account when interpreting the Olivet Discourse?

Per your view since you are applying Matthew 24:21 locally, and then applying Daniel 12:1 globally, how can you possibly think that something globally can't surpass something locally in greatness?

Again, you are missing the context. In Daniel 12:1 it is referring to something unprecedented that will happen when Jesus returns and the dead are resurrected. I'd say what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is unprecedented. Nothing like it having happened before. Yes, there was the global flood but that was destruction by water, not by fire. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire, but that was not a global event. So, nothing like 2 Peter 3:10-12 has happened before and never will happen again.

In Matthew 24:15-21, the context is local, so Jesus was saying that nothing like what would happen locally in Jerusalem (which happened in 70 AD) had ever happened before or would ever happen again and that is true. If you read about what happened in Judea and Jerusalem at that time, you should see that no other event anywhere was like it and nothing like that will ever happen anywhere again.

Yet, Jesus said that what Matthew 24:21 is involving, it can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness. After all, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that is what He was meaning when He said this--no, nor ever shall be. Let that sink in if that's possible in your case, that Jesus said what you take to be a local event, that it can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness, which then means if you are correct, something involving local can surpass in greatness something involving global.

With the way you are looking at this, how can anything be "surpassed in greatness" by the flood in Noah's day? Your understanding of what Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 mean causes you to conclude that some future event will cause even greater destruction than the flood where only 8 people survived! What do you think, that a future tribulation will result in even less than 8 people surviving? I'm sure you don't. So, clearly, you are taking those verses in the wrong context.

 

[WPM]

Common sense to who? Not me, I thought it meant implicitly. So I wanted to make sure we were on the same page about that, and lo and behold, you have changed the definition for impending or else you had a poor choice of words, when you saw where I was going with it, lol. That's funny and can you see you doging and squirming away from any agreement by, well I used that word to mean something else than what it means...

So since you refuse any agreement on even some small point, you are showing yourself to be useless to talk to. Go play games if you want. Not with me.



That's the best you got? No wonder it doesnt add up for you, what I posted is for those with ears to hear. All jabs aside, I can tell that you dont pray while reading your bible and ask for guidance rom the Holy Spirit. And ask for wisdom & understanding and discernment also. You shouldnt ever read not as if you were in class and listening.

You love to wallow in pettiness and major on irrelevancies. That sums up your argument. It is infantile.

The rest of us prefer Scripture.

 

[Douggg]

Please tell me how you interpret the following passage:

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. 31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

Luke 17:26-29, people will be at ease.

Luke 17:30-37, the time of persecution when the abomination of desolation is setup. Flee, or else possibly be taken and be forced to worship the state image or else.

 

[MA2444]

It's not possible for the rapture to have always been imminent because scripture very clearly indicates that certain things had to happen first before it would occur. Whether it is imminent now or not depends on one's interpretation of passages like this:

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

So, first, Paul references the day that he had formerly taught the Thessalonians about in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 which is the day when Jesus will come from heaven and His people will be gathered to Him "in the air". Paul referred to that day as "the day of Christ" or "the day of the Lord". Then he said "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed". Can you see here that Paul taught that a mass falling away from the faith and the revealing of the man of sin had to happen first before the rapture? So, at the time he wrote that going forward in time until those things actually happen, the rapture was not imminent. Once those things do start to happen, then it becomes imminent.

So, if someone interprets the falling away and revealing of the man of sin in such a way that they believe it has already started and is ongoing now, then they would believe that the rapture is imminent. This is why WPM said it is imminent because he believes the falling away has already started. But, that doesn't mean he believes it was always imminent. It wasn't imminent before that because certain things have to happen first before the rapture. Any post-tribber who does not believe that the falling away has begun yet believes the rapture is impending rather than imminent.

That could be I suppose. But why couldnt he say that? Isnt he the Pastor or teacher or whatever? So he should be able to put even those thoughts together. It would be hard to deny that a falling away isnt happening right now with all the craziness going on. The gays have risen up and are whining in the streets for their slice of the pie. The past two years in particular there has been a decidedly different tone online everywhere compared to how it was before. They spoke of a great division coming to the church in scripture and that seems like it's here too. What I've seen is that the good churches are getting better and the mediocre churches are full of gays now.

But that would mean that it really was always imminent to happen anyway. The way I understand it, the Father has decided to make the decision when for the rapture later. He's playing it by ear for now. SO I havent really seen any scriptures that says anything must happen before the rapture takes place. No Prophetical events must take place before He says, That's enough, go get her. (Just like the Galilean wedding, lol.)

Maybe at some point in the past they did think that a falling away had to occur first. But that scripture wouldnt mean that the rapture still cant happen pretrib anyway. Do you have any others?