Trib begins

[BobRyan]

Good question.

Suppose for example you see someone who appears to be the Son of God landing in Israel with his many angels and setting up shop? Do you simply assume you missed the rapture and then now begins the 1000 millenium OR do you conclude that this is the great deception of 2Thess2?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Tamborine Lady: "All I ask is that you think about it!"

I get asked about it by peteritst, mystics,
posties and other pretrib doubters about one a fortnight
(two weeks). I see no reason to be dropping
what i'm doing everytime someone has a doubt or two.

I thought about it 50 years ago.
The answer now is the same then.
I'm going to trust Jesus for salvation
and hope on Jesus forever.

BobRyan: "Nor is there a pretribulation rapture because the 1Thess 4 resurrection of the saints - of the righteous - of the "blessed and holy ones" - is described by John in the FIRST general resurrection for mankind - in Rev 20."

THis is so illogical a statement that i hesitate
to stop and give it some measure of meaning.
For your statement to be true, FIRST must contain
within it the idea of ONE.
You have yet to admit you looked up FIRST in a
dictionary and found the world "one" in a defention
of it. Why don't you just admit "one" has nothing
to do with "first". Indeed, you don't know the
first thing about "first".

 

[BobRyan]

Your argument that the FIRST general resurrection for mankind - as seen in John's future and written by John in Rev 20 -- is NOT really the FIRST one -- is flawed Ed.

I am surprised you keep going back to it. First is not the FIRST is like saying 1000 years is not 1000 years in Rev 20.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

Bob, you missed everything i've been saying.

Here is what the Bible says:

FIRST RESURRECTION - resurrection of the just (in Christ)
(SECOND)* RESURRECTION - resurrecion of the damned

*this term is not used in the Bible,
it is only implied by the Bible

That is a fact, it is not debatable.

I also claim that the resurrection of the
just that happens before the tribulation
period wrath judgements is part of the
resurrection of the just, the First Resurrection.
That there is a rapture/resurrection
before the tribulation is a matter of
opinion. It is debatable.

If there is resurrection
of the just before the tribulation,
then it is part of the First Resurrection.
If there is a resurrection
of the just after the
tribulation, then it is part of the
First Resurrection.
Anytime, anywhere there is a resurrection
of a group of the just, it is part
of the First Resurrection.

BobRyan: "Your argument that the FIRST general resurrection for mankind - as seen in John's future and written by John in Rev 20 -- is NOT really the FIRST one -- is flawed Ed."

You missed my whole set of arguments.
I never said anything like that.
I say that the resurrection written about
in Revelation 20:4 is the FIRST GENERAL
RESURRECTION.
The ones on the thrones are those resurrection
at the FIRST RESURRECITON segment before
the tribualtion. Those that were beheaded
are those resurrected at the FIRST RESURRECTION
segment after the tribulation.
The FIRST RESURRECTION is the resurrection
of the just (in Christ).

Again, you have never even acted like you
looked in a dictionary at FIRST.
I don't think you know what FIRST means.
It has nothing to do with ONE.
You add to the scripture reading
in Revelation 20:
"first and only resurrection" when
the scripture itself says "first resurrection."

 

[tamborine lady]

And almost everyone has missed the point of this post completely.

What IF it's not pre-trib. What will you do?

You don;t have to answer Ed, because I know your mind is made up.

But it is my contention that this very belief (pre-trib rapture) will lead to the great falling away.

Think about it: millions of people have been told that if they accept Jesus, they will be taken out before the bad stuff happens. When everything falls apart, the false prophet/anti-christ/son of perdition shows up, and it is clear that they are still here. They will think that christianity is a crock nd leave it altogether.

Not all of course, but a lot of them will.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

[Ed Edwards]

Tamborine Lady:

"But it is my contention that this very belief (pre-trib rapture) will lead to the great falling away.
Think about it: millions of people have been told that if they accept Jesus, they will be taken out before the bad stuff happens. "

Ah, yes, the old license to sin gambit against
OSAS = once saved, always saved. One figures that
since OSAS is true, then you can sin all you want to
and you won't get unsaved -- i.e. you have
an OSAS license to sin. One probem, if you are
saved (i.e. of the OS part is true), then you
don't want to sin and don't need a license.

Those who preach the license to sin dogma are in error.
Those who preach OSAS are preaching God's truth.
And I'll be preaching God's truth as i am revealed it
from the Holy Bible.

The Pretribulation Rapture/resurrection that
God has planned for His purposes (not for ours)
is God's truth. So it can NEVER BE WRONG.

So if somebody thinks they find an error in what
the Bible teaches, obviously they are in error also.
Thus I must derive: The belief in the pretribulation
rapture is NOT the cause of a great falling away.

Anyway, the "great falling away" teaching is in error.
There is no teaching in the Bible that in the
last part of the last days, just before the Tribulation
period, there will be more apostasy then before.

The two places this teaching come from are:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 and 2 Timothy 3.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 (KJV1769):

1 This know also, that in the last days
perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves,
covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,
disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers,
false accusers, incontinent, fierce,
despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure
s more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness,
but denying the power thereof: from such turn away

That is in the last days.
These are signs that the last days continue.
The last days are the church age, age of gentiles, etc.
The last days begain on the day of Pentacost 33AD
(some say other than 33AD, usually 30AD):

Acts 2:16-17 (KJV1769):

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days,
saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams:

BTW, the last days end the day that Jesus comes to
get His Holy Bride, the universal church, the
Body of Christ -- the pretribulation rapture.

I've discussed elsewhere how the "falling away" of
2 Thessalonians 2:1 is the gathering together of
the church at the end of the LAST DAYS (AKA: Church age).

Thus, neither of these two verses show an
end of the last days "great falling away".

So, the PRe-tribulation rapture teaching is true
and cannot lead to a non-exisitant "great falling away".

 

[Ed Edwards]

The saddest of all for me to think of is
those who hold the "can be lost again
after salvation" heresy and the
post-tribulation rapture only error.
If the Antichrist is any kind of man at
all (or more like a man infested with
a real Satan) he can have hundreds of
millions of Christians who enter the
tribulation (which praise God does not
happen) to renounce Christ and loose
there salvation, thus being tortured on
earth by Satan and forever with Satan.
Sorry, i cannot tolerate both errors
from the same source without dising
that souce.
God is an OSAS type of God.
God is a before the rapture escapist.

praise Jesus

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
[QB] The saddest of all for me to think of is
those who hold the "can be lost again
after salvation" heresy and the
post-tribulation rapture only error.

Yeah--pretty much everybody before Calvin (the former) and Darby (the latter)

God is an OSAS type of God.
God is a before the rapture escapist.

Praise God someone finally figured those things out a millenium and a half after Christ's ascension.

 

[Ed Edwards]

try the following UUB: [sarcasm].
Don't forget to end it it with
the end sarcasm denoter: [/sarcasm]

 

[BobRyan]

I also claim that the resurrection of the
just that happens before the tribulation
period wrath judgements is part of the
resurrection of the just, the First Resurrection.
That there is a rapture/resurrection
before the tribulation is a matter of
opinion. It is debatable.

If there is resurrection
of the just before the tribulation,
then it is part of the First Resurrection.

That is wrong. IF there is a GENERAL resurrection 7 years before the Rev 20 FIRST GENERAL resurrection - then the NEW FIRST resurrection from John's POV is the one 7 years and pre-trib - which makes the REV 20 resurrectiion "The Second resurrection" and it is that of the righteous, and then there is a 1000 years BETWEEN the SECOND and the THIRD resurrection.

Your FIRST resurrection is at point A 7 years BEFORE Rev 20 and then the FIRST resurrection happens "again" at point B seven years later - which makes no sense at all.

(Plus how many SECOND and THIRD resurrections are there if your FIRST happens more than once? Do they happen 30 times? 50 times?)

Just like slicing up contiguous timlines and scattering them all through history makes no sense.

On the other hand - if you leave the text alone and let the obvious and normal reading prevail - then timlines do NOT get sliced up with undefined gaps of time inserted and "The First Resurrection" identifies THE event John says it does in Rev 20 that begins the 1000 years.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
The saddest of all for me to think of is
those who hold the "can be lost again
after salvation" heresy ...

Actually Ed, history is on my side, not yours, in this debate. For 1500 years the Church Catholic did NOT hold to OSAS. That doctrine IS heresy, an innovation of some Protestant reformers.

 

[Ed Edwards]

You'll have fun. I prove OSAS from
the New Testament. Those N.T. sources
have been there for over 1900 years.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
You'll have fun. I prove OSAS from
the New Testament. Those N.T. sources
have been there for over 1900 years.

That's because one can "prove" just about any heresy from the Scriptures. History demonstrates this as heretics (particularly the Arians) have appealed to Scriptures (and often, Scriptures alone!) to teach their deadly innovations. And today cults such as the Mormons and JWs are adept at "proving" their doctrines from Scriptures on our very doorsteps.

Read Vincent of Lerins' Commonitory sometime.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I'll save you some work. Here's the passage from the Commonitory which is relevent to the discussion:

"I Have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,-because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.


Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory Ch.II

 

[Ed Edwards]

Goodness, i'm afraid then to say something
like: God is good. no telling
who would jump down my throat.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Goodness, i'm afraid then to say something
like: God is good. no telling
who would jump down my throat.

No, you're probably safe with that one (unless pagans or atheists are lurking).

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
That's because one can "prove" just about any heresy from the Scriptures. History demonstrates this as heretics (particularly the Arians) have appealed to Scriptures (and often, Scriptures alone!) to teach their deadly innovations. And today cults such as the Mormons and JWs are adept at "proving" their doctrines from Scriptures on our very doorsteps.

Lets not forget the wild-eyed fabrications of the RCC regarding Mary and "Pope Peter" when they use MAtt 16.

However - bad as that is - it does not justify the "Trash the Bible" campaign instituted by the RCC in the dark ages (Bible burning comes to mind).

And as was proven here on a previous thread the RCC had "nothing else to offer" when it tried to argue against using the Bible as the authorotative rule and source book for all doctrine.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This summs up that "first is not really the first" thread - nicely.

Ed said --
I also claim that the resurrection of the
just that happens before the tribulation
period wrath judgements is part of the
resurrection of the just, the First Resurrection.
That there is a rapture/resurrection
before the tribulation is a matter of
opinion. It is debatable.

If there is resurrection
of the just before the tribulation,
then it is part of the First Resurrection.

Bob Said
That is wrong. IF there is a GENERAL resurrection 7 years before the Rev 20 FIRST GENERAL resurrection - then the NEW FIRST resurrection from John's POV is the one 7 years and pre-trib - which makes the REV 20 resurrectiion "The Second resurrection" and it is that of the righteous, and then there is a 1000 years BETWEEN the SECOND and the THIRD resurrection.

Your FIRST resurrection is at point A 7 years BEFORE Rev 20 and then the FIRST resurrection happens "again" at point B seven years later - which makes no sense at all.

(Plus how many SECOND and THIRD resurrections are there if your FIRST happens more than once? Do they happen 30 times? 50 times?)

Just like slicing up contiguous timlines and scattering them all through history makes no sense.

On the other hand - if you leave the text alone and let the obvious and normal reading prevail - then timlines do NOT get sliced up with undefined gaps of time inserted and "The First Resurrection" identifies THE event John says it does in Rev 20 that begins the 1000 years.

In Christ,

Bob