A Case for the Post-Tribulation Rapture

[thomas15]

....It does matter because people can no longer use the ones taken away as the ones called up in the rapture--That's not even scriptural trying to use these verses to say that--it doesn't mean that at all:godisgood::jesus:

I beg to differ with you for two reasons:

1. Among pre-mils there is an ongoing debate regarding Matt 24-25 if this is the rapture or the second coming. This debate is well beyond the scope of this thread.

2. To the preterist who think Matt 24-25 happened already, in AD70, there is no proof that anyone was raptured. The judgement of approx 1 million Jews in Jerusalem and the other details of the invasion by Titus does not meet the highly detailed Biblical requirements of end time events specified.

Unless the reader of Scripture uses the Word as simply an approx. rough guide the events of Matt 24-25 must be a future event.

 

[saturneptune]

I beg to differ with you for two reasons:

1. Among pre-mils there is an ongoing debate regarding Matt 24-25 if this is the rapture or the second coming. This debate is well beyond the scope of this thread.

2. To the preterist who think Matt 24-25 happened already, in AD70, there is no proof that anyone was raptured. The judgement of approx 1 million Jews in Jerusalem and the other details of the invasion by Titus does not meet the highly detailed Biblical requirements of end time events specified.

Unless the reader of Scripture uses the Word as simply an approx. rough guide the events of Matt 24-25 must be a future event.

I do agree that Matt 24 and 25 are future events. Until a short time ago, I always tried to read Scripture and decide whether is lined up more with pre or post trib. This thread and others, introducing the idea that the tribulation is not a seven year period defined in Daniel, but just a general time of turmoil, is something I had never heard expressed before, in Bible studies, books or sermons. It is interesting food for thought. It makes the whole situation more complex, and in fact, adds to your point that it makes Matthew a future event much more likely.

 

[HisWitness]

I beg to differ with you for two reasons:

1. Among pre-mils there is an ongoing debate regarding Matt 24-25 if this is the rapture or the second coming. This debate is well beyond the scope of this thread.

2. To the preterist who think Matt 24-25 happened already, in AD70, there is no proof that anyone was raptured. The judgement of approx 1 million Jews in Jerusalem and the other details of the invasion by Titus does not meet the highly detailed Biblical requirements of end time events specified.

Unless the reader of Scripture uses the Word as simply an approx. rough guide the events of Matt 24-25 must be a future event.

hard to say its a future event to us--when jesus told his disciples of his day they were going to see those things and that generation would not pass away till all things be fulfilled--and esp when jesus told the High priest of his day that he would see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven(in his own lifetime) hard to get around these things and twist the scriptures.
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[RLBosley]

Bosley;
You Said;


First of all you certainly seem thin skinned. I can only state things as I see them. I see most of your claims as false. This statement is not personal. It is not meant as a reflection on you at all but on what you believe. It's what debate is about.
In this paragraph above you're trying to convince me That the word saints can be translated in different ways. This may be true but it isn't correct.
This is the word in Greek and according to strongs this is it's only meaning.
G40
ἅγιος
hagios
hag'-ee-os
From ἅγος hagos (an awful thing) compare G53, [H2282]; sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint.

The versions you mention just may be your whole problem with understanding the scriptures because that word "Hagios" only has one meaning and it's saint.

....

It couldn't be more false when you try to tell me the bunk about the word "hagios". Having the meaning of angles because as I just showed you that Idea just does not match strongs dictionary.
MB

I probably am a bit thin skinned. But what you said seemed (to me) to go after me personally rather than my understanding of scripture. If that's not the case then I apologize for being defensive.

Back to the debate: You posted the definition of hagios from Strong's and in your post you show that it doesn't have only one meaning. I'll quote it again for you:

[H2282]; sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint.

This word can be used to describe anything holy. This word is used to describe the Holy Ghost (Matt 1:18 for example), the Holy city of Jerusalem (Matt 4:5), and even Jesus himself as the Holy One in Acts 3:14. So this word does not mean only saints. It can be used to describe anything that is holy.

And those other versions aren't the "problem" since I actually read only the KJV. I'll occasionally look online to compare to other translations but the only copies of scripture I own are the AV.

Regardless even if you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this verse can in no way ever be translated as anything other than saints, believers. I already explained that that interpretation is still totally consistent with the post-tribulation rapture.

Sorry to hear about you're wife but I don't always read every post on a thread. I certainly hope she is feeling better.

She is. Thank you.

Post tribers all seem to think the Rapture and the second coming are in the same event. What you aren't considering is that they are in fact two separate events at completely different times. At the rapture we meet the Lord in the air. The second coming the Lord's feet actualy touch down on the mountain top. This is why there are two not just one resurrection
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. This is why there are two resurrections

MB

I have considered at length that the rapture and second coming are two separate events. I used to believe that myself and defend it. However the scripture is clear "Immediately after the tribulation of those days... send out the angels to gather the elect." And this has no bearing whatsoever on whether you believe the are two resurrections or not. That is determined by your view of the millennium not the rapture. The resurrections are separated by the millennium, not the rapture.... another support for the post-tribulation rapture/resurrection if you ask me :smilewinkgrin: