#2 THE RAPTURE

[Paul33]

What is the "last day?"

It is obvious that if one takes Rev. 20:1-6 literally, he will have to understand other portions of Scripture less literally.

I believe that the last day begins with the first resurrection of the saints at the end of the tribulation and ends with the second resurrection of the wicked at the end of the thousand years. Thus the thousand years framed by the two resurrections is the last "day" or the "day of the Lord." Christ will return, saints will be resurrected to eternal life and the wicked will be raised to eternal damnation.

If Rev. 20:1-6 is interpreted less literally, the day is "24 hours" and the resurrection of the saints and wicked will occur simultaneously. Now which is correct?

One thing I know for sure, historic dispensationalism make utter confusion out of the Word of God.

Covenant and I can both point to Scripture and argue our "literal" interpreations from the text. Dispensationalism make this same claim but has to infer it from one text to another.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I will respond quickly to this, since it likely will be blown off without serious consideration. The issues brought up in this post are remarkably easy to answer and as such wont’ take much time.

I take these words very literally, and very seriously.

So you believe that the “Tower of Hananel” and the “Corner Gate” are real places?

It is admittedly hard for me to take you seriously, if you really think something like this answers the question at hand. I can’t imagine that you think this is the be all and end all of the discussion.

Jesus said the resurrection will be on the LAST DAY.

Last day of what? And how long is the “last day”? The Bible says that the day of the Lord last for 1000 years (unless you don’t take the words “very literally, and very seriously, as you claimed to.

Christians and non-Christians must live together until we're separated ON THE LAST DAY. "Growing together" in NO hermeutical manner means a thousand years in-between by ANY honest Christian's interpretation.

Well … plainly put, no. There are many Christians who are no longer living with non-Christians having already died. And the Bible tells us they will be raised first (meaning that there must be a “second resurrection” … you can’t skip those little words). Secondly, I am not sure why your reference to a thousand years. Dispensationalists believe that during the thousand years, Christians and non Christians will be living together on the earth.

OT Martha believed the resurrection to be ON THE LAST DAY, and I believe it! … Paul believed the resurrection to be on the LAST DAY and I believe it!!

So do dispensationalists … But that does not preclude an earlier resurrection. You assume there is only one. Scripture teaches that there are more than one resurrection.

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, DESTRUCTION OF UNGODLY MEN, AND THE EARTH BURNED OCCUR ON THE DAY THE LORD APPEARS

Remember that the “day” is 1007 years. It is not a 24 hour period of time. If you study the OT teaching on the DOL (Day of the Lord), you will see that the DOL is always a period of time, and includes both judgment and blessing. The DOL never, in any place I can think of, refers to a single 24 hour day.

Now Larry, unless you really mean those very pious and eloquent words in your post, you won't take the above scripture as seriously as you claim to do, because when literally read, they can say nothing else but that the resurrection and the end of the world is on the SAME DAY AND IS ONE MAJOR EVENT!

I take those verses very seriously, but no honest person can deny that there are other legitimate interpretations. When you compare Scripture with Scripture, your view leads to contradictions. And I take Scripture too seriously for that. I think God only has one truth, and he does not contradict himself.

However, I have no hopes with these verses, outside the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, any more than in the previous thread.

This is an extremely arrogant position, and very unjustified given the cursory manner in which you have handled the text and the issues. To assume that the Holy Spirit enlightened you and not me is completely out of line. I don’t make that assumption about you. But I am not of the opinion that I know it all. I know enough to know that your position had great problems. I know enough to know that my position has some problems. But you seem not to know enough to know that your position has great problems. And like the saying goes, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. When you know little, and act like you know it all, it is dangerous for you and for those you affect. Men with far greater minds and spiritual lives than you and I put together have taken both sides on this issue. It is foolish for either of us to be arrogant and think we know it all.

The Bible clearly defines more than one resurrection. When you look at Rev 20:4-5, you cannot honestly deny that. The text teaches a resurrection, a thousand years, then “the rest” of the dead are raised. And that is the first resurrection, followed by the second resurrection in Rev 20:11-15. Because you don’t take the thousand years “very literally, and very seriously” to quote yourself, you end up having to explain away what Scripture says. I can’t accept that view. I think the words mean what they say. And I think you are not taking the words of Scripture seriously, and I don’t think the Holy Spirit has enlightened you to do that.

In the end, is dispensationalism right? I believe it is. Will I be surprised to find out it’s not? No, I won’t even care because we will have a far higher calling when we find out.

 

[Pastor Larry]

What is the "last day?"

This is a key question that Covenant overlooked in his presentation.

It is obvious that if one takes Rev. 20:1-6 literally, he will have to understand other portions of Scripture less literally.

That's not so obvious to others. Perhaps you can offer an example.

Think through the problem you have put forth. If those who take Rev 20 literally have to understand other portions of Scripture less literally, than is not the reverse also true? If you understand other portions literally, then you have to understand Rev 20 less literally. And how is that better off? How do you pick and choose?

Of course, I am not granting your supposition. I am not aware of any passage that I have to contradict in order to take Rev 20 literally. OF course, I am assuming that you use the word "literally" like I do. That may be a big assumption.

I believe that the last day begins with the first resurrection of the saints at the end of the tribulation and ends with the second resurrection of the wicked at the end of the thousand years. Thus the thousand years framed by the two resurrections is the last "day" or the "day of the Lord." Christ will return, saints will be resurrected to eternal life and the wicked will be raised to eternal damnation.

So you see that there are two resurrections in Scripture. I happen to agree. I think 1 Thess 5 teaches the first resurrection comes before the tribulation, but other than that, we seem to agree.

If Rev. 20:1-6 is interpreted less literally, the day is "24 hours" and the resurrection of the saints and wicked will occur simultaneously. Now which is correct?

This doesn't seem to make sense. Why take REv 20 less seriously? It talk about "day." It actually defines the period of time for Satan's binding and Christ's rule on the earth. I am not sure what this paragraph of yours means, much less how it fits in. You seemed to argue above that we should take Rev 20 less literally, but that doesn't lead to seeing "day" as 24 hours.

One thing I know for sure, historic dispensationalism make utter confusion out of the Word of God.

I have found dispensationalism to give unity and clarity to Scriptures. It is what has made the whole of Scripture make sense to me. It is what ties it all together by showing God's unity of purpose in human history.

Covenant and I can both point to Scripture and argue our "literal" interpreations from the text. Dispensationalism make this same claim but has to infer it from one text to another.

I am not aware of any such problem. Are you saying that you don't compare Scripture with Scripture and make inferences between texts? I think you have to, as covenant has shown. All positions make inferences from other Scriptures.

Could you give an example of what you are talking about here?

 

[Paul33]

Larry,

You and I agree that Rev. 20 teaches two resurrections. A literal reading of the text makes this conclusion unavoidable.

We disagree on the length of the day of the Lord because I hold to a post-trib rapture of the saints based on what I believe to be a literal reading of the text of Matt. 24, 2 Thess. 1:5-9, 2 Thess. 2, Zechariah 13-14.

The verses that have to be interpreted "less" literally are Daniel 12:2, Matt. 25:31-46, and 2 Thess. 1:6-10. In each case the resurrection of the dead "appears" to literally mean a general resurrection. So if I am using only one text as a proof text I could be accused of interpreting the Bible less literally.

Daniel 12:2 doesn't make it "clear" that there is an interval between the resurrections of the saints and the wicked. It does seem to indicate that when Michael ceases to "restrain," a day of distress occurs on the earth. Some argue that it is at that time, in the middle of the tribulation, that the rapture occurs based on 12:1 - "But at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered (2 Thess. 2:1-8). Verse two then describes a general resurrection, but doesn't state the time. But the prophecy isn't so "tight" that one can't see from later "revelation" that the thousand years is in between the resurrections.

I agree with you. Scripture must be compared with Scripture. In no way do I think that I am distorting Daniel 12:2 by interpreting it "less" literally.

What I see in Daniel 12:1-2:

Michael will cease restraining by "arising" (2 Thess. 2:7-8, Matt. 24:15).

There will be a resulting time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then (Matt. 24:21, 2 Thess. 2:3).

The rapture [potentially mid-trib] occurs -"but at that time" (2 Thess 2:1-4), but Matthew 24:31 indicates that the rapture is post-trib, and Daniel 12:2 allows for this. "At that time" could refer to the whole duration of the days of distress as indicated in Matthew 24.

The resurrection of some to everlasting life (Matt. 24:31, 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11, Rev. 20:1-6).

The resurrection of some to everlasting contempt (Rev. 20:11-15).

Daniel 12:2 does not rule out a thousand years, but it doesn't indicate one either. Other scripture supplies that understanding. Therefore, from Daniel 12:2 I could be accused of not interpreting it as "literally" as someone else who demands that the text must teach only a general resurrection. However, I think the text does not teach a general resurrection based on other scriptures, such as Rev. 20.

You can see the same problem raised by Matt. 25:31-46 and 2 Thess. 1:5-10 which I will let you look up for yourself.

I think Covenant and other "amill" friends fail to understand the nature of "progressive revelation." They interpret their proof texts "literally" to mean a general resurrection, and then Rev. 20 is interpreted less literally to fit their other proof texts. We can be accused of interpreting Rev. 20 literally, and then interpeting the other verses (Daniel 12:2, Matt. 25:31-45) less literally.

Progressive revelation removes the accusation if accepted as valid.

 

[Paul33]

I think the mistake comes in when we use the phrase "literal interpretation" of the Bible.

Which is more literal? To interpret the day in Matthew 25:31-45 as a 24 hour day or to interpret it as a period of time?

Both are literal and the context will determine which is the correct understanding! One is not more literal than the other!

 

[Pastor Larry]

We disagree on the length of the day of the Lord because I hold to a post-trib rapture of the saints based on what I believe to be a literal reading of the text of Matt. 24, 2 Thess. 1:5-9, 2 Thess. 2, Zechariah 13-14.

On this we disagree by seven years, and I find your proof texts unconvincing because I don't think they address the rapture, but the coming at the end of the tribulation, when he comes all the way to earth. For your position to be correct (and it may be) ... but for your position to be correct, you have to assume that the church is still on the earth during the Tribulation. I don't buy that assumption becasue I think that the church has already been raptured, based on 1 Thess 4-5, 2 Thess 2, the absence of hte church in Rev 4ff, etc.

Just to make the argument from 1 Thess 5, the DOL starts during a time of "peace and safety." That does not comport with a post trib rapture since nothing about the Tribulation can be considered "peace and safety." It is, as you pointed out from Dan 12, Matt 24, etc., a time which has never before been seen on the earth. The coming of 1 Thess 5 cannot be the coming of the posttrib for that reason.

Dan 12 fits righ in the assumption you make, and if you are correct, your position is right, but again, I disagree with the assumptions because I read a few key texts differently than you do.

But let's take a closer look at Dan 12:2 and what it teaches.

Daniel 12:1 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.

Can we agree that this is the Tribulation? I think so. The thing I would point out about this is the people about whom he is talking. This is directed towards "your people." That, in the context of Daniel is national Israel, and the part of national Israel which believes, the 1/3 of Israel that survives (cf. Zech 13, 8,9).

2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

Here I would point out several things. First, the resurrection spoken of is after the Tribulation. This does not preclude a resurrectio of some sort prior to the Tribulation. It does not even address that question. To use an analogy, I could say "The car is green." And it is. That doesn't mean the other car is green; it doesn't even address that question.

Second, I would point out that "Many" will be raised here, not all. THere are "Many" and then "the others." Those two things are set in opposition. The "many" are raised to life at this resurrection; the rest are raised to death, but the text makes a distinction that they are not raised at this resurrection because only "many" are. Here is an interesting problem for the people who believe in only one resurrection. Dan 12:2 says that "many" will be raised, not "all." If you believe in only one resurrection where "many" are raised, what happens to the rest? Do they stay in the graves forever? I don't think so.

So we have two different resurrections, which fits with Rev 20 in which there is a first resurrection prior to the 1000 years, and a resurrection of "the rest" after the 1000 years. So I don't think this passage teaches a "general resurrection" of everyone at one. Noting the words used actually teach the opposite.

I agree with you about the nature of progressive revelation, though I am not sure I see the problem in exactly the same way. The way I see it is that they believe that every thing in the OT has to be interpreted with teh same clarity of the NT. In other words, since the NT talks of the church, evertying in teh OT must be read in light of that. I disagree.

I think the mistake comes in when we use the phrase "literal interpretation" of the Bible.

Which is more literal? To interpret the day in Matthew 25:31-45 as a 24 hour day or to interpret it as a period of time?

Both are literal and the context will determine which is the correct understanding! One is not more literal than the other!

Lastly, I don't think this is a problem of "literal interpretation." "Day" (hemera or YOM) can have different literal meanings, by which we mean "normal." Literal interpretation is the interpretation of the natural reading of the text. Day can naturally be read in different ways and context is the key. Other things cannot.

I think some try to foist a defininition of "literal interpretation" on dispensationalism in hopes of winning the battle by (false) definitions. I have argued against that here, and will continue to do so.

Thanks for the kind exchange.

 

[CubeX]

Many Jews state that there was never meant to be any 2nd coming of the Messiah. Is the 2nd coming backed by the Old as well as the New Testament?

Thanks
-David

 

[Paul33]

Hey Larry,

If the church is in heaven during the tribulation, then why is there no mention of the church in heaven in the visions John saw concerning the tribulation period. John saw many "heavenly visions" about what was taking place in the heavens during the tribulation. Ironic, isn't it, that there is no mention of the church in the heavens from Rev. 4ff. Perhaps the church isn't mentioned because it is still on earth.

Saints are saints, Larry. Eph. 2 makes that clear. Jesus makes that clear in Matt. 24. The disciples, who are the first apostles of the church, are given information concerning the tribulation and the second coming. Completely irrelevant to them if they are raptured seven years earlier. All Jesus had to do was tell them. But he didn't! Wait a minute. He did tell them. The elect are gathered after these signs when the son of man comes to judge the nations.

It's post-trib from the words of Jesus himself.

I agree with your understanding of "literal." I don't think its a problem either. But many force "literal" into something that it is not. You are correct. Context determines meaning.

I wish you could see that the distinctions you make between the pre-trib rapture and the post-trib revelation aren't necessarily in the text.

A specific text does not have to include all the elements of a different text. They can be speaking of the same event, not two different events.

Therefore, Matthew 24 and 1 Thess. 4:13-17 are describing the same event. So is 1 Thess. 5,2 Thess. 1, and 2 Thess. 2. The coming of Christ for his bride is after the tribulation, just as Rev. 19 indicates by announcing that the marriage of the lamb is about to take place! Then Christ returns, we are caught up to meet the Lord in the air and descend with him to earth to rule and reign for 1000 years and then throughout all eternity.

The 1/3 of the Jewish people that convert, convert after the rapture when they see Christ returning to earth. It is they who go into the millenium as converted Israel, the head of the nations over the unsaved gentiles who survive Armageddon.

Kind regards.

[ March 28, 2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Paul33]

Cubex,
Yes,

Zechariah 13-14.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Paul33:
If the church is in heaven during the tribulation, then why is there no mention of the church in heaven in the visions John saw concerning the tribulation period. John saw many "heavenly visions" about what was taking place in the heavens during the tribulation. Ironic, isn't it, that there is no mention of the church in the heavens from Rev. 4ff. Perhaps the church isn't mentioned because it is still on earth.

Rev 4ff, focuses mostly on the earth though. The argument from silence is coincidental. I don't use it with great weight. I just merely pointed it out. It isn't mentioned either place, but since the focus is the earthly judgement, that would make sense.

Saints are saints, Larry. Eph. 2 makes that clear.

Yes you are right, but not all saints are in the same group. Many places make that clear. The Eph 2 passage is a reference to the church. It doesn't help your case.

The elect are gathered after these signs when the son of man comes to judge the nations.

But not all of the elect are gathered then are they? Of course not. There is no reason to believe that all the elect are gathered at one time, especially when there is evidence to the contrary.

It's post-trib from the words of Jesus himself.

It is post trib with reference to the people he is talking about. But you assume he is talking about the church. The text makes no such point, however. You read that into the text.

I wish you could see that the distinctions you make between the pre-trib rapture and the post-trib revelation aren't necessarily in the text.

If by this you mean that pretribulationism is not explicit, I agree. And would say the same about postribulationism as well. It is not explicit in the text. You are making some assumptions I don't make.

Therefore, Matthew 24 and 1 Thess. 4:13-17 are describing the same event. So is 1 Thess. 5,2 Thess. 1, and 2 Thess. 2.

I think there are too many differences to be the same.

The 1/3 of the Jewish people that convert, convert after the rapture when they see Christ returning to earth. It is they who go into the millenium as converted Israel, the head of the nations over the unsaved gentiles who survive Armageddon.

The 1/3 are converted during the Tribulation according to Zech 13, not after it.

 

[covenant]

Originally posted by Covenant:"I take these words very literally, and very seriously. (Intended to apply to the verses that were quoted.)

Originally posted by Larry: "So you believe that the “Tower of Hananel” and the “Corner Gate” are real places?

Have you not learned anything about twisting the intent of a writer?
“Tower of Hananel”??????????.............."The Corner Gate"????????????????

It is unethical for you to deliberately misrepresent what was clearly indicated by my words; "I take these words very literally, and very seriously." Immediately after that statement of mine, I proceeded to list those verses that I seriously believe should be taken "literally." Why? Because there is no indication, no, not even a hint of a rapture or a period of 1,000 year separation in any of the verses I listed.

Just where in that preface did I ever state that I took every verse in scripture only in a literal sense - let alone the Tower of Hananel or The Corner Gate of Jeremiah 31 - if that is what you are cajoling me about? If it is, I told you that I would deal with that in my own time, not yours!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by covenant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by Covenant:"I take these words very literally, and very seriously. (Intended to apply to the verses that were quoted.)

</font>[/QUOTE]We need to point out that the part in parenthesis was added to what was originally said. This sentence by covenant was in the context of a statement about Scripture, which led me to believe that "these words" referred to "Scripture." That is what led to my question.

It is unethical for you to deliberately misrepresent what was clearly indicated by my words; "I take these words very literally, and very seriously." Immediately after that statement of mine, I proceeded to list those verses that I seriously believe should be taken "literally."

I agree that it would be unethical for me to do that. Fortunately, I didn't deliberately misrepresent anything. Your paragraph was about Scripture, which led to my response (see above).

My apologies for misunderstanding.

Because there is no indication, no, not even a hint of a rapture or a period of 1,000 year separation in any of the verses I listed.

I could cite lots of verses that don't mention a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that the things they don't mention don't exist. That is an error in logic on your part. Furthemore, those verses don't even necessarily support your conclusion, if you don't start with it, which I believe I showed.

Just where in that preface did I ever state that I took every verse in scripture only in a literal sense

Answerd above.

... the Tower of Hananel or The Corner Gate of Jeremiah 31 - if that is what you are cajoling me about? If it is, I told you that I would deal with that in my own time, not yours!

Cajoling? I have never heard cajoling used in that sense ...

All I was doing was asking a question. It appeared from your comments that you said you take the words of Scripture very literally and very seriously. So I was merely asking.

I guess perhaps I should ask which words do you take "very literally and very seriously" and which do you not, and how do you know which you take what way?

 

[covenant]

OK, HERE IS THE WHOLE POST!~~ Any HONEST person would know what I meant!

Originally posted by Covenant:

Originally posted by Larry;"If we treated Scripture the same, we would be relatively close. We are not becuase we don't."

Finally, you're right about something! I do agree with you on this! We do not treat Scripture the same way. I take these words very literally, and very seriously.

Jesus said the resurrection will be on the LAST DAY.

Joh 6:39 And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day.

Christians and non-Christians must live together until we're separated ON THE LAST DAY. "Growing together" in NO hermeutical manner means a thousand years in-between by ANY honest Christian's interpretation.

Mat 13:24-30 He put out another parable to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed darnel among the wheat and went his way. But when the blade had sprung up and had produced fruit, then the darnel also appeared. So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Then where have the darnel come from? He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Then do you want us to go and gather them up? But he said, No, lest while you gather up the darnel you also root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. And in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather together the darnel and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my granary."

OT Martha believed the resurrection to be ON THE LAST DAY, and I believe it!

Joh 11:24 Martha said to Him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Paul believed the resurrection to be on the LAST DAY and I believe it!

1Co 15:23-24 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming; then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, DESTRUCTION OF UNGODLY MEN, AND THE EARTH BURNED OCCUR ON THE DAY THE LORD APPEARS

2Pe 3:7-10 "But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same Word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. ...But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat. And the earth and the works in it will be burned up.

The JUDGMENT is on the LAST DAY!

Joh 12:48 He who rejects Me and does not receive My Words has one who judges him; the Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Now Larry, unless you really mean those very pious and eloquent words in your post, you won't take the above scripture as seriously as you claim to do, because when literally read, they can say nothing else but that the resurrection and the end of the world is on the SAME DAY AND IS ONE MAJOR EVENT!

However, I have no hopes with these verses, outside the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, any more than in the previous thread.

 

[Paul33]

Covenant,

You are right.

I didn't understand where Larry was coming from either.

The truth is, you can point to a "literal" interpretation of Matthew, and I can point to a "literal" interpretation of Revelation, but Larry can't point to a "literal" interpretation of any Scripture to support a pre-trib rapture! He must and does infer this view from other Scriptures at the expense of a "literal" interpretation!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Paul33: "I hold to a post-trib rapture of the saints based on what I believe to be a literal reading of the text of Matt. 24, 2 Thess. 1:5-9, 2 Thess. 2, Zechariah 13-14."

I hold to the pretirublation rapture of the saints on
a literal reading of the texts you cite and many more.

Paul33: "Daniel 12:2 doesn't make it "clear" that there is an interval between the resurrections of the saints and the wicked. "

Yep. Neither does it deny that interval. It is a classic example
of the retorical technique called THE SUMMARY

 

[covenant]

??? THE SUMMARY - Oh, I see. We have another "gospel?"

 

[CubeX]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Cubex,
Yes,

Zechariah 13-14.

Thanks!
-David

 

[Pastor Larry]

The truth is, you can point to a "literal" interpretation of Matthew, and I can point to a "literal" interpretation of Revelation, but Larry can't point to a "literal" interpretation of any Scripture to support a pre-trib rapture! He must and does infer this view from other Scriptures at the expense of a "literal" interpretation!

That is simply false. I have used only the literal interpretation to provide support for a pretrib position. I have appealed to nothing else but the literal interpretation of Scripture.

Can you support your claim by naming at least one Scripture that is contradicted by a pretrib rapture? I am not aware of any, which doesn't mean much. There is a lot I am ignorant on.

I would be curious to hear your response to my literal interpretation of 1 Thess 5, particularly with respect to the "Peace and safety" that precedes the coming of the DOL.

In addition, why not interact with my explanation of the passages that you and covenant used above,.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by covenant:
OK, HERE IS THE WHOLE POST!~~ Any HONEST person would know what I meant!

Once again, you have gone beyond the pale. You have accused me of dishonesty. I explained why I said what I did, and I apologized for it. I am an honest person, and I gave an honest response to what was unclear. I was wrong in my understanding because you were unclear in your writing.

Why would you accuse me of dishonesty?

What is wrong with you? You seem unable to discuss the issues much, and instead resort to personal attacks like this, and the one at the end of this post. Why?

 

[Paul33]

2 Thess. 1:6-10 is contradicted by a pre-trib rapture.

2 Thess. 2:1-8 is contradicted by a pre-trib rapture.

This book, interpreted literally, proves a post-trib rapture.

The words of Jesus to his own disciples who are the founders of the church is contradicted by a pre-trib rapture.

Separating true Israel from the church which includes grafted in Gentiles is contradicted by a pretrib rapture (Romans 11).

Denying that the New Covenant is made with true Israel and keeping Israel separate from the result of the New Covenant, the church, which is the mystery of the gospel, is contradicted by a pretrib rapture.

A literal interpretation of the Scriptures does not keep believing Israel and believing Gentiles separate in, under, or through the New Covenant! A pre-trib rapture contradicts what God has brought together!

A letter written by Paul to the church at Thessalonica informed that church that the rapture - our being gathered to him - would not take place until the lawless one was revealed and destroyed by the splendor of Christ's coming which he described as a coming that would bring relief to those who were being persecuted and who were enduring tribulation or trials - a coming that would take place in blazing fire with his powerful angels to bring judgment on the face of the earth and result in Christ being glorified in his people, and the only reason why you can't accept this letter literally is because of your distored "literal" view of Israel must mean Israel and the church must mean the church despite what God's Word says about the church consisting of true Israel and grafted in Gentiles. The definition God gives for the church is not "your" definition of the church. The church is the result of the New Covenant with Israel. Why can't you see that? When you come to understand the true nature of the church you won't need your pretrib rapture and the literal meaning of the above mentioned texts will become clear as a bell! I wish you could see it.