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

[MA2444]

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church exerted control over the production and dissemination of the Bible. Only the upper clergy and educated elite were allowed to read the Scriptures, as it was believed only they could understand and explain the teachings to the common people.

It's that way now too or at least they're trying. But that isn't scriptureal either. Scripture tells us to be like the Bereans and study it for ourselves to show ourselves approved, (Ding!)

Dan 12:9 And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Daniel and his generation would not have understood how one man could control the entire world, but because of modern technology, we do. Time itself is a revealing factor. We gain knowledge and understanding in proportion to the resources and education available to us. That makes us capable of understanding certain things that not even the Biblical prophets could have understood. It only makes sense then that as we get closer to the end of this age, the more God reveals to us about the rapture and end times.

Yep. And now knowledge has been increased. I'm watching a grand division takng place before my eyes. Many Believers are waking up (and non-Believers) to the truth and many others are going absolutely insane at the same time. It's spooky. But you may be right it is an escatalogical thing I think. I notice that persons escatology pretty much is how they understand the Bible. Some see it as more literal and some see is it as more symbolic in nature. So they fall into two camps is my understanding. AMils and PreMils. I am PreMil and every time I had trouble understanding a passage and proved myselfwrong about it, it was because I wasnt reading it literally enough. True story. So I wonder if I am correct and the AMils have an allegorical escatalogical view? I *think* this is true.

Either way there is a division taking place. I think it says in scritpure that it will be so in the end times also. (I come not to bring peace but a sword, which we know from Ephesians 6 is that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God!

 

[MA2444]

You've got it backwards. Gates are defensive barricades, not offensive weapons. Saying "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against the Church means they will not withstand the Church's attack. This has nothing to do with the Anti-Christ overcoming the Church. (No doubt the Anti-Christ will never overcome the Church -- but Matt. 16:18 is just not a proof text for that.)

I agree with you on this. I read that and my first thought was...but gates are defensive in nature.. Maybe the 144.000 attacks hades?

 

[RedFan]

From what I learned about the wedding customs is that the Father of the Bride and the Father of the Groom would both get together and arrange it all and cut the deal for the dowry or whatever or the payment price for the Daughter and that the Father of the groom provided the land or whatever was needed for the Groom to prepare a place for her. And that the Father tells the son at some point, go get your bride. As if the preperations are done or he can touch up whats left to be done? Go get her. So that falls in line with what Jerico was saying. I know that us westerners do it differently than they did but that's how it was. The Father says go at his personal timing. I dont have chaper and verse notes about that teaching or any refrences to give you about it, not everything made it into my notes, lol. But that is essentially the way that I understodd it to be. Yes, the Father makes that decision, the Father of the groom.

To be clear, my issue is not over who decides the wedding date. My issue is over who knows about that date in advance. @Jericho says "nobody but the groom's father" -- and that's why he analogizes it to Matt. 24:36. He thinks the groom's father customarily kept the chosen date secret from his son -- just as the Father did not reveal the end date to Jesus. I think that's just unsupported speculation intended to shore up @Jericho's thesis. (If my dad set my wedding date and didn't tell me when it would be, I'd be pestering him 24-7.)

 

[MA2444]

To be clear, my issue is not over who decides the wedding date. My issue is over who knows about that date in advance. @Jericho says "nobody but the groom's father" -- and that's why he analogizes it to Matt. 24:36. He thinks the groom's father customarily kept the chosen date secret from his son -- just as the Father did not reveal the end date to Jesus. I think that's just unsupported speculation intended to shore up @Jericho's thesis. (If my dad set my wedding date and didn't tell me when it would be, I'd be pestering him 24-7.)

Well maybe he has a point wrong and maybe he dont? Nobody has all the snawers. Even after Jesus reurrection and different disciples were seeing Jesus all over the place no one got all the answers! They had to get together and compare notes with each other! Sorta similar to what we're doing, lol.

I talked about this once, maybe you missed it in my ramblings lol. (sorry bout that). But anyway, Jesus said, I an the Father are one. He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. So how could He not know what the Father knows? That dont really make sense, right?

And my speculation about that was that, the Father hasnt decided the exact date yet. Instead He will make that decision in the spur of a moment. Us humans do that sort of thing fairly regularly so if we can do it then it's certainly ok for God to do it. That's what I think about why Jesus dont know the date of the rapture. It seems to be the only answer that makes sense?

 

[RedFan]

And my speculation about that was that, the Father hasnt decided the exact date yet. Instead He will make that decision in the spur of a moment. Us humans do that sort of thing fairly regularly so if we can do it then it's certainly ok for God to do it. That's what I think about why Jesus dont know the date of the rapture. It seems to be the only answer that makes sense?

That's a possibility.

 

[rebuilder 454]

My problem with this is, What do the Scriptures teach about the Rapture, and not "what fits." But I don't at all see "every rapture verse" as "peacetime." You claim this as if you're saying it is sufficient proof. There is plenty of evidence the Rapture is not peacetime at all!

2 Thes 1.6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.

So what you're really doing is selecting what particular verses you wish to be the exclusive set of verses you wish to call "Rapture verses." And you select "peacetime" verses so that you can claim "all" these verses are purely "peacetime." It really expresses bias more than a comprehensive treatment of the subject. There are many challenges to such careful editing.

That is, I believe, a misinterpretation of the "one taken one left." Both "taken" and "left" are under judgment via the Romans. Those "left" were left alive to till the fields for the Romans. Those "taken" were either killed or taken away into slavery in exile. This was not the "Rapture," but rather, the Judgment of Israel. Just as the Flood "took away" the wicked, so the Romans "took away" the ungodly and rebellious in Israel.

Jesus promised that when he returns he will rescue his elect, who stood fast even under the persecution of Jews who hated Christianity.

I never say " sufficient proof".
I only report the fact that the setting ONLY FITS a pretrib rapture.
We have the high ground in every dimension.
Setting is one dimension

 

[MA2444]

That's a possibility.

If I plant a crop in springtime, what day will the harvest be? No one can really say what date it will be, can they? And still get maximum harvest? I think not. We can know the season of harvest, but we'll have to wait and see how the crops develop. Then one day the lead Farmer says tommorrow we harvest. That's how it's done. And the lead Farmer keeps a close eye on crops and decides the perfect moment within a certain season of course.

What did God do except plant some souls on earth and make a plan to harvest many souls from earth? Scripture even talks about it as a harvest!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I never say " sufficient proof".
I only report the fact that the setting ONLY FITS a pretrib rapture.
We have the high ground in every dimension.
Setting is one dimension

I give you a verse that contradicts your claim that the context of the Rapture is "peacetime." And what is your response? You simply say your position is "setting" and gives you the "high ground," whatever that means?

 

[marks]

Ugh. I try to explain what I mean and tell you that I'm not trying to offend and you still get offended. Come on, man. I guess you are rejecting my request for you to give me the benefit of the doubt? Why do I have to walk on eggshells with you? That's not fair to me. You can't take my word for it that I'm not trying to offend you? You can't give me any leeway here? There's no need to nitpick everything I say like this.

Once again, I'm being honest, I don't know what I wrote that would have communicated to you "offended". I certainly didn't feel or experience any sense or emotion of being offended. So to me this is one huge distraction coming out of nowhere, or maybe because I pointed out what I felt were inappropriate comments, that again divert from true discussion. And now we are headed ever further down that path, I have to now somehow convince you I'm not offended, and its all just a big distraction.

The original comments that started this were interwoven into your arguments, and needed to be addressed in order to have a good clean discussion, meaning, everything is on point, no fallacies are being used, we speak what we know, or have a valid foundation for it's veracity.

And in fact I'm here to discuss the Scriptures, and this kind of discussion isn't that. It may be that you cannot imagine that someone would say something about comments they felt were inappropriate, without feeling offended, that that can be the only reason anyone would say such a thing. But there is also the call to a higher level that doesn't depend on what is no foundation at all. just saying.

Much love!

 

[Timtofly]

that day will not come

That day is the 1,000 year millennium reign. That is not a rapture nor Second Coming point. The Millennium cannot start until Satan is bound in the pit.

Peter explained that in 2 Peter 3. The Day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night, but the actual millennium cannot start until this battle with Satan is resolved, and Satan is bound in the pit.

If you want to argue on technical points, then there is no verse that explicitly states a Second Coming, at all. So when the rapture happens, one knows that is an event as describing what people have interpreted.

Placing a label on any passage and calling that thee "Second Coming", could be problematic, if the words in a passage are taken out of context. One cannot take "being caught up" out of context.

Would you say that ascending into heaven is the same as being caught up? Was Jesus caught up/raptured in Acts 1?

 

[Timtofly]

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.

So after the Millennium? Your rapture and Second Coming is post mill. The LAST DAY of this present world is after the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

You should not use "last day" as a metric, to prove a post trib position, because you move the Second Coming to after the entire Millennium. That is what Amil and Post Mill claim, a Last Day resurrection when the heavens and earth pass away.

A last day resurrection is not defining a second coming in Jesus' teachings. The Cross was a last day resurrection for all the OT redeemed, and that involved the coming of the Messiah. Jesus told Martha and Mary, that He was the Resurrection and the Life, in referring to that last day resurrection. The OT redeemed were resurrected out of sheol/Abraham's bosom and physically ascended on Sunday morning with Jesus into heaven/Paradise. That was the last day resurrection, and all those people then and since who are waiting in Paradise, will arise from Paradise and God will bring them to meet those who will arise from the earth. Both sets are physically alive. Those with God are gathered first from Paradise and are coming to the air and then those on earth will rise second to meet them at that spot in the air. Paul is not talking about some "last day resurrection". Paul is talking about those physically living in Paradise are gathered first, and those on earth are gathered next.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That day is the 1,000 year millennium reign. That is not a rapture nor Second Coming point. The Millennium cannot start until Satan is bound in the pit.

That is one approach, which I reject due to the assumption that we are talking, in the stream of biblical truth, about the *day* of Christ's Coming, understood as a literal "day," namely the "last day" of the age.

Peter explained that in 2 Peter 3. The Day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night, but the actual millennium cannot start until this battle with Satan is resolved, and Satan is bound in the pit.

The Millennium cannot start until Satan is bound. But the day of the Lord is when Christ comes to have Satan put in a pit. In other words, the day of Christ's Coming is *before* the Millennium. In fact, it is Christ's Coming that precipitates the beginning of the Millennium. They are not the same thing, in my opinion.

If you want to argue on technical points, then there is no verse that explicitly states a Second Coming, at all.

I don't argue over synonyms--that's a ludicrous argument. Words can be stated in different ways. Clearly, there is an explicit theology of Christ's 2nd Coming. It can be found in Dan 7 with the prophecy of the coming of the Son of Man with the clouds to establish God's Kingdom on earth and to defeat the Antichrist, the "Little Horn."

This is precisely what Paul taught in 2 Thes 2, that before the day when Christ comes to assemble his Church the Antichrist must 1st arise and deceive the world. Then Christ will come to defeat him. That also is stated in the most explicit, doctrinal terms.

Would you say that ascending into heaven is the same as being caught up? Was Jesus caught up/raptured in Acts 1?

Yes, Jesus' ascension is sort of a foretaste of the Church's Rapture at Christ's Coming. Ascending to heaven is Christ taking the initiative as Son of God. Our being Raptured is our being seized by heavenly angels to meet the Lord in order to participate with Christ in his glorious revelation on earth.

 

[Timtofly]

There absolutely is no answer from your side on this.

People messed up when they started looking for the Antichrist instead of the Lamb of God.

The AoD did not happen in the first century, and may not even happen after the 7th Trumpet. But you cannot refute with any of your interpretations of Scripture, the actual Words John wrote down. There is no future Satanic empire until after the 7th Trumpet sounds. You have to change Revelation to get your opinions to fit. And we can change other books of the Bible to align with Revelation, but John warned not to change Revelation to align with the rest of Scripture.

You may argue those were not the specific words. Oh, really? The only reason why a word would be changed, removed, or added would be to get Revelation to fit what people think the rest of Scripture is saying. We see that over and over again, people point out Revelation is not in chronological order, which is double talk for Revelation should have been written this way changing how John wrote what was written.

John had a good idea of what all others had written, he was one of the 12 disciples. John did not put the Olivet Discourse into his Gospel. However Revelation covers everything that was mentioned in the Olivet Discourse.

One has to figure out why their interpretation of all other writers is not lining up with the book of Revelation. Not castigating nor complaing about other eschatological interpretations.

If you can prove a "post trouble" Scripture mentioned in Revelation specifying this position, you would not have to prove your point from other books of Bible. Other books should compliment, not change Revelation. There are only two places, one in Matthew and one in Mark that even hint of a major event after trouble that would qualify as a rapture and Second Coming proof you need. But you have to change the chronology of Revelation to use Revelation as a cross reference proof with those two places.

"But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,"

What is that tribulation referring to? Because tribulation is mentioned from the get go.

"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom."

That tribulation was ongoing even before your alleged AoD in 70AD. So the return could have been any time, since the first century, and even before 70AD, because that tribulation has never stopped. It has always been somewhere with someone since the first century. So who from Mark 13, can explicitly specify their modern day tribulation as part of this chapter? Tribulation has been ongoing sometimes intense and sometimes not so intense. Who is to say that God has not stepped in and cut any tribulation short, or else even the World Wars would have raged for hundreds of years? Who else in modern times defined a specific 3.5 year period other than this "Darby fellow", people keep bringing up and then you claim your tribulation is his, but he was wrong. Which means even you can be wrong if he is wrong, because your point is based solely on his point that his tribulation period is that tribulation period. But that tribulation in Mark could have started in the first century, not the one you all have invented. Matthew 24 is less explicit, but it does not say "that tribulation". It says the tribulation of those days, which means it could be the tribulation of the last 100 years. There are no specific time frames of years in either Mark nor Matthew. So where did these artificial time frames you all insert into the text come from, since Darby and company state the same time period you do, except you say they are wrong, but they are no more wrong than you are as you are saying the same thing they do. That tribulation is over at the Second Coming, because the church is gone either way. There is no more church to be part of tribulation on the earth. But the Second Coming is not the end of things on earth. The Second Coming is the beginning of Jesus dealing directly with those living on the earth. Believe it or not, but billions will still be on the earth after the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

That is, I believe, a misinterpretation of the "one taken one left." Both "taken" and "left" are under judgment via the Romans. Those "left" were left alive to till the fields for the Romans. Those "taken" were either killed or taken away into slavery in exile. This was not the "Rapture," but rather, the Judgment of Israel. Just as the Flood "took away" the wicked, so the Romans "took away" the ungodly and rebellious in Israel.

If you are going to insert and imply that these all refer to the first century, that would be the ultimate pre-trib position, because you have "all events" taking place before the tribulation of the last 1900 years. Remember great tribulation is not measured in any time frame in the Olivet Discourse. Jesus did not seperate and say there is going to be a short time of intense Tribulation just prior to a rapture event. These are conventions that you claim are wrongly inserted into the Olivet Discourse, by dispensationalist with whom you are in disagreement with.

Jesus never said that He would return at the very end. That is a misunderstanding that both post and pre positions seem to have contradictions with other Scripture on. Neither position can contradict other Scripture if they want to to be valid interpretations.

The only event that happens at the end, after the end is declared, is the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord is the Day of Christ. The Day of the Lord is the millennium, 1000 year reign of Christ. All of Adam's disobedience and the results thereof, will be resolved and removed prior to the Day of the Lord.

The point is that the Day of the Lord comes at the Second Coming. The Day of the Lord will not start until Jesus and God have resolved the issue of sin and death, as we currently understand them. This resolution is not done in a twinkling of an eye. This resolution will take intense trouble and God will be deemed the bad guy, because He is taking away the human security blanket called sin. Humans are secure in their sin. That will no longer be the case, once the Day of the Lord starts.

 

[Timtofly]

Christ comes on the last day of this present age.

Jesus did not even come on the last day of the OT age. This is clearly conjecture of your own opinion, along with millions of other's opinions, that Jesus comes on the last day of this age.

By the way, ages is a dispensational thing. Dispensationalist should not be wrong because they do not hold to your form of dispensational thought that states Jesus comes on the exact last day of any age.

There is no verse that says "come on the last day". Jesus said he would resurrect some on the last day, and that last day resurrection was the Cross. Because that resurrection marked the last day of the OT Covenant, when Jesus said it is finished.

I think people are wrong to say the Day of the Lord is strictly for the church to keep evangelizing the world. That is not necessary during the Day of the Lord. Just like the OT redeemed did not stick around and teach the world the OT Covenant during this age. If you end this age with the church removed, they will not be here during the next age.

The resurrection was a big deal for the young church raised under the Law of Moses. The prophets had prophecied a last day resurrection, and they thought they missed it. They did miss it, because they had not physically died yet. But they did not miss out on going to heaven where the OT redeemed already were. Paul said they had not missed the Day of the Lord, because that was still a future event. But it cannot be construed that all will return to earth during the Day of the Lord. The point was to enter Paradise, not bring Paradise to the earth.

 

[rebuilder 454]

I give you a verse that contradicts your claim that the context of the Rapture is "peacetime." And what is your response? You simply say your position is "setting" and gives you the "high ground," whatever that means?

Ok give me the verse

 

[rebuilder 454]

I never say " sufficient proof".
I only report the fact that the setting ONLY FITS a pretrib rapture.
We have the high ground in every dimension.
Setting is one dimension

QUOTE;
"""That is, I believe, a misinterpretation of the "one taken one left." Both "taken" and "left" are under judgment via the Romans. Those "left" were left alive to till the fields for the Romans. Those "taken" were either killed or taken away into slavery in exile. This was not the "Rapture," but rather, the Judgment of Israel. Just as the Flood "took away" the wicked, so the Romans "took away" the ungodly and rebellious in Israel."""

The one taken/ left is at the coming of Jesus for the rapture.
It is fully explained by Jesus himself;
Mat 24
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
All preflood...one taken/left
Watch and be ready preflood, half are taken,half left behind
So plain and vivid.
Postribs have Jesus gathering Noah and lot post Judgement

Bad doctrine that postrib deal.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Here is explicit Postrib Doctrine. If there was an explicit Pretrib Doctrine, as well, perhaps we could fit it in in front of a Postrib Coming. But we don't have that.

Dan 7.11 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....14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Luk 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled... 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

2 Thes 2.1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 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.

If you honestly ask yourself what these 3 passages are teaching, you will have to admit that they are teaching the same truths, that Christ is coming to deliver the saints after the Jewish tribulation of the present age and after the reign of Antichrist. Jesus is coming specifically to destroy Antichrist and in that way save the Church.

2 Thes 1.6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

This is all spelled out in the most explicit way, meaning that it is not the product of logical thinking and "fitting things together," but rather, straight forward doctrine that we should believe and trust in.

The AC revealed before the rapture is ok with me.
The AC revealed could be a day before the rapture.
AHEM...That is definately pretrib.

You actually think the postrib rapture doctrine has the AC revealed at the end of his rulership????
Revealed is before his rulership.
So that verse actually points to a pretrib rapture at the revealing of the devil man.

 

[rebuilder 454]

I always wish to do well. But my points still stand. I offered a biblical evidence for Paul teaching explicitly that Christ cannot come for his Church until after the revelation of Antichrist and actually only at the destruction of Antichrist. Your claim that this evidence is non-explicit is flat out wrong! And you have yet to clean that up.

I am pretribber and I support the revealing of the AC before the rapture.
I will even go as far as to say believers will be rounded up immediately and put in huge compounds.
Then the rapture happens from those facilities.
All pretrib.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I am pretribber and I support the revealing of the AC before the rapture.
I will even go as far as to say believers will be rounded up immediately and put in huge compounds.
Then the rapture happens from those facilities.
All pretrib.

I have a friend/pastor who believes that, but he calls himself Mid-Trib. ;)