WHY THE RAPTURE MUST BE PRE-TRIBULATION

Catholic Convert said:

Christ has returned? This is it; the eternal Kingdom?
"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable" (1 Cor. 15:19)

Ed Edwards stated:

But #1 comes after #2 in the passage. 31-44 is after 21-28. This clearly disproves pretrib. How can you make it support it by simply reversing the order of the verses?

 

Eric B: "Even though all the saints in the Bible from at least Noah,
up to Jesus Himself, and centuries of martyrs after that,
had to suffer. But God would never put us through such discomfort! "

You forgot your UUB-code [sarcasm].
Be sure to shut it off at the proper time with [/sarcasm]

Eric B: "And Paul had said it would occur at "the last trump" (1 Cor.15:52)."

Sure, the pretrib resurrection/rapture is at the last trump.
Whose last trump? How about the billions that
will be resurrected and the 100s of millions that
will be raptured. For the raptured, it will be the
last trumpet sound they hear while alive on earth.
For our dear deaf Brother DeafPosttrib, it will be
the first trumpet sound he hears!

Every year i hear the Jewish Synagogues blow three
horns: the first trumpet, the last trumpet, the great horn.
Hello! thousands of trumpets every year,
2 thousand years, that is million of LAST TRUMPETs.
Please show that the last trumpet of Revelation
is exactly equal to the last trumpet of 1 Cor. 15:52.
This is probably an assumption that you have made,
which assumption may not be correct.

 

Eric B: "But #1 comes after #2 in the passage. 31-44 is after 21-28.
This clearly disproves pretrib. How can you make it support
it by simply reversing the order of the verses? "

I claim (you do not have to agree) that the order of
the segments of Matthew 24:4-44 is the order
of the questions in Matthew 24:3.

Matthew 24:3 (KJV1769):
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately,
saying, Tell us,
when shall these things be?
and what shall be the sign of thy coming,
and of the end of the world?

For the slow in counting:

1. Concerning the destruction of the temple:
"when shall these things be?"
2. "what shall be the sign of thy coming ... ?"
3. "what shall be the sign of ... the end of the world?

I believe (you have the liberty NOT to agree) that
Jesus answered the three questions IN THE ORDER ASKED
(not in the time sequence in which they will happen).

Here is the sequence in which they will happen:

1. Concerning the destruction of the temple:
"when shall these things be?"
3. "what shall be the sign of ... the end of the world?
2. "what shall be the sign of thy coming ... ?"

Here is my summary of the answers of Jesus:

1. Concerning the destruction of the temple:
"when shall these things be?"
SOON

3. "what shall be the sign of ... the end of the world?
AOD & Great Tribulation

2. "what shall be the sign of thy coming ... ?"
no sign, i.e. immanence

 

Ed,

Matt 24:4-29 tell us veryclear that we will see the signs will show us that the end of the age will come follow the coming of Christ.

Christ shall not come till all these things must come to be fulfilled first as according to Matt 24:32-33; and Luke 21:28.

Matt 24:31 does not separate from verse 29-30, becaue in the context of Matt 24:29-31 talk about the announcment of his coming to gathering his elect together.

No way you can prove Matt 24:31 is a "pretrib" rapture. Because Christ does not saying verse 31 is a "pretrib" rapture.

That is your own intepreting of verse 31, not according to Jesus, what He actually saying.

I still promise, I will continue to discuss on Dan. 9:24-27 with you later.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

That was simple, you have your opinion, i have
mine. What do you make of 2 Peter 3:10
and Revelation 20:7-8?

2 Peter 3:10 says that the Day of
the Lord immediately preceedes the
destruction of the earth.
Revelation 20:7-8 has the Devil
bound for 1,000 years after the
Second Advent (Rev 19:11-21).
A new heaven and a new earth (supposedly
after the destruciton of the old earth)
doesn't show up until Revelation 21:1.

Which is right? Second Advent/Day of the Lord
right before the destruction of the Earth
or after 1,000 years?

I believe both to be correct.
2 Peter 3 has the purpose of showing
that the earth's future reminds us
to be true to God and pure.
To show that a summary is given:
Day of the Lord then destruction of Earth.
It certainly doesn't preclude that
something else could happen in between,
even a 1,000 years worth of something.

Revelation gives additional details:
Day of the Lord, actual
physical Millinnial reign of Christ,
destruction of the old earth, creation
of a new heaven and a new earth.

 

Ed,

I will continue discuss with you on millennium tomorrow, because I have go to work tonight.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20- Amen!

 

Don't we all ...

 

Amen, Brother Elder Fred Wilson -- Preach it!

 

Oh, that was copied from my page. I considered editing it out of the post, but figured everyone would get it. Sorry.

Whose last trump? Obviously the final one that all the ones you mentioned were just a foreshadowing of. Thus, "The" last trump. The Seventh trump of Revelation obviously fulfills this prophetic significance, and we see it is when the actual harvest occurs. It all fits together, so why not accept that as the time of the Rapture?

OK, I didn't realize that. Still, it could turn out to be the correct order of the events, and it appears to me that Christ was answering all three questions as a whole (they were kind of asked as a whole), and thus not dividing it with several verses being devoted to each sub-question.

 

As for the Day of the Lord:
Much confusion caused by this passage (2 Pet.), since Day of the Lord is seen as pre-millennial (6:17), and the destruction by fire and new earth is post-millennial. A-millennialists, citing this, completely dismiss the whole idea of a thousand year period altogether). But Peter is most likely including the entire thousand year period as the "Day of the Lord", beginning with the pre-millennial wrath, going through the whole 1000 years of His government on earth, and ending with the final judgment. Significantly enough, it is in this very context that he continues with the classic phrase "with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years, as a day" (v.8)

 

The rapture is in fact post tribulation.

Rev 19 and 20 show that the coming of Christ "follows" the plagues of Rev 16.

Rev 20 shows that the "FIRST resurrection" - the resurrection of the saints - is what STARTS the literal - millenium.

1Thess 4 shows that the resurrection of the saints "The dead in Christ" is the singular event that happens at Christ's appearing. This IS identified as the "First Resurrection" by John. And he is correct.

As for post-Cross Christians seeing intense tribulation - nobody can view the persecution of christians by pagan Romen and then by Papal Rome and yet "miss" the extreme level of "tribulation" already poured out in bucket loads upon the church of God.

The Plagues of Rev 16 are not "ON" God's people - just as the plagues of egypt were not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Problems with that:

#1. ALL time prohecies are contiguous by definition SINCE inserting gaps of "unknown" time into any prophecy (70 years of Jeremiah, 70 weeks of Daniel, 2300 days of Daniel) voids the use of the timeline AS a timeline. Undefined points of insertion combined with undefined lengths of time - obliterate the timeline. No Bible timeline uses that method. Not even one.

#2. Daniel does not define the last period of time as 7 days or 1 week or 7 years of "persecution". You are correct that it is 7 years of time - just as the entire 70 weeks are in fact 70x7 - 490 years of time. One contiguous timeline. The Messiah is annointed for ministry at the start of that final 7 years and is cut off (crucfied) in the midst of it. Daniel was pointing to the baptism of Christ AND to His crucifixion. The most important events in all of history.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan: "ALL time prohecies are contiguous by definition
SINCE inserting gaps of "unknown" time into any prophecy
(70 years of Jeremiah, 70 weeks of Daniel, 2300 days of Daniel)
voids the use of the timeline AS a timeline."

This premises must be incorrect, as the conclusions
that follow are incorrect.

If God inserts the gaps, he voids the use of a timeline as
a timeline? Hello, time for a dose of reality.


Which of the following is not an element of
the Doctrine of the Sovereignty of God?
1. God can do anything He wants.
2. God can do it when He wants.
3. God can do it how He wants.
4. God can use any agency (human or other) He wants.
5. God can have what ever purpose in what He does that He wants.
6. All of the above.

Here is your gap between the 69th and 70th Week of Daniel:
Luke 21:24 (KJV1769):
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword,
and shall be led away captive into all nations:
and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles,
until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Nah, too easy -- Jesus is God, Jesus said it, God
institutes a "times of the Gentiles" or "Gentile Age"
right into the 70 weeks of Daniel and violates the
BobRyan premises -- Yes, way to easy

 

Your premise (that God is interpreting for you and not for those that find a more consistent rendering of the text) is flawed.

The Jews attempted to blame their incorrect interpretations on God as well - as if He made them do it.

That approach is flawed. Better to stick with the normal model - that you are in fact interpretting the text to fit your preferences - and sometimes that ends up being "correct" whereas other times it is in error.

The "obvious point" I was making is that inserting gaps of unknown time into a timeline "obviously" negates its use as a timeline. And in fact - there is not one prophecy in scripture that does that.

Your "how many angels on the head of pin" argument is simply sidestepping the obvious point already made.

Luke 21 is not a rendering of the Daniel 9 timeline of 70 weeks. Daniel nine references events both inside and outside of the contiguous timeline. You would have to "show" some connection to the timeline AND that Luke 21 was targeting a "gap of unknown time in the midst of a timeline". Unfortunately for your preference - Luke 21 mentions no timeline -- at all.

The only "easy" part was "pretending" that you had a specific timeline in Luke 21 that mentioned the 490 years of Daniel 9.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I guess you didnt know that as well as the early church some church Fathers taught it , it wasnt started in the 1800s - here is a quote from Ephraem the Syrian, A.D. 373

"For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the Tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins"

So much for the 1800s- and the earliest Fathers held a literal millenial reign of Christ on Earth

Justin Martyr
-
One of the most able men to present a defense for the Christian faith was Justin Martyr. He was born in Samaria sometime around A.D. 110, and was martyred in A.D. 165 during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

Justin's extensive traveling and his vast exposure to philosophy and religion provided him with a wealth of knowledge. He used the arts of rhetoric that were promoted by the philosophical schools to prove that Christianity was the only true philosophy.

In his "Dialogue with Trypho" the apologist sought to prove from the OT that Jesus was the Messiah and that Christianity was superior to Judaism. It is in this dialogue that Justin elaborated on his millennial expectation.

Because of Justin's extensive witness to Chiliasm, only a few passages can be cited here.4 In Chapter 80 Trypho the Jew (probably a hypothetical opponent) questioned Justin's belief in the thousand year reign of Christ. Justin assured him that, not only he, but many others held to the same opinion.

He demonstrated true charity toward many pious Christians who disagreed with his millennial stance, and yet he deemed pre-millennialism as the true orthodox position;

"But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare" (Ch. 80).

In chapter 81 Justin supported his doctrine by appealing to the Prophets and the Apostle John. His eschatology was derived from a literal approach to both Testaments; to him this was more than a Jewish dream, it was a biblical revelation.

I have more if you are interested

 

Though we have a few RC members here that promote the idea that you can trash the 1000 years of Rev 20 and that Christ has already returned and taken the saints to heaven as promised in John 14 (and I guess that means we are all left here in hell -- eh?).

But in Rev 19 it is VERY clear - when Christ returns and takes the saints to heaven (as promised in John 14) the "REST" that are left on earth "are killed" by Christ - just as Rev 19 states.

Paul states in 2 Thess 1 that Christ's return is "in flaming fire" and He will be "dealing out retribution" to the wicked. The "slain of the Lord will be from one end of the earth to the other" as the prophet said.

In Christ,

Bob

 

There are probably more protestants
here that belive that than RC members

 

Angel for Christ,

If I am reading you correctly, I too, found where the Apostolic Fathers believed in Christ coming for the church before the Great Tribulation. The apostles believed in the rapture of the Christian church before the world wide holocost. Then the heresy began with pre-Catholics and as time went on when the Catholic Church focused in Rome, they discounted it fully with more than a little help from the quasi-theologian, St. Augustine.

If some of the men on the board are left behind, they will well know that the Great Tribulation will begin in their times. Our Lord could tarry though and not at all come in our life times. Look up for your redemption draweth nigh. [I Thess 4:17]

The rapture won't be secret because of many things one of which will be the archangel's trumpet blast and the disappearance of the true church, all who are born again.

 

Ray , amen to your post , thats exactly what I was talking about you said

The writing "City of God" by Augustine influenced by Origen who was heavily antisemetic was a huge influence on those in Rome and spread like wildfire since the Roman church was being filled with wealth and power once it was married to the government .