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

[WPM]

There is a reason that the Church is not mentioned after Rev 3. There is a reason that there are 144,000 first fruits of the second harvest.

No wonder you abandoned Postrib, if this influenced your decision. I have already refuted this. You had no answer to what I submitted. This is a sandy foundation to build your beliefs on.

The Church is described as the “saints” in Revelation 5:8, 8:3, 8:4, 11:18, 13:7, 13:10, 14:12, 15:3, 16:6, 17:6, 19:8 and 20:9.

The New Testament uses the term “saint” some 59 times, repeatedly describing Christians who walk in newness of life. The objective Bible student can quickly discern that this name consistently pertains to true believers in the New Testament.

The Church is described in Revelation as the “redeemed” in Revelation 5:9, 14:3 and 14:4.

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christians alone are “redeemed” through the blood of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:68, 24:21, Gal 3:13, 4:5. Titus 2:14 and 1 Peter 1:18). The unregenerate have not partook in this life-changing experience.

The Church is also known in Revelation, like elsewhere in Scriptures, as the “brethren” Such references are found in Revelation 6:11, 12:10, 19:10, 22:9.

The Church is referred to in Revelation 17:14 as the “chosen (or elect), and faithful.”

The word rendered “chosen” in the King James Version is the Greek word eklektos, and is the same word used in Matthew and Mark to describe the elect that are gathered unto Christ at His coming after the tribulation. It is the same word that is used 23 times in the New Testament to denote the redeemed, blood-bought, members of Christ’s Church!

The Church is described as “servants” in Revelation 1:1, 2:20, 7:3, 10:7, 11:18, 19:2, 19:5, 22:3 and 22:6.

The Church is described as those “in / with white robes,” who are washed in the blood of the Lamb in Revelation 3:4, 5, 18, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 13, 14, and 19:8, 14.

The Church is described as “kings and priests” in Revelation 1:6, 5:10 and 20:6.

God’s people are described as “souls” twice in Revelation, both in a heavenly context, both thus relating to the disembodied saints, in Revelation 6:9 and 20:4.

The disembodied saints are also known as “fellowservants” in Revelation 6:11.

The Church is also described as a “woman” in Revelation 12:1,4, 6,13,15,16 and 17.

The Church is also described as “the temple” in Revelation 3:12, 11:1 and 2. Notwithstanding, there are other passages in Revelation that could link the temple to the Church.

The Church in heaven is described in Revelation 14:13 as “the dead which die in the Lord.”

The Church is described in Revelation 15:2 as “them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark.”

The Church is also known in Revelation as “he/him that overcometh” (speaking in generic terms) – Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26, 3:5, 12, 21 and 21:7.

The saints are described in Revelation 16:15 as “he that watcheth, and keepeth their garments.”

The Church is also expressed in Revelation 18:4 as “my people,” in Revelation 21:3 as “his people” and Revelation 19:1 as “much people in heaven.”

Revelation 7:9 describes God’s people in heaven as “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.” Revelation 5:9 says: “out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

The Church is also described as “the bride” of Christ in Revelation 18:23, 21:9, 22:17, and similarly as “the Lamb's wife” in Revelation 19:7 and 21:9.

Revelation 12:17, 14:12 and 21:14 describes the Church as “they that do/keep God’s commandments.”

The Church is also described as “the armies which were in heaven” in Revelation 19:14.

Revelation 21:24 describes the Church as “them which are saved.”

Revelation 21:27 describes the Church as “they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.”

Most of the above are familiar terms used to describe the universal Church of Jesus Christ are found elsewhere in the Bible (Old and New Testament) describing God’s people the Church. These are general terms that are commonly used and perfectly understood by all sensible Christians as describing God’s chosen people throughout the centuries and throughout the nations.

There are many different references throughout the whole book of Revelation to the existence, testimony and endurance of Christians during the tribulation period. These saints are described as those that possess “the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 14:1), and consequently carry “the testimony of Jesus” (Revelation 1:2, 9, 12:17, 19:10), and are “the witness of Jesus” (Revelation 20:4). They exhibit the “patience of Jesus” (Revelation 1:9), and many become the “martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6). Frankly, if these aren’t Christians, what are they?

A passage that ably supports this supposition and locates the Christian in the tribulation period is Revelation 14:12-13, which says, “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.”

The “patience of the saints” here in Revelation 14:12 must surely be linked to the “patience of Jesus” in Revelation 1:9.

The means by which these saints overcome the devil, the world and the flesh during great tribulation is the exact same as that employed by Christians throughout history. Those Christians that carry “the testimony of Jesus” in the tribulation are seen to conquer Satan by “the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” (Revelation 12:11), again, confirming their sure unitary position within the redeemed Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[The Light]

No wonder you abandoned Postrib, if this influenced your decision.

I didn't abandon post trib. Still believe there is a post trib rapture at the 6th seal..........immediately after the tribulaiton there is a rapture.
I just realized there is also a rapture when you think not. The fig tree has two harvests. There will be two raptures.

I have already refuted this. You had no answer to what I submitted. This is a sandy foundation to build your beliefs on.

The Church is described as the “saints” in Revelation 5:8, 8:3, 8:4, 11:18, 13:7, 13:10, 14:12, 15:3, 16:6, 17:6, 19:8 and 20:9.

You only think you refuted it, and you only think that I had no answer. The answer was given in post #215

As you can see below your claim is left totally wanting. There is no mention of the Church after Rev 3 as this is a futile attempt to prove the Church is still on earth.

The Church is already in heaven in Rev 5 as they are the kings and priests before throne. But Rev 5 is before the seals are opened & Revelation 5: 8 are prayers of the saints. So this doesn't work.

Rev 8:3-4 are prayers of the saints and not saints. So that doesn't work.

Rev 11 is the judgement of the saints so everything is over, so that doesn't work.

Rev 13:7 and 10 mentions saints but it can't be the Church. The Church is already in heaven in Rev 5 and the saints talked about are the Jews that are the seed of the woman which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 14:12 is talking about the Jews. This is the great tribulation period. Church is already in heaven as the 70th week of Daniel is about the people of Daniel.

Revelation 15:3 is talking about the Jews. They are singing the song of Moses.
3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Revelation 16:6 is about those that shed the blood of the saints, so that won't work.
6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

Revelation 17:6 is about the woman that is drunken with the blood of the saints. So that won't work.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Revelation 19:8 is about the saints in heaven at the marriage supper. So that won't work.

Revelation 20:9 Happens after the 1000 years. So that won't work.

Nothing you posted can be about the Church of today being on earth after the seals are opened. There is a reason they are not mentioned as they are already in heaven.

The New Testament uses the term “saint” some 59 times, repeatedly describing Christians who walk in newness of life. The objective Bible student can quickly discern that this name consistently pertains to true believers in the New Testament.

The Church is described in Revelation as the “redeemed” in Revelation 5:9, 14:3 and 14:4.

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christians alone are “redeemed” through the blood of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:68, 24:21, Gal 3:13, 4:5. Titus 2:14 and 1 Peter 1:18). The unregenerate have not partook in this life-changing experience.

The Church is also known in Revelation, like elsewhere in Scriptures, as the “brethren” Such references are found in Revelation 6:11, 12:10, 19:10, 22:9.

The Church is referred to in Revelation 17:14 as the “chosen (or elect), and faithful.”

The word rendered “chosen” in the King James Version is the Greek word eklektos, and is the same word used in Matthew and Mark to describe the elect that are gathered unto Christ at His coming after the tribulation. It is the same word that is used 23 times in the New Testament to denote the redeemed, blood-bought, members of Christ’s Church!

The Church is described as “servants” in Revelation 1:1, 2:20, 7:3, 10:7, 11:18, 19:2, 19:5, 22:3 and 22:6.

The Church is described as those “in / with white robes,” who are washed in the blood of the Lamb in Revelation 3:4, 5, 18, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 13, 14, and 19:8, 14.

The Church is described as “kings and priests” in Revelation 1:6, 5:10 and 20:6.

God’s people are described as “souls” twice in Revelation, both in a heavenly context, both thus relating to the disembodied saints, in Revelation 6:9 and 20:4.

The disembodied saints are also known as “fellowservants” in Revelation 6:11.

The Church is also described as a “woman” in Revelation 12:1,4, 6,13,15,16 and 17.

The Church is also described as “the temple” in Revelation 3:12, 11:1 and 2. Notwithstanding, there are other passages in Revelation that could link the temple to the Church.

The Church in heaven is described in Revelation 14:13 as “the dead which die in the Lord.”

The Church is described in Revelation 15:2 as “them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark.”

The Church is also known in Revelation as “he/him that overcometh” (speaking in generic terms) – Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26, 3:5, 12, 21 and 21:7.

The saints are described in Revelation 16:15 as “he that watcheth, and keepeth their garments.”

The Church is also expressed in Revelation 18:4 as “my people,” in Revelation 21:3 as “his people” and Revelation 19:1 as “much people in heaven.”

Revelation 7:9 describes God’s people in heaven as “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.” Revelation 5:9 says: “out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

The Church is also described as “the bride” of Christ in Revelation 18:23, 21:9, 22:17, and similarly as “the Lamb's wife” in Revelation 19:7 and 21:9.

Revelation 12:17, 14:12 and 21:14 describes the Church as “they that do/keep God’s commandments.”

The Church is also described as “the armies which were in heaven” in Revelation 19:14.

Revelation 21:24 describes the Church as “them which are saved.”

Revelation 21:27 describes the Church as “they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.”

Most of the above are familiar terms used to describe the universal Church of Jesus Christ are found elsewhere in the Bible (Old and New Testament) describing God’s people the Church. These are general terms that are commonly used and perfectly understood by all sensible Christians as describing God’s chosen people throughout the centuries and throughout the nations.

There are many different references throughout the whole book of Revelation to the existence, testimony and endurance of Christians during the tribulation period. These saints are described as those that possess “the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 14:1), and consequently carry “the testimony of Jesus” (Revelation 1:2, 9, 12:17, 19:10), and are “the witness of Jesus” (Revelation 20:4). They exhibit the “patience of Jesus” (Revelation 1:9), and many become the “martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6). Frankly, if these aren’t Christians, what are they?

A passage that ably supports this supposition and locates the Christian in the tribulation period is Revelation 14:12-13, which says, “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.”

The “patience of the saints” here in Revelation 14:12 must surely be linked to the “patience of Jesus” in Revelation 1:9.

The means by which these saints overcome the devil, the world and the flesh during great tribulation is the exact same as that employed by Christians throughout history. Those Christians that carry “the testimony of Jesus” in the tribulation are seen to conquer Satan by “the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” (Revelation 12:11), again, confirming their sure unitary position within the redeemed Church of Jesus Christ.

Go to post #215 for more of my response that you said I didn't respond to.

The Church is already in heaven in Rev 5 and there are 24 elders with crowns in Rev 4. That means Jesus has come. So there is a reason the Word Church is not used again until the end of Revelation.

 

[Timtofly]

In 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 Paul indicated that what would happen first after He descends from heaven is that the dead in Christ would be resurrected. At that point we will all be changed to have incorruptible bodies and we will all be caught up to meet Him in the air. This is what Paul taught about what will happen when Jesus comes from heaven.


Nonsense. Nowhere does scripture teach that someone's soul stays in their dead body when they die. Paul taught that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). But you say it isn't possible to be present with the Lord without a body, thereby directly contradicting what Paul taught.

Then both groups are resurrected. You claim arise means resurrected. Those on earth will also rise up. You add into the text your doctrine that states they have to be physically dead. While they have previously died, it does not mean they are currently dead. Physical death is not an ongoing condition at any point in time, not even at the rapture. People do not take this body to heaven, period. So coming back for a dead body is ridiculous.

Paul also taught in 2 Corinthians 5:1 that when the soul leaves the union of this body, it enters into a union with God's permanent incorruptible physical body. Paul is saying that those alive will be changed, at that moment, because all those that Jesus brings with Him, will already be changed.

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Two different physical bodies. One given to Adam when he died and was placed in a temporal body of death. One given by God, like Adam had before he disobeyed God. Nothing has prevented the dead from rising first. The first resurrection is an ongoing phenomenon per your verse in John 5:24.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live."

The dead are those who need a new physical body, not those currently in Paradise who have had that new physical body, starting with Lazarus a little over a week before the Cross. You don't get that new body when you receive the second birth. You get that new body when Jesus calls you to Paradise, out of this body of death.

Lazarus and the entire OT redeemed already had that permanent incorruptible physical body. Their soul dissolved the union with Adam's dead corruptible flesh. You are still considered dead in Christ, because you have the wrong body to be alive in Christ. They have that living body and are no longer dead in Christ. They are just those in Christ who have already physically died. They are not still in Adam's state of death.

Paul also pointed that out in 1 Corinthians 15. 3 specific times people are made alive, not just once. You are preventing the resurrection of those in the first century, because you demand they have to wait for you at the Second Coming. No, the OT were made alive at the Cross. Jesus called Lazarus by name and he was made alive, a physically new body, just like you will be made alive with a physically new body.

The rapture is the same as any ascension in a physical body. All the OT redeemed including Lazarus ascended with Jesus to Paradise in their new permanent incorruptible physical body.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits (the OT redeemed including Lazarus); afterward they that are Christ's at his coming (those in dead flesh alive on the earth). Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God (all of creation is presented alive, not a burnt offeing all toasted and roasted)."

You have everything burnt to a crisp as handed to God, deader than a door nail. All the works of earth are burned up with a baptism of fire at the Second Coming, but over a thousand years later, creation will be handed to God, perfect and as alive as creation was on the Sabbath day of Creation. Jesus is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. How creation started will be exactly how it ends. Since it did not start in a big bang, it will not end in a big bang, that is just Satan's deception you have fallen into.

So Paul would not contradict himself when he says they have a physical body while present with the Lord, any more than you will have a physical body, when present with the Lord. They have been with the Lord for thousands of years. Only those on the earth wait for that. And once the soul leaves this death behind, they are alive, and more alive than souls walking around naked.

"If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked."

Why would Paul say we shall not be found naked, if we are not naked now? You deny Paul, and say they are walking around naked. For the life of me, I can't see how you deny this promise and put it off for everyone currently in Paradise as if they have to wait for you, to be clothed with a body.

"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

He does not say absent from God's permanent incorruptible physical body. He says with the Lord is to be absent from this body of sin and death.

"For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

You must think that all have to wait to be changed, but you keep forgetting, there was no rapture at the Cross, they all had to ascend bodily from the earth after receiving their permanent incorruptible physical body. Jesus was already on the earth, not up in heaven coming down. Which leaves us with all those between the Cross and today. They don't get a body at death and ascend physically. They are raptured each time and changed in the air, except no one can see that process, because it happens in a twinkling of an eye. The reason the whole world will know at the Second Coming, is because it will be imprinted on all, the point the church is glorified, although you have them all instantly dead and without a body to see it any way, so not sure what the point made here is:

"When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe."

The whole point no matter how fast it happens in the air, is not for the church, but so that Jesus will be glorified in the sight of all on the earth, and the church glorified along with Christ.

That is why the 5th and 6th Seals are so far from what many posters here interpret them to be. The 5th Seal is the church glorified in the air. They put on white robes, which is symbolic of being glorified. The vengeance is that those on earth did not put on white robes, but are now going to face the vengeance for not accepting the second birth.

Jesus will then descend to the Mount of Olives, now that the church is removed and will deal directly with His people as the Prince to come. Their King setting up His glorious throne to rule over a redeemed Israel, not a lost Israel.

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

The blindness will be removed when the church has been removed.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

The rapture is the final harvest of the fulness of the Gentiles. There will be a few more gathered while Jesus is on the earth, but not as the church. They will rule and reign over many nations on earth, as there will still be nations on earth. Even though you deny the Day of the Lord as being a thousand year reign, before the end, when Jesus hands back a fully made alive creation, not an empty meaningless burnt offering like the ones under the OT economy, that amil claim Jesus hands to God. Thee End!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Interesting that you single out Israel, when most quote Paul saying there is no difference between Israel and Gentiles.

Let me be clear about what I am saying. There is no distinction *with respect to Salvation* between Israel and the Gentile nations. I'm not saying there is no difference between ethnicities and nations. Obviously, there is a difference between a French Man and somebody from Ethiopia.

The tribulation in the Olivet Discourse was directed to the disciples as part of the church, not their natural birth as Israelites.

I don't agree with this. The "Great Tribulation" in the Olivet Discourse was explicitly and distinctly described as a Jewish Punishment. It was precisely because they chose *not* to become Christians that the nation of Israel would be punished over the next 2000 years!

This of course meant that Jewish believers would suffer along with their unbelieving brethren in losing their nation to the Romans. It certainly meant that unbelieving Jews would hate and persecute their Christian brethren among the Jews.

Clearly, there would be suffering for Christians among the Jews. But the "Great Tribulation" was wrath against the unbelieving Jews--not against believing Jews who suffered for a different reason entirely.

The nation of Israel was left as any other nation with all the tribulation, nations bring upon themselves. When God singles out Israel, is after the church is taken out at the rapture/Second Coming.

Since we cannot agree on the above points, and you in fact have ignored what I've given as my views, why beat the horse to death? If we cannot get right our basic disagreement, we cannot be on the same page in this discussion.

 

[MA2444]

You state all these things as fact as the basis of your argument yet you do not (or cannot) prove them. Where in Daniel 9 or anywhere else in Scripture does it teach a "7 year peace covenant"? This is a Pretrib invention that does not exist in reality.

So you think I made it all up? Have you ever read the book of Daniel? Or at least chapters 9-12? It doesnt sound like it. The scripture is the truth. The scripture proves it by itself. And true to your for, you say I aam wrong, but you offer no alternate interpretation of Daniel.

If I'm wrong you cant just just say, oh your wrong. Where? Which scriptures and if I'm wrong then what does it really mean? you do not (or cannot) yourself. Your response to an adult conversation is...Uh-Uhhhh!!!

Your not calling me a liar. You are calling God's word a liar. Good luck with that.

Not knowing the day and the hour does not prove imminency. It simply means: only God knows that moment.

Wah. I told you that it doesnt come right out and state it like that. You must draw a conclusion about it from considering a few different scriptures. I did that. Have you ever heard of the terms inference or conclusions? I told you this up front and so you knew how it was. But you chosen to act like you always do. Uh-Uhh! With no explaination. I figured you would do that and that's why I told you I didn't want to type all that for you if you dont address what the text says and give stupid opinions and questions only. Which is exactly what you did.
I said Daniels says this....
You said show me where it says that.
So I did. So, no offense oh ye tender hearted one but your giving me the impression that you're either talking from a starting point of a 65 IQ...or even a 300 IQ but that can't be because you would have given an intelligent answer pointing to what I misunderstood and what it actually means. Instead you offer the 65% answer. What a waste of my time it is to even talk to you. All you are doing by not speaking intelliegently and correcting your Brothers & Sisters when they are wrong is causing distraction, confusion to the thread and absolutely nothing edifying to anyone at all.

That's bunk and you know it. You wont even defend your viewpoint. Your answer are, well that is what us believe. What kind of defense of your viewpoint is that?! It's not. You have zero credibility. Are we going to discuss scripture today? Or can you only discuss, your wrong, he said/she said?

Now no offense sweetheart, it's ok. No one is attacking you but you make yourself sound like a moron with your answers. The word of God is the book of truth. Not a book of truth, the book of truth. Why wont you read it? WHy wont you discuss it? That's lame.

Either you can defend your viewpoint and show me the error of my ways, or you shouldn't step into a conversation where men are discussing algebra when your expertise is building Lego cars. Not a good discussion with you. You even ignore most of my most pertinant questions to you. That suggests to me that you are being like this maliciously.

So unless you can have an intelligent conversation and address the text of the word of God...prolly best not to talk to me at all. Maybe you could follow the lead that Spiritual Israelite has taken. He seems to kinda sorta hold some of your views but he is willing to discuss the text and that makes for a good conversation. I'm sorry that you cant even speak on his level.

I aint going to argue your silliness all day again, lol. Whatever buddy.

 

[WPM]

So you think I made it all up? Have you ever read the book of Daniel? Or at least chapters 9-12? It doesnt sound like it. The scripture is the truth. The scripture proves it by itself. And true to your for, you say I aam wrong, but you offer no alternate interpretation of Daniel.

If I'm wrong you cant just just say, oh your wrong. Where? Which scriptures and if I'm wrong then what does it really mean? you do not (or cannot) yourself. Your response to an adult conversation is...Uh-Uhhhh!!!

Your not calling me a liar. You are calling God's word a liar. Good luck with that.



Wah. I told you that it doesnt come right out and state it like that. You must draw a conclusion about it from considering a few different scriptures. I did that. Have you ever heard of the terms inference or conclusions? I told you this up front and so you knew how it was. But you chosen to act like you always do. Uh-Uhh! With no explaination. I figured you would do that and that's why I told you I didn't want to type all that for you if you dont address what the text says and give stupid opinions and questions only. Which is exactly what you did.
I said Daniels says this....
You said show me where it says that.
So I did. So, no offense oh ye tender hearted one but your giving me the impression that you're either talking from a starting point of a 65 IQ...or even a 300 IQ but that can't be because you would have given an intelligent answer pointing to what I misunderstood and what it actually means. Instead you offer the 65% answer. What a waste of my time it is to even talk to you. All you are doing by not speaking intelliegently and correcting your Brothers & Sisters when they are wrong is causing distraction, confusion to the thread and absolutely nothing edifying to anyone at all.

That's bunk and you know it. You wont even defend your viewpoint. Your answer are, well that is what us believe. What kind of defense of your viewpoint is that?! It's not. You have zero credibility. Are we going to discuss scripture today? Or can you only discuss, your wrong, he said/she said?

Now no offense sweetheart, it's ok. No one is attacking you but you make yourself sound like a moron with your answers. The word of God is the book of truth. Not a book of truth, the book of truth. Why wont you read it? WHy wont you discuss it? That's lame.

Either you can defend your viewpoint and show me the error of my ways, or you shouldn't step into a conversation where men are discussing algebra when your expertise is building Lego cars. Not a good discussion with you. You even ignore most of my most pertinant questions to you. That suggests to me that you are being like this maliciously.

So unless you can have an intelligent conversation and address the text of the word of God...prolly best not to talk to me at all. Maybe you could follow the lead that Spiritual Israelite has taken. He seems to kinda sorta hold some of your views but he is willing to discuss the text and that makes for a good conversation. I'm sorry that you cant even speak on his level.

I aint going to argue your silliness all day again, lol. Whatever buddy.

I am trying to keep this on the issues. It is impossible with you. Your posts are full of ad hominem.

You make claim after claim and are unable to support it with actual relevant Scripture. I understand that this is frustrating. But you have chosen to identify with Pretrib and promote it. It is time to start furnishing us with hard Scripture that says what you claim. You have yet to prove any imminency.

Daniel 9

Pretribbers butcher Daniel 9. If Pretrib was in Daniel 9 you would have presented it before now. The fact is: it is not! The burden of proof is with you! You presented Daniel 9 as a proof text, when it is in fact nothing of the sort. It is not there, or in any of the texts that you referenced. That is why you cannot answer my questions. It is you that is inserting Pretrib where it does not exist!

This is a classic example of manipulating Scripture to fit your doctrine. Clearly, both the method and the doctrine are wrong, thus the conclusion is wrong. William E Cox says in his book Biblical Studies in Final Things: “the futurist arbitrarily places a gap between the sixty-nine and seventieth weeks of Daniels’ prophecy. He does this without one verse of Scripture or one iota of historical data to back up his argument.”

History shows that the 490 years were linear, congruent and sequential. Those of us that take 490 years to mean exactly that do not have to prove that it is harmonious; we just have to accept what it states. We take it literally (1) because it happened literally, (2) there is no command to decapitate it and project it into the unknown. Seven multiplied by seventy comes to 490 cohesive unitary years, not 2,500 broken up years and counting. The clincher is: there is no gap mentioned in the prophecy so there is no need or warrant to insert one in there.

Let’s use an illustration. If you were directed to go to the next state and told and told it was exactly a 490-mile journey (right down to the very yard). You were told that in-between the starting point and your destination you would pass two important landmarks, the first after 49 miles, which was accurate to the very yard. The next was a further 434 miles ahead (bringing your journey to 483 miles in total), which also occurred right down to the very yard. The journey's end would be a final 7 miles down the road from your second landmark, making your total journey 490 miles. Exactly half way between 483 miles and 490 (486 ½ miles) you would witness a monumental landmark that would surpass anything you have ever seen. How would you then feel if you were told when you hit the second landmark that your final location was still a possible 2,000+ miles down the road with NO exact finishing point? Such an idea would be totally unthinkable in the natural, but unprecedented in God's economy. God always fulfils His promises.

 

[WPM]

I didn't abandon post trib. Still believe there is a post trib rapture at the 6th seal..........immediately after the tribulaiton there is a rapture.
I just realized there is also a rapture when you think not. The fig tree has two harvests. There will be two raptures.

So, you base your theology on a private theory that is not expressly taught in Scripture. This sums up Pretrib. Where does the prophets, Jesus or the NT teach this? Nowhere!

Where does the Bible teach "there will be two raptures" because "the fig tree has two harvests"?

You only think you refuted it, and you only think that I had no answer. The answer was given in post #215

As you can see below your claim is left totally wanting. There is no mention of the Church after Rev 3 as this is a futile attempt to prove the Church is still on earth.

The Church is already in heaven in Rev 5 as they are the kings and priests before throne. But Rev 5 is before the seals are opened & Revelation 5: 8 are prayers of the saints. So this doesn't work.

Rev 8:3-4 are prayers of the saints and not saints. So that doesn't work.

Rev 11 is the judgement of the saints so everything is over, so that doesn't work.

Rev 13:7 and 10 mentions saints but it can't be the Church. The Church is already in heaven in Rev 5 and the saints talked about are the Jews that are the seed of the woman which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 14:12 is talking about the Jews. This is the great tribulation period. Church is already in heaven as the 70th week of Daniel is about the people of Daniel.

Revelation 15:3 is talking about the Jews. They are singing the song of Moses.
3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Revelation 16:6 is about those that shed the blood of the saints, so that won't work.
6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

Revelation 17:6 is about the woman that is drunken with the blood of the saints. So that won't work.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Revelation 19:8 is about the saints in heaven at the marriage supper. So that won't work.

Revelation 20:9 Happens after the 1000 years. So that won't work.

Nothing you posted can be about the Church of today being on earth after the seals are opened. There is a reason they are not mentioned as they are already in heaven.

Go to post #215 for more of my response that you said I didn't respond to.

The Church is already in heaven in Rev 5 and there are 24 elders with crowns in Rev 4. That means Jesus has come. So there is a reason the Word Church is not used again until the end of Revelation.

This doesn't make sense. How can the glorified Church be in heaven in these passages if the word "Church" is not mentioned in any of these? Pretrib is hung on its own gallows. This is what Pretrib does. One argument negates another. Whatever angle you look at it is self-defeating.

 

[rebuilder 454]

If Jesus comes after the Antichrist is revealed, then it is not Pretrib by anybody's definition.

That is exactly like saying obama can not be revealed pre election.
He was and the AC will be easily revealed by any believer with minimal discernment way before he takes power.
I am glad I can discern the word "revealed" is "before taking power."
You think they are exactly the same.

 

[Davy]

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.

The "last day" when Jesus said He will "raise" His saints per John 6:40 He linked with "everlasting life". That's the future resurrection timing that happens when Jesus comes that Apostle Paul declared in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16. Then Christ's "thousand years" reign with His elect Church begins at that point in time of His return also.

And yes, The Bible Scripture reveals by that, that Christ's time of gathering His Church is PRE-MILL, BUT POST-TRIBULATIONAL.

So nice try by attempting to TWIST my words into some stupid post-mill theory, which I have NEVER proclaimed. You reveal that you don't mind telling a LIE just to get your way, which shows how strongly you have been deceived by men's false pre-trib rapture theories.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The second coming is absolutely immediately after the tribulation of those days. That occurs at the 6th seal. It is the second harvest seen here...........

Revelation 14
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

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

19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

This has nothing to do with the Church. The Church can escape all these things and stand before the Son of man.

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.

That is only talking about escaping what will happen on the actual day that Jesus returns. According to Peter in 2 Peter 3:10-12 fire will come down upon the entire earth on that day. We will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air just before that happens.

This is the difference. You go by what you think is reasonable. I go by what the Word says.

The Word says they were eating and drinking UNTIL the day Noah entered the ark.

Don't you think the animals were acting very strange. I don't have to speculate that the sky was changing and they never saw dark sky's and clouds before. They never heard thunder before and seen lightning. And the earth probably shook because the fountains of the deep were going to break open. I don't need to guess what happens. All I need to know is that the Word says...........UNTIL the day Noah entered the ark.

And that's exactly what it means.

When interpreting scripture you don't need to throw logic and reason completely out of the window. To think that they stopped eating and drinking several days before it started raining is utterly ludicrous.

But, the other thing you need to acknowledge is that Jesus did not compare the timing of the rapture to Noah entering the ark days before the flood started. You are doing that. You are making comparisons that Jesus Himself didn't make. His point in Matthew 24:37-39 was that the days before His coming would be like the days before the flood and the day of His coming would be like the day that the flood came. Just as it caught unbelievers by complete surprise when the flood came, it will catch unbelievers by complete surprise when Jesus comes. Those are the only points He was making. To act as if He was making any other points there is a case of adding to scripture to make it fit your doctrine.

And if you really want to be literal about it, then you should believe that the rapture will occur 6 or 7 days before Jesus comes after the tribulation. How far are you willing to go with your hyper-literalism?

If Jesus was intending to make a comparison of the timing of the rapture to the timing of Noah entering the ark, then why did He say this about the days of Lot:

Luke 17:28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

Why would you base your understanding of the timing of the rapture in relation to His coming after the tribulation on the day Noah entered the ark in relation to when the flood came, but not in relation to the day Lot left Sodom in relation to when the fire came down on Sodom? Where is the consistency in that? If you can make a determination about the timing of the rapture based on the timing of Noah entering the ark while ignoring what Jesus said about the days of Lot, then does that mean I can ignore what He said about the days of Noah and determine that the rapture will be on the same day as His coming after the tribulation because the fire came down on the same day Lot left Sodom?

I've got scriptural support.

No, you do not. You have made that clear. You have to change scripture to make it fit your doctrine.

You have what you think will happen. This a common theme. You will never understand until you accept the written word of God and stop spiritualizing and guessing and drawing a what you think is reasonable conclusion.

Is it reasonable for you to conclude that the rapture will happen years before His second coming after the tribulation when He said that the same day Lot left Sodom the fire came down on the city? You are not even consistent with your hyper-literalism.

Also, my view is based mostly on literal, straightforward scripture, so you claim that I'm just spiritualizing everything is false.

I take it literally when Jesus said that all of the dead will be resurrected at the same general time (John 5:28-29). I take it literally when Paul said that all of the dead in Christ (all dead believers) will be raised at the same time, which will be when Jesus comes at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15;22-23;50-54). You don't take passages like those literally. So, don't act like you're the one who takes scripture literally when it's meant to be taken literally and I'm not. That's hypocritical.

LOL. I'll certainly deny that has anything to do with EITHER RAPTURE.

LOL. "EITHER RAPTURE". As if there will be more than one. LOL. Scripture never indicates that there's more than one. That is the most ridiculous belief of all the ridiculous beliefs that you have. I say again that if it wasn't for your doctrinal bias, I do not believe that you would think that what is described in 2 Thessalonians 1:10 would occur at any time except for the same time that is described in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, which describes the one and only rapture that will occur.

The rapture of the Church will be like the days of Noah.

Jesus did not say that. You are saying that. I'm going to go by what Jesus said, not by what you say. He made no comparison related to the rapture of the church when comparing His coming to the days of Noah.

Then there are 144,000 first fruits for the second harvest. If your first fruits are pumpkins, the harvest will be pumpkins. Since the first fruits are from the 12 tribes the harvest will be of the twelve tribes. That is why they are singing the song of Moses before the throne in Rev 15.

What nonsense. You base your doctrine on one of the most symbolic and highly debated books in all of scripture. What a terrible way to come up with a doctrine. Your doctrine should be based on clear, straightforward scripture like mine is (see Matthew 24:35-39, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22, 2 Peter 3:10-13, etc.). and then you use those scriptures to understand the more difficult scriptures like we see in the book of Revelation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The very day Lot left Sodom destruction came. The very day the 12 tribes across the earth are rapture immediately after the tribulation of those days destruction will come. That day is the Day of the Lord.

Why would you not equate Lot leaving Sodom with the church leaving earth the way you equate Noah entering the ark with the church leaving earth? How convenient of you to not make that comparison. It shows your bias and the lack of consistency in how you interpret scripture.

Notice it says LIKEWISE also. There are two raptures. One will be like the days of Noah. Likewise also, one will be like the days of Lot.

LOL!!! You can't be serious here! Again your bias is clouding your vision. Any objective and rational person can clearly see that what Jesus was saying there is that the days before His second coming will be like the days of Noah and also (likewise) will be like the days of Lot. And that the day He comes will be like the day "the flood came and destroyed them all" and also (likewise) will be like the day Lot left Sodom and it fire came down from heaven.

Please start dealing with scripture honestly instead of allowing doctrinal bias to dictate how you interpret scripture.

Exactly. The day the second rapture occurs, the day of the Lord will begin.

LOL. What "second rapture"? That is not taught in scripture anywhere.

Perfectly consistent. Noah is in the ark 6 days before the flood and the very day Lot left Sodom destruction came. The are two raptures.

LOL. No, there are not. Again, Jesus made no direct comparison of the rapture to the days of Noah or days of Lot. You are the one doing that. There's no reason to do that unless Jesus Himself did, and He didn't.

I have no doctrinal bias.

LOL. You have extreme doctrinal bias and it's very obvious. Such as how you make assumptions about what Jesus was saying in relation to Noah and Lot's days. Trying to say that Him saying "likewise" meant he was talking about 2 different events related to His coming? Nonsense! He was comparing the days of His coming to both the days of Noah and the days of Lot. And He compared the day of His coming to the day the flood came and the day that fire came down on Sodom, which means His point there was that just as destruction came on the day the flood came and the day Lot left Sodom, destruction will come on the day Jesus comes as well.

The written Word of God is my doctrine.

No, it isn't. Your doctrine contradicts the written Word of God.

I was a post tribber until I realized things did not add up. There were too many things that I could see that did not make sense.

And now you've made everything make even less sense.

Understanding that the fig tree has two harvests let me realize there are two raptures and one of them is in an hour that you think not. There is a reason that the Church is not mentioned after Rev 3. There is a reason that there are 144,000 first fruits of the second harvest.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say the church is not mentioned after Rev 3? That is the most ridiculous claim imaginable.

Revelation 12:17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

What people are part of the Church besides "those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."? None. The people who are part of the Church are "those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.". But, you think this isn't referring to the Church? Unbelievable!

Same with these passages:

Revelation 13:7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

Who are God's holy people in the NT era? Those who are in the Church, of course! And you think this isn't referring to the Church? Unbelievable!

Revelation 14:12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus. 13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.”

See what I said above about Revelation 12:17. Who else are in the church except for "the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus."? And you think this is not referring to the Church? Unbelievable!

 

[The Light]

No, you do not. You have made that clear. You have to change scripture to make it fit your doctrine.

Oh boy. You don't believe they were eating and drinking UNTIL the day Noah entered the ark. You don't think that's logical. And then you claim I am changing scripture to fit my doctrine. Oh boy.

My doctrine is the scripture. You are changing scripture and don't even understand that you are. How can you possibly not see it is you that are changing scripture to fit what you think is logical..............your doctrine blinds you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You don't see the gentiles in view in this? Hmm.

I was talking about Daniel 9:24. Obviously, Gentiles are referenced in Ephesians 3:1-6.

Ok, the messenger Angel that comes to Daniel shows up to Daniel in Daniel 9? That's right. The Angel is with Daniel for the next for chapters (at least). So let's skip over (or read through) up to
Daniel 12:4
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased..../KJv

This is a prophecy for the end times. Write this stuff in a book and now, seal it up until the time of the end? What for? Oh it is a prophecy for the end times. So that makes me see the gentiles in it. Make sense? I think so.

I showed you the proper understanding of "the time of the end" by the descriptions of "the last time" and "the last days" in the NT. That time began long ago already according to John and Peter. Why would you think that prophecy is still sealed even after the Holy Spirit came to dwell in people and teach them and after the NT was written? To be sealed simply means it was not to be understood until a later time. Surely, people began understanding it once they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit and once they had the NT. You are making assumptions about what "the time of the end" means without even referring to how the NT defines "the last time" and "the last days". Why would you do that? Why not allow the NT to shed light on the OT prophecy from Daniel 9:24-27?

Good point. The Tribulation period is mostly all about Israel. They must come to a saving knowledge of Salvation through Jesus the Messiah as a nation. But as far as as the gentiles go, the Tribulation will affect the entire world.

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus talked about 2 different tribulations because He was asked 2 different questions. The first one related to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. He had just previously told the disciples that the temple buildings would be destroyed. The other question was in relation to His coming and the end of the age which has not yet occurred. The first question related to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings which occurred in 70 AD. So, that was local tribulation but Jesus will return after a future global tribulation.

Jesus has been saying, soon, for a long time, huh?! He even remarked to the disciples that we are in the last days. But coming from an Eternal being....it makes sense from His perspective!

Right. From His perspective, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day (2 Peter 3:8), which means He is not affected at all by time since He created time and exists outside of time.

6000 years, one week to Jesus?

It's not any amount of time to Jesus since He, being God, is not confined within the realm of time.

Yep, it's almost over and then we will be be with Jesus, and be eternal beings also.
They say the hardest part of being an eternal being is the first hundred years!

What does that mean? I've never heard that before.

It certainly is talking about Godly knowledge and wisdom. Good point. The OT may only allude to the pretrib rapture, but it wa sMystery then.
And now it is Behold I show you a Mystery time!

Say what now? Where does the OT allude to a pre-trib rapture? And where does the NT refer to a pre-trib rapture as being a mystery? If you look at what Paul called a mystery, he wasn't talking about the rapture, if we understand the rapture to be specifically referring to us being gathered and caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

The mystery not revealed in the OT is that we will not all die, but will all be changed to have imperishable (incorruptible) bodies. He said nothing here about the rapture being a mystery.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, as I said, these angels could be substituting for the saints until the Coming of Christ. They may represent the work that God will do to obtain the reward of the righteous.

I see the 24 elders are angels because...
1) the scene is filled with angels, and not men.
2) 24 elders is insufficient to represent the Rapture of the Church.
3) the scene is designed to show the Levitical priesthood in a heavenly, angelic form, the priesthood under the Law no longer functioning, and the Levitical Priesthood having ceased to exist.

1 Chron 24 relays there were 24 divisions of priests in the time of King David. So the 24 elders appear to represent a kind of heavenly temple structure, which will not exist for men until we are glorified.

Christ is already crowned, but Christians are not yet crowned.

James 1.12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.

Angels assume human characteristics at times. We have to assume that they appear as having obtained a certain age whenever they appear as such. They wouldn't, for example, appear as children.

But only angels would have crowns now. The only man who has a crown now is Jesus, that I know of. This vision shows elders who already have crowns *now,* and not in the future, when the Church is Raptured.

So it don't appear to be men at all. They would likely be angels, though we are not told this. It's a good question.

It's obviously highly debatable as to who the 24 elders represent. Yet, we're seeing someone base their doctrine on who they believe the 24 elders are and when they think the 24 elders go to heaven. I can't even begin to comprehend why someone would use this as part of the foundation of their doctrine rather than more straightforward scripture. I'm sure you would agree with that.

It seems to me that whoever the 24 elders represent, they are already in heaven now and probably have been there a long time already. I see no basis for thinking they represent the church after being raptured to heaven just because they are said to have crowns of gold on their head. Like you pointed out, what we will receive when Jesus comes is something James called "the crown of life". Where does it say the 24 elders have the crown of life on their heads? It doesn't. So, someone is basing their doctrine purely on speculation and nothing concrete.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Oh boy. You don't believe they were eating and drinking UNTIL the day Noah entered the ark. You don't think that's logical. And then you claim I am changing scripture to fit my doctrine. Oh boy.

Are you purposely misrepresenting my beliefs? No, I am saying that if Noah entered the ark 6 or 7 days before the flood started then it's not logical that they would stop eating and drinking when he entered the ark. That would mean they decided to not eat or drink for several days despite the flood not even starting yet. Why would they do that? You can't even survive doing that. They didn't believe what Noah was telling them about what was coming, so why would seeing him go on to the ark make them stop their daily routines?

My doctrine is the scripture. You are changing scripture and don't even understand that you are. How can you possibly not see it is you that are changing scripture to fit what you think is logical..............your doctrine blinds you.

You can say this all you want, but you have done absolutely nothing convincing to back it up.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus has returned as He said. The elders have crowns.

Crowns (plural). It says they have crowns of gold. What we are said to receive when Jesus comes is what James called "the crown of life". Where does it say that the elders have the crown of life?

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's obviously highly debatable as to who the 24 elders represent. Yet, we're seeing someone base their doctrine on who they believe the 24 elders are and when they think the 24 elders go to heaven. I can't even begin to comprehend why someone would use this as part of the foundation of their doctrine rather than more straightforward scripture. I'm sure you would agree with that.

Yea, definitely agree that basing a major doctrine on sketchy evidence is a bad idea. This goes back to why I always ask for *explicit biblical statements* in doctrinal matters, because God anticipates our questions and gives us what we need to know and need to believe in explicit form.

It seems to me that whoever the 24 elders represent, they are already in heaven now and probably have been there a long time already. I see no basis for thinking they represent the church after being raptured to heaven just because they are said to have crowns of gold on their head. Like you pointed out, what we will receive when Jesus comes is something James called "the crown of life". Where does it say the 24 elders have the crown of life on their heads? It doesn't. So, someone is basing their doctrine purely on speculation and nothing concrete.

Thank you. Agree 100%, and don't know why anybody would disagree with that, unless they have a preconceived agenda, which is what the Pretrib Rapture theory is. There is zero explicit doctrine about the Church being in heaven now or before the rise of Antichrist. If there is anybody there now it would be departed saints, and there would certainly be more than 24 elders among them!

No matter what your theology is, the scene of the heavenly throne in Rev 4-5 is a vision with the entire focus on the fact Christ atoned for our sins and enabled the fulfillment of history in our favor. All of the rest appears to be background, and we shouldn't base our eschatology on that!

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is exactly like saying obama can not be revealed pre election.

I don't understand the comparison? Of course Obama showed up prior to his election as President. So you're saying Antichrist is revealed, in some subtle way, prior to Christ coming to Rapture the Church, and that is what Paul was talking about in 2 Thes 2?

If so, that is not what Paul said or implied! He's not talking about some disguised or preliminary revelation of Antichrist before he even reveals himself as such. Rather, Paul is giving the full revelation of Antichrist--who he is and what he is doing, as a sign that Christ has not come yet.

Not only does Paul give the full revelation of Antichrist and his misdeeds as a sign that Christ has not yet come for his Church, but he adds that Christ will only come from heaven to destroy the Antichrist. Where does Paul say that he must come from heaven when he comes to save the Church? He has already said it in 1 Thes 4!

Not only so, but this was the measure Christ used to explain to his followers not to accept any supposed "Coming" before he is revealed *from heaven.* This is the original program, as revealed in Dan 7, that the Son of Man must come to save his People in a coming *from the clouds,* ie from heaven!

He was and the AC will be easily revealed by any believer with minimal discernment way before he takes power.

Minimal discernment? This is supposed to be the major sign revealing to the whole Church that Christ has not come yet!! This isn't a "minimal discernment!"

I am glad I can discern the word "revealed" is "before taking power."
You think they are exactly the same.

Your discernment does not line up with the gist of Paul's statements. You are "discerning" what you want to discern--not what Paul is saying. Sorry!

1 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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's fine. So if you believe that the rapturecan happen at any time and nothing has to happen first so it can happen

I don't believe that. You do.

...then how can the rapture happen at the same time as the 2nd coming? We know exactly when Jesus comes and there are several prophecies which must take place beofre he comes.

We know exactly when He comes? Where are you getting that idea from? He said no one knows the day or hour of His second coming and that includes you.

Matthew 25:10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’ 12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

That's very astute of you to be able to see the contradiction in Matthew 24. It certainly is a contradiction.! The truth is always wound up in the details and the difficulty arises when Greek isnt is our native language and we dont know very much about the customs of the culture. And the fact is, While Jesus is giving those four disciples a private briefing just betweem Him and them, they had asked Jesus a few questions, and Jesus answers them all. But if you're not carfeul, you wont pick up on when Jesus changes the subject as He was talking to them. Jesus talks about the tribulation and He also talks about the rapture.

But the disciples knew the langage and customs of the speech and all that so they knew exactly that a change of subject occured. If we don't catch it, it is easy to think that Jesus talks about the same event. But he changed the subject so in reality there really isnt a contradiction.

I actually agree that Jesus talked about multiple subjects in the Olivet Discourse and that we need to recognize when the subject changed, but I don't think you're properly recognizing what subjects He talked about. Depending on how you look at it, He was asked either 2 or 3 questions. The first was related to what He had just told them prior to beginning His discourse which was that the temple buildings would be destroyed. The second related to His second coming. They also asked about the end of the age, but in my view His coming and the end of the age go hand in hand, so I don't see it as them asking one question about His coming and another question about the end of the age. Regardless of whether they asked Him 2 or 3 questions, we know He is coming at the end of the age.

I can hear it now! Where does Jesus change subjects exactly?
I don't remember off the yop of my head. I'll have to look at my notes to find exactly where.

Hmmm. So, this is not something you've believed for long? I certainly don't need to refer to notes to remember what I believe and how I interpret the Olivet Discourse.

It is in there because I heard a very good teaching on that from a Pastor who does know the language, he went to Seminary or whatever they call it. And I stuck right with him in my bible and read it as he went along and I understood it. And it made all sorts of sense. I'll look for it.

I'd suggest studying it more for yourself and not relying too much on what that pastor taught. And I would suggest knowing what you believe enough that you have it in your memory and don't have to repeatedly refer to notes that you took when listening to a pastor.

Ok, I just now read all of Matthew 24 (in the NLT!) Do me a favor, go read it in the NLT version. BibleGateway has a free online NLT version (or any version I think). It seems clear that Jesus is talking about the time of Tribulation in the beginning of the chapter, then...(dont quote me on this yet, I havent checked my notes yet!), but in reading it it seems like around veses 36 that he starts talking about the Rapture.

I have no interest in having a discussion about what translation we should be using. I have read it in several different translations including the KJV, NIV, ESV and NASB. It's not as if I've missed something just because I haven't read the NLT version of it. So, let's not waste time with that kind of discussion.

I will just tell you how I understand it. I believe in Matthew 24:4-13 Jesus talks about things that would happen up until the end of the age. He mentions "the end" in both verses 13 and 14, so that shows the context of what He was talking about. I take "the end" to be referring to the end of the age. Then He changes subjects in verse 15 and starts talking about things related to their question about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. I believe that goes until verse 22. The parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24 shows that He was talking about something that would happen only in Judea and Jerusalem. So, He talked about a local or regional tribulation rather than global. And, since it related to the destruction of the temple buildings, I believe He was talking about what happened around 70 AD when the Roman armies came and surrounded Jerusalem and eventually destroyed the city and the temple.

Then in verse 23 Jesus talks about things that would occur after that up until His second coming. Luke referred to the time after that as "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). Jesus talked about global tribulation before His coming at the end of the age in terms of there being a lot of deception which would result in many turning away from the faith and an increase in wickedness. I believe it is after THAT tribulation (spiritual tribulation) that He will come and not the physical tribulation of God's wrath that He talked about in Matthew 24:15-22 (Mark 13:14-20, Luke 21:20-24).

I believe He talks about things related to His second coming from Matthew 24:23 to the end of the discourse in Matthew 25:46. I don't see any change of subject in verse 36. I believe the gathering of the elect mentioned in verse 31 is a reference to the rapture and by reading Matthew 24:29-31 you can easily see that will occur "after the tribulation of those days". There is no reference to a pre-trib rapture anywhere in the Olivet Discourse.

And in the time of noah, God brought Judgment to the earth and destroyed itand Raptured 8 people to safety to rise above the death waters and live, to return to the earth later...That's just how the Rapture is going to be. First the Rapture, then Judgment on earth and Great Tribulation. The wrath of God.

Yes, but it will be God's final wrath that comes down upon the earth when Jesus comes. According to Peter it will be global.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

This is the wrath that will occur just after we are caught up to meet the Lord in the air. There is no basis for thinking that we will be raptured and then a bunch of other stuff will happen for several years and then God's final wrath comes down after that. That is not taught in scripture.

"Jesus indicated that a time would come when many would turn away from the faith and many false prophets and false Christs would appear and deceive many people. This correlates with an increase of wickedness. You can't say that the coming of the Son of Man could occur before these things Jesus talked about occurred first. Paul also talked about these kinds of things happening before His coming and our being gathered to Him in 2 Thessalonians 2."

Yeah and it sure seems like it already starting that stuff.

That definitely could be the case. I believe so, but there isn't anything specific we can point to to prove that. We can only discern that by what we observe going on in the world.

And, are we still in peace time? Does this give us a clue as to how bad it will really be during the Tribulation? Scripture talks about mens hearts failing them for fear. It is going to be bad bad. Such as the world has never seen before nor will ever see again. Maybe these are the good ol' days right now and we just don't know it yet?

We don't know for sure because Jesus wasn't that specific about it, but the thing He emphasized more than anything was a high level of deception and wickedness happening before He comes. People tend to focus on physical things that would occur before He comes, but that wasn't His main focus. He talked about earthquakes, wars, famines and such happening before He comes, but He said those things are not what tell us that His coming is soon. Instead, it's the overall increase in deception and wickedness which tells us that. Which matches up with what Paul wrote about in 2nd Thessalonians 2.

 

[Timtofly]

144,000 Christian Jews is not a big enough number for the Antichrist to be burdened with. If he basically rules the earth with fearsome dominance, why is persecuting a smallish army even show up on the radar?

The future rule of an Antichrist is not from Scripture. It is a human invention to fill in the gaps of human theology. All of the beast that Daniel saw that many think are future were already fulfilled with Greece and Rome. Even historist get it wrong, because they cannot see that the Reformation, upon which they build their entire doctrine out of, finished all of Daniel 2, including any further visions Daniel had about the first 5 kingdoms.

There is nothing in Revelation unless you all change it around to fit your eschatology, which to you is adding and taking away from what John wrote, concerning a peaceful rule of an AC who kills "Christians".

If any poster is called out for changing Revelation to fit their eschatology, the one judging, should not change Revelation either. A huge red flag goes up the minute a person says, Revelation is not in chronological order and so and so teaches us to interpret Revelation "this way".

While comparing the Second Coming to a wedding, is interesting, there are a few disclaimers. The church is compared to both the body of Christ, and the bride of Christ. I think both sides get the anology slightly off, especially if one accepts the Day of the Lord is a one thousand year period of time. The church is not wed to Christ until after the Millennium. So any marriage prior to the millennium is a different group, that many still gloss over.

This is the church in Revelation 21:

"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

Jesus is not marrying His wife. This bride is not Israel. This bride is not an empty city needing to be filled up with people. These people in this city descending from heaven is still called a bride, not a wife. This is not a wife put off for a thousand plus years, just now coming to a wedding. This is a bride adorned for a wedding, after there is a totally different creation. Which would indicate, there is never a wedding with the church, until after this creation has been removed, per 1 Corinthians 15:25-28

"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

The marriage with Israel is the Day of the Lord. When it comes to the marriage of the church, nothing concerning this creation even applies, as there will not even be a physical temple any more, as God and the church as the New Jerusalem is the temple now on earth. At that point the nations and kings of the earth will walk in the light of that temple, the New Jerusalem.

"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it."

The Lamb and the church are now one and the same. No more separation. The body of Christ and the wife of Christ with no distinction between the 2. The New Jerusalem is now one entity.

So the Day of the Lord is not about the church. It is about Jesus as King over Israel. No one should force a wedding of the church to Christ at any point of current creation. No one should force an antichrist upon the church, as the antichrist was never against the church, but against Israel throughout the OT. Since the Cross, any antichrist came out of the church, whenever the church became apostate, and still attacked Israel. Especially if one claims the church remains spiritually Israel.

Can Christians attack Christians? This thread is a great example, no? Both sides of an issue can call the other side "heretical". And in the past one side would martyr the other if given enough power. But which side was correct? The side killed or the side doing the killing? Which side is correct now? The one claiming to be the victor? The side that destroys all the competition?

Any one could be correct in saying antichrist have had control for hundreds of years, because they can arise out of an apostate church, but an apostate church is not the beginning of the cycle. One has to have a church on fire and growing, to become apostate, at which times antichrists appear as the apostasy grows stronger. We have been in the 6th head of the dragon, sea beast, and scarlet colored beast since the Reformation. This 6th kingdom is the one with a mortal wound. An apostate church with an antichrist spirit can be used to miraculously heal this 6th head. But certainly no AC is going to lead the world. Jesus will be on the earth, because the wound is healed after the Second Coming. The issue is neither side of this pre-trib post trib conflict realize that Jesus is on earth prior to the sounding of the 7th Trumpet. Jesus is personally gathering and judging Israel in person as there King.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

The Deliverer is Jesus in person, at the coming to the Mount of Olives. The fulness of the Gentiles was raptured away. Blindness is removed from Israel, not the apostate church. The apostate church will now be the "Pharisees" getting in Jesus' way. That is the mystery Paul said not to be ignorant about. The church that claims to be on earth with Christ, will certainly find themselves in a conundrum, when they realize they were not raptured. These verses in Romans 11 are just as much prophetic concerning the rapture and Second Coming as any other passage Paul wrote. Jesus has not been calling out his bride in distinction to a particular nation. That changes at the Second Coming.