A-millennialism still reigns supreme -

[Daniel David]

Before this goes any further, I need to address a couple more things:

1. AV1611Jim is trying to advance the idea that the millenium is some kind of reward for faithful Christians. This view is not held to by serious students, but only the fringe groups who try to encourage sanctification through lies and deceit. Sorry Jim, but not really. His views here should be considered his own and not really representative of premillenial thought.

2. This is a discussion about the nature of the millenium, not the rapture. Some of you amills are trying to turn this into a dispensationalism argument. I am not. There are MANY premillers who are not dispensationalists, and you guys are discounting their position. Stick to the issue of the millenium.

 

[OldRegular]

The Meat in Daniel David Posts.

February 12, 2005 12:06 AM

Watchman, don't waste your time. I have used that verse and countless others to get amills out of their unbelief, but alas, they would rather believe a lie.


February 13, 2005 12:22 AM

Maybe amills can do more than some pathetic hacheneyed attempt to explain away truth.

Oldreg, I encourage you to stop putting verses into a hat, shaking it up, and then picking one out and then starting over again to get your systematic theology down.

Try exercising thinking skills.


February 13, 2005 01:27 AM

Hardly a secret. It will be a world wide event. The Scriptures tell us that God will send a lie for people to believe after the rapture takes place.

Secret? Not likely.

Another mindless strawman that characterizes all amill thinking skills? Definitely.


February 13, 2005 09:59 PM

Amill theology wasn't even invented until the heretic Origen came along. I know history isn't your strongpoint, but those are the facts.

Amill theology reigned during the dark ages. Nice associations.

I don't expect an answer. To answer these issues truthfully would be to negate amill theology. In other words, to have integrity with the Scripture, you would cease to be amill.


February 14, 2005 07:48 PM

Nice to see you gnostics, errrggg, amills are still alive and well.

Deafposttrib, allow me to lay it out for you, as you have been theologically drugged by amill theology.

I don't understand why amills are so confused, so easily.

Oldreg
I realize you don't have a clue about history, so this point is really for those who have biblical integrity on this issue.

Matt, no one cares about your reconstruction of history and distortion of reality. Liberal theology is a waste of everyone's time. Your post is devoid of reason, truth, reality, and intellectual honesty.


February 15, 2005 07:36 PM

Trailblazer, why do you fear interaction with me? Why can't you answer basic questions? Why are you a gnostic? Why do you sit in judgment upon God's word?

I have demonstrated countless times that premillenialism can be dated all the way back to the disciples of John himself. Do you get that? Can you comprehend such information? Is this going over your head?

The roots of amillenialism can be seen in the writings of the heretic, gnostic Origen. This was quickly followed by the gnostic Augustine.

So, if you want to argue history, man up and deal with the issues and not these mindless retorts about cult leaders. I can trace my beliefs to the disciples of John. I can trace your beliefs to a couple of gnostics.


February 16, 2005 10:56 PM

Matt and Trailblazer, this is good stuff. You see, this is the kind of stuff we need. I love when you amills try to delve into history and theology. Your view is so hopelessly pathetic, it borders on obsene.

I know you both just used google to find your info. However, a student wouldn't be so reckless.

Again, a student would know this instead of some hack amill site that wants to discredit Christianity's first systematic theologian.

Get a copy of his books. Do the research. Stop being ignorant (amill). Come out of shadow and into the light.

I can recommend a few good books that deal with early christian theology.


February 18, 2005 07:51 AM

When you say there are no scriptures supporting the idea of a 1,000 year reign on earth, I know you are simply deceiving yourself.

Again, in Revelation 5:10, saints already in heaven are looking forward to reigning upon the earth. Get that? Reigning upon the earth. Get that? Reigning upon the earth.

I only repeat myself becuase amills lack good thinking skills. Hopefully repitition will aid them.

As for Matthew 19:28, that has to be the absolute worst job I have ever seen. That was almost funny, if it wasn't so tragic that you would actually come up with that stuff.

Sigh, such is the need for all who are gullible enough to believe amillenialism. It is so sad. I hope you don't teach anywhere, for that would be making others to be reckless with the word as well.


February 21, 2005 01:45 PM

dpt, amill is heretical teaching. Your inability to comprehend why doesn't nullify the fact.


February 21, 2005 02:04 PM

It is a gnostic doctrine. Gnosticism is evil and sinful, like your amill theology.


February 21, 2005 05:07 PM

I have already explained the gnosticism in amill theology in the other thread. If you really care, look it up.

Basically, it boils down to seeing the material as evil and the unseen as spiritual. Therefore the kingdom can't be a visible one.

It is thinking like that that moved the heretic Origen and then Augustine to invent amill theology.


February 21, 2005 05:45 PM

sorry oldreg, your little post is hardly the whole of amillenial theology. Whether your post has it or not, I couldn't care less. I was simply pointing out the historical development of amillenial theology.

Further, I am not a "darbyite". For one, I believe in one people of God. That alone severs me from that connection, so your continued usage of that term toward me demonstrates a cowardice on your part to actually deal with the issues.


February 23, 2005 01:24 PM

The lengths you quacks go to to defend your catholic/gnostic theology is quite amazing.

 

[Daniel David]

Oldreg, deal with the issues. If you don't like me calling your theology gnostic, prove otherwise.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Oldreg, deal with the issues. If you don't like me calling your theology gnostic, prove otherwise.

I am not the only one on this thread that has been the recipient of your meaty posts. They are apparently more patient than I am and simply ignore you.

That being said I asked you to identify one point in my post describing amillennialism that was gnostic. Since you did not so I must assume you really don't understand gnosticism. From the limited information you have provided in your posts you apparently don't understand either Scripture or the four major eschatological doctrines. You are, however, adept at spewing forth insults.

 

[Daniel David]

Oldreg, I must repeat, as you must have missed something key here: your little post doesn't represent or take into the whole of amillenial theology.

Origen is credited by EVERYONE, amills and premills alike as the one who introduced the allegorical method of interpretation. The reasons WHY he did so are why it is so gnostic.

There existed more than one strain of gnosticism. One, the most common, was the exaltation of knowledge, thus the name. Gnosis simply means to know, or knowledge. Well, these folks elevated the pursuit of knowledge as the primary purpose of their existence. This is what Irenaeus dealt with in his first book, Against Heresies, Volume 1.

The other kind of gnosticism, and much less known, was the kind that saw matter as evil and only knowledge or "spiritual" as good. This led to a different perversion. It allowed for a libertine, or antinomian lifestyle. Because, only the spiritual has worth, and the physical, or matter, is carnal or evil.

Where does Origin fit in all of this? Well, for starters, he said:

What need is there so say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect numerous instances of a similar kind that are recorded as having occurred. Yet, they did NOT literally take place. In fact, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives. One example is when the devil leads Jesus up into a high mountain in order to show him from there the kingdoms of the whole world (AD 225).

So, according to him, the temptation of Christ didn't really happen, but it does have spiritual significance. Let us keep going shall we.

With respect to Holy Scripture, my opinion is that the whole of it has a "spiritual" meaning. However, all of it does not have a "bodily" meaning. For the "bodily" meaning is proved to be impossible in many places (also AD 225).

Now, his use of "bodily" would be what a premill means when he says "normal" or "plain". That is, what the words actually mean. He sought this "deeper" or "spiritual" meaning.

You want me to keep going? I have pages of his material that I have spent a long time going through. I would not be so dogmatic on an issue that I haven't spent a long time studying.

Anyway, back to the point of this response. Origen saw that the idea of an earthly kingdom must be rooted in some kind of "carnal" philosophy. Therefore, the kingdom must be, here is the key word: EXCLUSIVELY spiritual, because matter is evil.

Irenaeus wrote again this idea in his fifth volume titled, Against Heresies. So he did battle against both forms of gnosticism.

As a premiller, I see the kingdom as relating to our salvation. We are saved wholisticly. That is, our spiritual AND physical are redeemed by Christ. The kingdom is the same way. It is spiritual AND physical, just like the New Covenant.

Now, if you have read this, you have been informed. I know all about gnosticism. Further, I could lay out the amill idea better than you have. I know the systems quite well.

Trailblazer, if you have read this far, take heart, you are next.

 

[trailblazer]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Trailblazer says;
To deny the New Covenant of Grace is a very serious thing.

.....Heb 10:29 “Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?”
____________________________________________

Brother, you are in error here in your application of this verse. Paul is preaching about the reward of entrance into the Millenial Kingdom, not "denying" the New Covenant. Rather the warning is to they who would disobey Christ and do those things that Paul talks about in the entire chapter. It is all about the Kingdom.[unchristian insult deleted]

I too, ask you where you see any mention of a 1,000 year Millenial Kingdom in this verse?

I won't use God's Word like a ping-pong ball any longer or use up my valuable time on anyone that does not seem to have a genuine desire to examine the subject at hand in order to determine if it really can or cannot be scripturally supported. Therefore, I will address your comment once - accept it or reject it.

1- The first covenant of "works" was given to and through Adam. (Ge 2:15) Adam and Eve "rejected" that covenant and died spiritually and physically.

2- The first example of a covenant of God showing his free gift of "grace and mercy" is seen in Ge 3:21 where it says; "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of "skins," and clothed them." "Skins" as a garment to "cover up" their sins had to have involved animal sacrifice and blood - thus, a picture of the future blood sacrifice of Christ.

3- In Romans 10:29, you have the promise of punishment for those who insult the Spirit of grace by countingthe blood of the New Covenant[ by the Son of God as an unholy thing. To reject the New Covenant offering of the last free gift of grace and mercy is to trample upon Christ's atonement for man's sins. That is most definately a serious thing indeed!

4- To reject the New Covenant is to reject Christ's atonement for sins.

"Isa 42:6 I Jehovah have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand, and will keep You, and give YOU for a covenant of the people, for a Light of the nations"

It just doesn't get more serious than that!

 

[Daniel David]

Here are a few quotes I would like to pass on to you. Again, I gave you the source, you go look the rest up.

Quotes regarding the millenium by the fathers:

Papias – AD 120 (summary given by Eusebius, an amill)
Among these things, Papias says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.

Justin Martyr – AD 160
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. For Isaiah spoke in that manner concerning this period of a thousand years.

Justin Martyr – AD 160
There was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem.

Theophilus – AD 180
Therefore, when man will have again made his way back to his natural condition and no longer does evil, the animals will also be restored to their original gentleness.

Irenaeus – AD 180
The promise of God that He gave to Abraham remains steadfast. God promised him the inheritance of the land. Yet, Abraham did not receive it during all the time of his journey there. Accordingly, it must be that Abraham, together with his seed (that is, those who fear God and believe in Him), will receive it at the resurrection of the just.

So, you are out of your mind. It isn't too late for you.

 

[OldRegular]

Daniel David

You would do well to study the Scripture rather than Origen then you might learn something about:
1. Jesus Christ,
2. His Death and Resurrection,
3. His ascension,
4. His Second Coming in the Power and Glory of the Godhead,
5. The General Resurrection of all the Dead,
6. The Great White Throne Judgment, and
7. The New Heavens and New Earth where the Triune God will dwell with His People Eternally.

 

[Grasshopper]

From the limited information you have provided in your posts you apparently don't understand either Scripture or the four major eschatological doctrines. You are, however, adept at spewing forth insults.

Yes, DD is quite good at turning a message board into a verbal nursery. I've gotten to where I actually enjoy his tantrums. DD gets all his information from his books ( Trailblazer, I am not done yet. I told you the book where I get most (but not all) of my info. ) and forgets to compare it with scripture. Thats why he quotes books and not scripture.

However you are not allowed to use resources to defend your position:
( I know you both just used google to find your info. However, a student wouldn't be so reckless.

Again, a student would know this instead of some hack amill site that wants to discredit Christianity's first systematic theologian. )

Origen is credited by EVERYONE, amills and premills alike as the one who introduced the allegorical method of interpretation.

Really? Not according to my hack web-site:

Clement of Alexandria
TITUS FLAVIUS CLEMENS
(c.150- 220)
Founder of the allegorical school of Biblical Interpretation | Teacher of Origen

What else do the infallible Irenaeus and Justin Martyr have to say?

If you wish to read his works they can be found here:

Justin Martyr
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/0150_justin_trypho-jew.html

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 years), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand , I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Trypho, 80)

Well DD, you forgot to quote that part. Justin says he knew good Christians living in his time who disagreed with him. Though he didn't call them gnostics and other names.

Agree with this DD?

(2) Then is it Jacob the patriarch in whom the Gentiles and yourselves shall trust? or is it not Christ? As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race. But let us attend rather to the very word: 'And I will bring forth,' He says, 'the seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah: and it shall inherit My holy mountain; and Mine Elect and My servants shall possess the inheritance, and shall dwell there; and there shall be folds of flocks in the thicket, and the valley of Achor shall be a resting-place of cattle for the people who have sought Me. But as for you, who forsake Me, and forget My holy mountain, and prepare a table for demons, and fill out drink for the demon, I shall give you to the sword. You shall all fall with a slaughter; for I called you, and you hearkened not, and did evil before me, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.'(3) Such are the words of Scripture; understand, therefore, that the seed of Jacob now referred to is something else, and not, as may be supposed, spoken of your people. For it is not possible for the seed of Jacob to leave an entrance for the descendants of Jacob, or for [God] to have accepted the very same persons whom He had reproached with unfitness for the inheritance, and promise it to them again; but as there the prophet says, 'And now, O house of Jacob, come and let us walk in the light of the Lord; for He has sent away His people, the house of Jacob, because their land was full, as at the first, of soothsayers and divinations;'(4) even so it is necessary for us here to observe that there are two seeds of Judah, and two races, as there are two houses of Jacob: the one begotten by blood and flesh, the other by faith and the Spirit.


According to the infallible Irenaus Jesus taught into His 50's:

"For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master’s age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; (for so Luke, who hath signified His years, bath set it down; Now Jesus, when He came to Baptism, began to be about thirty years old and He preached for one year only after His Baptism: completing His thirtieth year He suffered, while He was still young, and not yet come to riper age. But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught,

Do you pick and choose which part of these men you wish to believe? Could they be in error?

So, if these Church fathers are infallible, can I use them to prove my beliefs? Didn't think so.

 

[Daniel David]

Grasshopper, I am well aware of those. Sorry to disappoint you. Trailblazer wanted proof, I gave it to him. What he does with it is his call.

As to your quotes, Justin Martyr might have said that other Christians disagreed, but that doesn't make their view valid. In fact, he said they were OUT OF THEIR MIND. So, I will stick to that one. You are out of your mind as well. The fact is that they needed to be discipled. Even Apollos was wrong about baptism, until his discipleship.

As to Irenaeus, there are two options:

1. He is saying that the elder age is 50, and Christ taught as one of the elder age.

2. His quote is not complete. The records we have of his teachings are limited and various translations exist. There are Latin and Armenian if memory serves me correctly, along with another of which I can't think of. Being 50 would have been impossible, and a friend of John's disciples would have known that.

Are they infallible? Of course not. Did a disciple of John (Papias) know what he was talking about when he spoke of the millenial reign of Christ on the earth? Yes.

I can't believe I am talking about integrity to truth with a, snicker snicker, preterist.

 

[Daniel David]

Oldreg, you wanted answers, I gave you answers. If I knew you were going to pretend to be an Ostrich, I wouldn't have posted.

Oh and Grasshopper, Origen introduced the theory to the world. He was taught, but it is Origen's writings that introduced it. It is Origen that Augustine relied on.

 

[Matt Black]

DD, you're not making sense; you are promoting Zionist Bi-Covenantalism with Judaising tendancies. Your fear of 'spiritualisation' suggests to me that you approach the OT with an ultra-literalist hermenutic and that you don't want to read Scripture in the way that Paul and the other Apostles did. You probably do not believe that the Church will inherit the Kingdom of God and support the re-building of the temple in Jerusalem. You probably enjoy the writings of Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye and you think that the majority of 'Gentile' Christians are Apostate because they are ambivalent towards the modern State of Israel's and its abusive and totalitarian regime of apartheid and ethnic repression.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[trailblazer]

TO ANYONE INTERESTED -

.......AN "ALLEGORY" - INSTITUTED BY CHRIST (MY PERSONAL INSTRUCTOR)

Joh 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, He who does not enter into the sheepfold by the door, but going up by another way, that one is a thief and a robber...Jesus spoke this PARAble to them, but they did not understand what it was which He spoke to them." John 10:6

Definition: G3942...παροιμία...paroimia
Thayers
1) a saying out of the usual course or deviating from the usual manner of speaking
1a) a current or trite saying, a proverb
2) any dark saying which shadows forth some didactic truth
2a) especially a symbolic or figurative saying
2b) speech or discourse in which a thing is illustrated by the use of similes and comparisons
2c) an allegory
2c1) extended and elaborate metaphor

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN "ALLEGORY, A PARABLE AND A PROVERB;" - Robertson's Word Pictures

Joh 10:6 -
This parable (tautēn tēn paroimian). Old word for proverb from para (beside) and oimos, way, a wayside saying or saying by the way. As a proverb in N.T. in 2Pe_2:22 (quotation from Pro_26:11), as a symbolic or figurative saying in Joh_16:25, Joh_16:29, as an allegory in Joh_10:6. Nowhere else in the N.T. Curiously enough in the N.T. parabolē occurs only in the Synoptics outside of Heb_9:9; Heb_11:19. Both are in the lxx. Parabolē is used as a proverb (Luk_4:23) just as paroimia is in 2Pe_2:22. Here clearly paroimia means an allegory which is one form of the parable. So there you are. Jesus spoke this paroimia to the Pharisees, “but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them” (ekeinoi de ouk egnōsan tina ēn ha elalei autois). Second aorist active indicative of ginōskō and note ēn in indirect question as in Joh_2:25 and both the interrogative tina and the relative ha. “Spake” (imperfect elalei) should be “Was speaking or had been speaking.”

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Oldreg, you wanted answers, I gave you answers. If I knew you were going to pretend to be an Ostrich, I wouldn't have posted.

You may continue in your world of delusion if you choose. The fact is you have not answered a single question from anyone in a logical manner and from Scripture. All you are apparently able to do is "snicker, snicker". Frankly it is a waste of precious time to try to reason with someone who can only "snicker, snicker".

I ignored your initial post on amillennialism because I recognized after only a few weeks on this forum that discussion with you was fruitless. My experience with you on this thread has only confirmed that fact.

You accuse amillennialists of being gnostic heretics but when asked for evidence you only "snicker, snicker".

You deny that you are a Darbyite but have bought into the Darbyite pre-trib rapture. "Snicker, Snicker".

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Before this goes any further, I need to address a couple more things:

1. AV1611Jim is trying to advance the idea that the millenium is some kind of reward for faithful Christians. This view is not held to by serious students, but only the fringe groups who try to encourage sanctification through lies and deceit. Sorry Jim, but not really. His views here should be considered his own and not really representative of premillenial thought.

2. This is a discussion about the nature of the millenium, not the rapture. Some of you amills are trying to turn this into a dispensationalism argument. I am not. There are MANY premillers who are not dispensationalists, and you guys are discounting their position. Stick to the issue of the millenium.

__________________________________________________

I HIGHLY resent being called a liar.
You sir, are a non-issue, forthwith.

Zing! Ignore button!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Daniel David]

Oldreg, I have matched you point for point and you just run. I have answered every question. I have posted Scripture and historical fact that is confirmed by even other amills. Give me one question that I have ignored or overlooked and I will answer it with scripture.

I posted a reasoned response to your question about my charge of gnosticism. You just ignored it. What am I supposed to give you?

Matt, you are so wrong in so many ways. I don't agree with any of your last post.

Oldreg, you tell me this: why were three of John's disciples and another who was knowledgable of them all embrace premillenialism?

As I said before, your continued use of calling me a darbyite only proves your cowardice. I do not embrace the teaching of darby.

Believing in a pretrib rapture does not make one a darbyite. It is you who are so vastly ignorant of eschatological models that you lump all premills into one category. Off the top of my head, I can think of 7 different premillenial models. How many can you think of? Ya, I thought so.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Daniel David: "Believing in a pretrib rapture does not
make one a darbyite."

Amen, Brother Daniel David -- Preach it!

I was a pretrib rapture Christian over 25 years before i even
heard about "Darby". Anyway, the 'darbyite' yellers can't even
get it straight about what Darby started anyway: for some it
is the pretrib rapture, for some pre-millinnial Second Coming,
for even other he started dispensationalism. I do find it
interesting that i was preaching a pretribulation rapture
before i knew about Darby, before i knew about the Early
Church Fathers (ECF), before bulletin boards (I've been
on bulletin boards over 20 years). I teach the pretribulation
rapture from the Bible.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Daniel David: "Believing in a pretrib rapture does not
make one a darbyite."

Amen, Brother Daniel David -- Preach it!

I was a pretrib rapture Christian over 25 years before i even
heard about "Darby". Anyway, the 'darbyite' yellers can't even
get it straight about what Darby started anyway: for some it
is the pretrib rapture, for some pre-millinnial Second Coming,
for even other he started dispensationalism. I do find it
interesting that i was preaching a pretribulation rapture
before i knew about Darby, before i knew about the Early
Church Fathers (ECF), before bulletin boards (I've been
on bulletin boards over 20 years). I teach the pretribulation
rapture from the Bible.

EE

Please give one verse of Scripture that teaches a pretribulation rapture.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Oldreg, I have matched you point for point and you just run. I have answered every question. I have posted Scripture and historical fact that is confirmed by even other amills. Give me one question that I have ignored or overlooked and I will answer it with scripture.

I posted a reasoned response to your question about my charge of gnosticism. You just ignored it. What am I supposed to give you?

Matt, you are so wrong in so many ways. I don't agree with any of your last post.

Oldreg, you tell me this: why were three of John's disciples and another who was knowledgable of them all embrace premillenialism?

As I said before, your continued use of calling me a darbyite only proves your cowardice. I do not embrace the teaching of darby.

Believing in a pretrib rapture does not make one a darbyite. It is you who are so vastly ignorant of eschatological models that you lump all premills into one category. Off the top of my head, I can think of 7 different premillenial models. How many can you think of? Ya, I thought so.

I had not intended to respond to you after my last post but the above is so full of untruths I felt it necessary to remind you of my post of February 23, 2005 02:59 PM which listed the MEAT of all your posts on this thread.

The only thing you have done on this thread is parrot endless remarks about Origin and gnostism and insult those with whom you disagree.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

DD, & Ed,

Many Christians who believe in pretrib rapture, never hear of John N. Darby before. same with me whilst myself was a pretrib before, I never hear John N. Darby before till I learned about him in 1992.

DD, you are correct, that you are not "Darbyite" or Darby follower.

Many of Christians include baptists believe in pretrib rapture while they never hear John Darby before. Of course, they are not Darbyite or Darby followers.

Ed, you heard pretrib rapture first time when you was 9 years old, I think in year 1953? During revival by heard from evangelist or pastor. You heard from evangelist, NOT from the Bible.

Of course, I heard pretrib rapture first time through friends at baptist church, even hear from pastor in 1989 BEFORE the Bible.

I want to tell you short testimony of my salvation. No witness me how to become saved. I read and study Bible on prophecy about the end times. I did read book of Revelation in the Bible by myself. It was so overwhelming, I do not understand it.

I went to school and talked to an interpreter in the drafting class. I learned LOT of prophecy stuffs from an intepreter. She is an born again Christian. I heard word, "rapture". But, she does not saying or use term of rapture timing - "pretribulation". Till I brought Hal Lindsey book - "The Rapture". I notice three positions of rapture. But honest I do not understand what he was talking about. His teaching was so very flaw.

Till in 1989, I attend National Techincal Institute for the Deaf(N.T.I.D) at the campus of Rochester Insitute of Technology(R.I.T)in Rochester, NY. I first heard word, "pretribulation rapture" through friends(baptists), also heard from pastor too.

Back in 1998, in that year of my salvation. I learned lot of prophecy stuffs from an intepreter. But, I never hear of "pretribulation rapture". I do not see rapture separate from second coming in the Bible such as in Matthew 24 in that year 1988.

Till I first heard of "pretribulation rapture" through baptists in 1989. I easy believed in them, I though baptists are always right on their teaching.

There is a fact, more than 95% of Christians in America first hear "pretribulation rapture" through baptists or pastor BEFORE Bible.

Why?

Because word, "pretribulation" does not find in the Bible. Word, "pretribulation rapture" is men-making doctrine. Many baptists easily accept or believe what pastors saying instead they read and study same as you(Ed) did.

I rather stick on God's Word than listening what men saying according Colossians 2:8.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!