The questionable Pretribulation Rapture

Obviously "wrath", "Wrath", and "WRATH" are
NOT in the Bible anywhere.

However, consider Revelation 14:10 (KJV1769):
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,
which is poured out without mixture into the
cup of his indignation; and he shall
be tormented with fire and brimstone
in the presence of the holy angels,
and in the presence of the Lamb:

Hello! we are talking undiluted WRATH of God here.

Consider Matthew 24:21, Jesus speaks of "great
tribulation". I construe that the difference
between the tribulation period and the Great
Tribualtion Period to warrent the difference
between "wrath" and "Wrath".
Thus, yes there is a scriptural basis
for my saying:
wrath = first half of the Tribualtion Period
Wrath = second half of the Tribualtion Period
WRATH = Second Advent when Jesus kicks AC booty!

As for "Realise that 1 Thessalonians 4:13
to 5:11 is all on one subject:
the rapture event" -- Get real.
That is my understanding of scripture.
If your blindness doesn't give you that understanding
then be blind. I've done nothing on this board
but give you scripture and some have done nothing
but sit by and say NAY, NAY -braying like a donkey.

So, whoever wants to discuss, how to you
explain DAY OF THE LORD in 2 Peter 3 which
has Jesus returning and the earth being destroyed
with Revelation 19-21 where there is 1,000
years (Millinnium) or more between the two events?

 

IMO, this is a whole new topic and probably deserves its own thread, but here's my brief comment on this question:

This does not sound to me like the passage means the earth will disintegrate. IMO this is a very poorly translated passage. "elements will melt with fervent heat" is more literally "the basic things will loose or be broken and be set fire to". Given the more literal translation, this just sounds like a condensed but dramatic description of the beginning of the Day of the Lord to me, especially when compared to Revelation 6 (inserted [] comments mine).

The rest of 2 Peter 3:10 is debatable, though. It could simply be the rest of the description of how dramatic the Day of the Lord will be, but I happen to believe that the word translated "burned up" is more accurately translated "exposed" (as in exposed for what it is by fire, which is a common expression in the NT).

In fact, even the NU-Text reads "laid bare" instead of "burned up".

Obviously, people get touchy about translation issues, but IMO it is impossible to interpret this passage to mean the earth is disintegrated without it contradicting many other passages.

 

Ed,

When my computer will be ready this week. I will continue discuss more about this.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

Tim,

I'll look into it, but not tonight (and probably not until Thursday)...I'm preaching Wed. night (found out Sunday), and I have studying to do . 'Til then...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Praying for you;
praying for your computer

 

Tim too about 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12:
"This passage alone is enough to cause someone to have
serious questions about the pretrib rapture"

Sure, if you slay the text
and flavor it with faithless nay saying
Sure, if you tie the hands of God
and let Him be capable of one and only
one resurrection.
Sure, if you tie the hands of God
and let Him be capable of having
one and only one elect group of saints.

About the great apostasy.
Paul speaks of it elsewhere, so it will
happen.
We know in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that
the Greek term for "Apostasy" is found
preceeding the revelation of the AC.
But why did the 48 translators of the
King James Version, very aware of the
English word "apostasy" select the
words "FALLING AWAY"?

Why did seven English versions of
the Bible predating the King James
Version (all of whom had the
English word "apostasy" available,
select "departing" for this verse?

I believe it is because we are not
speaking of the great apostasy in
2 Thessalonains 2:3 but the
pretribualtion rapture/resurrection.

BTW, the revelation of the AC is NOT
the mid-tribualtion period Abomination
of Desolation (AOD).



I have three other writings i'd like to type
up and post but the itnernet seems to
be ultra slow evenings when i have
time to post.

 

Well, I suppose if one slays the text one can get this (and any other) passage to support the concept of a pretrib rapture though such a concept was nonexistent throughout history until the last 200 years.

"Faithless naysaying"? Only if one a priori assumes the pretrib rapture can one make this accusation. I suppose all the apostolic and postapostolic fathers were "faithless naysayers" as well then since they believed in one elect group and one resurrection at the one second coming of Christ.

 

Doubting Thomas: "I suppose all the apostolic and postapostolic
fathers were "faithless naysayers" as well
then since they believed in one elect group and
one resurrection at the one second coming of Christ."

Interesting, you understand the the ECF
who wrote in a language you don't understand
and you don't understand what i'm saying?
I doubt that.

Where were you to dispute my "5 resurrections" writing?
I took it right out of the Bible and made it
very plain to understand.
The New Testament speaks of two elect of God groups
(in two different time periods) - and the ECF didn't
know that?
The New Testament speaks of two Second
comings of Christ:
When Jesus comes to get me, it is before the Tribulation Period.
When Jesus comes to get the AC and his followers,
it will be the end of the Tribultion Period.
The ECF didn't read the New Testament?



I now have nine handwritten posts,
and very little access to the internet --
I'll try again tomorrow mornign for awhile.,

 

Doubting Thomas: " ... a pretrib rapture
through such a concept was nonexistent
throughout history until the last 200 years."

I reely admit the term "pretribulation rapture"
was NOT used until the 1830
works of John Darby. But please note, dear
reader that both Doubting Thomas and
Tim too have never stated their eschatological stand
and are thereby being deceptive.
They also know their end-time theory
was named AFTER my "pretribulation rapture"

BTW a concept can exist before it is named.
And such is the "pretribulation rapture".

 

Now you are the one being deceptive. Neither the concept of the "pretrib rapture" nor the specific name of the concept were taught by ANYONE until the 1800s. However, at least the concept of a posttrib rapture was taught--at the very least, it had been the universal teaching of the Church that the Antichrist would come first before Christ would come and gather His people. There was no notion of two second comings or two gatherings or two elects. Once again you are wrongly dividing the word of Truth.

 

Doubting Thomas: "Neither the concept of the "pretrib rapture"
nor the specific name of the concept were taught
by ANYONE until the 1800s."

Your statement is incorrect. I submit as evidence
these words of Jesus stated in 32AD
and first written in this form possibly
in 90AD:

John 14:1-3 (nKJV):

"Let not your heart be troubled;
you believe in God, believe also in Me.
2 In My Father's house are many mansions;
if it were not so, I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you,
I will come again and receive you to Myself;
that where I am, there you may be also.

Hope wins over doubt EVERY TIME!

 

Again, only by presupposing a pretrib rapture can these words in any way relate to that. However, it is the pretrib rapture that is being questioned.

 

Isn't that a little bit like a vain woman claiming to be 29 y.o. each year? You can only be 29 once. You can only come a second time once. If you come again it's the third.

 

Isn't that a little bit like a vain woman claiming to be 29 y.o. each year? You can only be 29 once. You can only come a second time once. If you come again it's the third. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Isn't that a little bit like a vain woman claiming to be 29 y.o. each year? You can only be 29 once. You can only come a second time once. If you come again it's the third. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, that is my line
In a couple of weeks i'll celebrate
my 21st anniversery of my 39th birthday

Tannerm1: "You can only come a second
time once."

Maybe you are so limited, but God isn't.

Here is the numbering of the comings
of Jesus, the Messiah, according to
the Old Testament phropecies:

1A as a babe in Bethelhem, 1BC
1B return from Hell, 33AD
1C pretrib rapture/resurrection
1D postrib rapture/resurrection

Here is the numbering according to the
New Testament prophecies:

1A as a babe in Bethelhem, 1BC
1B return from Hell, 33AD
2A pretrib rapture/resurrection
2B postrib rapture/resurrection

Here is a numbering scheme that tannerm1
might be more comfortable with

1 as a babe in Bethelhem, 1BC
2 return from Hell, 33AD
3 pretrib rapture/resurrection
4 postrib rapture/resurrection

 

Thank you for
the compliment

1 Corinthians 13:13 (nKJV):
And now abide faith, hope, love, these three;
but the greatest of these is love.

"Faith" is different from "hope",
the two terms are not interchangable.

I have faith that Jesus
will save me from Hell by the Resurrection.
I have hope that Jesus will save
me from Hell on earth (AKA: Tribulation Period)
in the pretribulation rapture/resurrection.

Hebrews 11:1a 9nKJV):
Now faith is the SUBSTANCE OF THINGS hoped for, ... "

This shows that FAITH is a posteriori HOPE.
Then HOPE must be a priori FAITH.

BTW, a priori goes from the general
to the specific. Deductive reasoning
goes from the general to the specific.

By constrast, a posteriori goes from
the specific to the general. Inductive
reasoning goes from the specific to
the general. This is the type reasoning
used in the scientific method, where a
large number of specific cases are made
into general statements called "laws".

General statement:
God is good all the time.
Specific statement:
God will be good to me
just before the Tribualtion Period
starts. Yes, there will be a
rapture/resurrection before the
Tribulation Period -- the pretrib rapture!


All the great doctrines of the
Bible start with Jesus, the Messiah,
and end with the pretribulation rapture.
If somebody is going to shout "Amen",
now would be a good time to do it.

 

Ed,

I hope you enjoyed your semantic gymnastics.

You still have not proven the pretrib rapture from Scripture. You think you have, but only by presupposing the pretrib eschatology and then imposing it on various Scriptures have you been able to make your "case". You've thereby wrongly divided the word of truth.

I perceive at this point that it is fruitless debating with you any further, as you persist in using fanciful eigesis to defend your viewpoint

 

If anybody wants
to snivel, now would be a good
time to do it

I've still got 8 posts handwritten
which slow internet prevents me from typeing
up and sending. I talked to a techie
yesterday from my ISP = internet service
provider (which is cable) -- he says the
slow is due to this being a college town
(University of Oklahoma) and it starting
up last week. So things may be slow all
semester internet-wise

Oh yes, i'm about 20% done with my side
of the debate. Seems like some
300% of the pre-wrath
arguments have already been used

Jesus keep me near the cross
There a precious fountain
Flows to all a healing stream
Down from Calverys mountain

 

If the other 80% of your "side of the debate" is similar that which you've already posted, non-pretribbers have nothing to worry about.