Why the usual tired old "Darby" rebuttal can RIP....

I don't - because I am going to raise a technical point. There is a resurrection before the "first resurrection" - when the two witnesses are raised from the dead in the streets of Jerusalem, mid-point of the Great Tribulation.

Therefore, the words "first" resurrection do not mean the first resurrection that takes place, but the first of it's kind. Just as the first of it's kind resurrection when the saints are raised from the dead at the sound of the trumpet and then we which are alive and remain go to meet Him in the air!

So you see, it all lines up perfectly with Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually the First Resurrection, and the only Resurrection that will occur before the General Resurrection [John 5:28, 29], was that of Jesus Christ. That is the Resurrection alluded to in Revelation 20:5.

 

NOW THAT IS ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION AT ITS FINEST!!!

 

Yep, Brother Rjprince. People don't seem to learn the
English language anymore. It is part of the general
dumbing down of America. John 5:28-29 does not preclude
multiple general resurrections. Other passages show different
general resurrections for different Who, why, where, when, etc.
I showed 4 genrealresurrections on page 2.

I still wonder why people think they are debating when
they are shown many specifics and don't debate the
specifics but debate the general principle?

The literary technique used here in John 5:28-29 is
is the metonymy.

 

Ed Edwards wrote,


*******************
I believe the rapture will occur on one 24-hour day
and the Antichrist will be revealed the next 24-hour day.
So we agree - yes?
*******************

That doesn't make sense, imo, either. If Paul gives the Thessalonians the AntiChrist revealing himself as a sign, then why would it happen the day after the saints are gone?

Also, when does the Anti-Christ reveal himself for who he is? Is there any reason to think that the Anti-Christ will claim to be God _at the beginning_ of the 7 year period rather than in the middle of it.

What is your reason for seeing an extra resurrection before the 70th week? What is your reason for reading a resurrection into the beginning of the 7 year period in Revelation. I just do not see it.

Revelation talks about 'saints' throughout the Tribulation. If the Bible does not teach that there is a resurrection before this seven year period (along with the rapture) then how come people have a doctrine that the rapture occurs at this time. this is the reason I reject pre-trib. It seems to be speculating that the rapture will occur before the tribulation, when there is no scripture that indicates this. So far I haven't seen any scripture from you that proves that the rapture takes place before this time. I have only seen the time table of when you think these things will occur. Can you show me the scripture that teaches this, and please explain the way you interpret it to get this interpretation.

The fact that God has not appointed us unto wrath is not an argument for a pre-tribulation rapture. For one thing, the wrath isn't poured out until the latter half of the seven years, (as far as I can see.) Secondly, it is clear that there are saints in the tribulation. Why would they be appointed unto wrath, but we aren't? Those saints are the ones we see being resurrected before the thousand years at the end of the book and being given a place of honor. Why would we see them as being 'appointed unto wrath.' It seems clear to me that living in the tribulation does not mean that one is 'appointed unto wrath.' God poured out His wrath on Egypt while Israel was in Egypt without pouring out His wrath on Israel. God is really good at pouring, and he can make His wrath spill on those He chooses.

So far the only arguments for pretrib rapture are the 'not appointed unto wrath' argument, and a pretty lame allegorical interpretation of Jesus telling John 'Come up hither.' Do you have any verses that put the rapture before the tribulation. If there are none, then we shouldn't expect it to occur before the Tribulation.

 

The main reason, Darby developed his new teaching, because he stressed or emphasis there is distinction between Israel and Church in God's program and future. Before Darby developed his teaching, many Christians understood, Calvary already make both Jews and Gentiles reconciled together become into one. Nothing something 'special' plan for the "Jews" for the future beyond Christ's coming. Both Jew and Gentile now share the same covenant.

Dispensationalism doctrine was mostly influence by John Darby, because of the distinction between Israel & Church.

Often, dispensationalists or pretribs accuse on amill/postmil/posttrib, that they are 'Replacement Theology'.

But, amills understand the purpose of Calvary already reconciled both together at once. And we are now under the new covenant. Amill does not teaching Replacement Theology.

I consider John Darby taught 'replacement theology', because he believed God have different plans for 'Israel' & 'Church' in the future beyond Christ's coming.

Bible does not teaching this.

That why all pretribs & disps strong emphasis there is distinction between Israel & Church in God's program for the future events.

There is so much confusion among Christians on Dispensationalism.

We have to focus on Calvary, that Christ finished reconciled both Jew and Gentiles together at once 2,000 years ago, there shall be no more divided among them again forever and ever.

Tonight, I will discuss more on Israel amd Church, also Dispensationalism too with scriptures, what the Bible saying.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

DPT,

Is that going to be on the "Land Promise" thread, or here? No matter, I will find it.

Maybe we should start a thread that specifically addresses "the New Covenant".

Curious as to which Biblical Covenant you think it replaces? Or does it replace the imaginary covenant of CT?

RJP

 

rjprince,

SURE! That's fine with me. Go ahead start new topic - 'New Covenant'. It is very important doctrine, every Christians ought to know what it is talking about. We will discuss more on covenant with verses from the Bible.

Of course, premill stress or emphasis Jeremiah 31:31-34 speak of the promise to 'House of Israel' & 'House of Judha' for the Jews of future at Christ's coming. I will discuss on Jer. 31:31-34, and many other verses relate with covenant later tonight.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

NOW THAT IS ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION AT ITS FINEST!!! </font>[/QUOTE]No! Really it is quite clear. Revelation 20:^ tells us: 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.

The Apostle Paul identifies those who have part in the First Resurrection in Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

On these who are saved the Second Death has no power consistent20:6

 

NOW THAT IS ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION AT ITS FINEST!!! </font>[/QUOTE]No! Really it is quite clear. Revelation 20:^ tells us: 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.

The Apostle Paul identifies those who have part in the First Resurrection in Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

On these who are saved the Second Death has no power consistent20:6 </font>[/QUOTE]The above response shouhd have read as follows:

No! Really it is quite clear. Revelation 20:6 tells us: 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.

The Apostle Paul identifies those who have part in the First Resurrection in Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

On these who are saved the Second Death has no power consistent with Revelation 20:6.

 

Link: "Also, when does the Anti-Christ reveal himself for who he is?"

At the renewing of the 7-year covenant.
Not 3½-years later when he commits the AOD (shewin himself
as God).

Link: "What is your reason for seeing an extra
resurrection before the 70th week?"

Because God put it in His Written Word, the Holy Bible.

Link: "Revelation talks about 'saints' throughout the Tribulation."

These are Jewish Israeli elect saints.
These are not Church Age, mostly gentile, born-again, saved,
redeamed Chrisitian elect saints.

I'm sorry you haven't read my posts on this matter.
It isn't like they are hidden. If they are too numerous for you,
i can understand. Here is another one of them repeated:
-----------------------------------------------------
Comparing the rapture/resurrection (R) AKA: gathering
with the Second Advent (SC): when Jesus comes
to destroy the Antichrist and set up the
Millennial Kingdom AKA: Glorious Appearance.

1R. Jesus comes for His own ( given physical bodies)
(John 14:3, 1 Thess 4:17)
1SC. Jesus comes with His own (already have physical bodies) (Rev 19:14)

2R. Jesus comes in the air (1 Thes 4:17)
2SC. Jesus comes to the earth
(Zech 14:4-5, Acts 1:11)

3R. Jesus comes to claim His Bride
(1 Thess 4:16-17)
3SC. Jesus comes with His Bride
(Rev 19:6-14)

4R. end of the Gentile Age
(Matthew 24:3, 24:31-44)
4SC. end of the Tribulation Period
(Revelation 19)

5R. Tribulation period begins
5SC. Millennial Kingdom begins

6R. Saved are delivered from wrath
(1 Thes 1:10, 5:9; Rev 3:10)
6SC. Unsaved experience the wrath of God
(Rev 6:12-17)

7R. No Signs precede the Rapture
(1 Thess. 5:1-3, Matthew 24:31-44)
7SC. Signs precede the Second Coming
(Luke 21-11-28, Matthew 24:21-30)

8R. Focus: Lord and Church
(1 Thess 4:13-18)
8SC. Focus: Israel and kingdom
(Romans 11)

9R. World is deceived (2 Thess 2:3-12)
9SC. Satan is bound (Rev 20:1-2)

10R. No judgement mentioned on earth
10SC. Follows the Tribulation period
judgement and followed by the sheep/goats
judgement.

11R. Time of joy. (1Thessalonians 4:17-18)
11SC. Time of sorrow. (Matthew 24:30)

12R. relative peace and prosperity. (Lk.17:26-30).
12SC. the worst war the world has ever seen. (Mt.24:21,22).


--------------------------------------------

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

2 Thessalonians 2:1 (KJV1873):
Now we beseech you, brethren,
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto him,

Two events mentioned here:
1) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
2) our gathering together unto him

Titus 2:13 (KJV1873):
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Two events mentioned here:
1) blessed hope
2) the glorious appearing of the great God
and our Saviour Jesus Christ

These two events are mentioned seperately
throughout the Bible. The Rapture, which
was a mystery in the O.T. is now mentioned
in the N.T.

Rapture Passages (the gathering, the blessed hope):

Matthew 24:31-44
Mark 13
Luke 21
John 14:1-3
Romans 8:19
1 Corinthians 1:7-8, 15:51-53, 16:22
Philippians 3:20-21, 4:5
Colossians 3:4
1 Thessalonians 1:10, 2:19, 4:13-18, 5:9,23
2 Thessalonians 1:7, 2:1, 2:3
1 Timothy 6:14
2 Timothy 4:1,8
Hebrews 9:28
1 Peter 1:7,13, 5:4
1 John 2:28-3:2
Jude 1:21
Revelation 2:25

Second Advent Passages
(Jesus comes again in power and glory
to defeat the antichrist and set up the
millinnial kingdom):

Daniel 2:44-45, 7:9-14, 12:1-3
Zechariah 12:10, 14:1-15
Matthew 13:41
Matthew 24:15-30, 26:64
Mark 13
Luke 21
Acts 1:9-11, 3:19-21
1 Thessalonians 3:13
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 2:8
1 Peter 4:12-19
2 Peter 3:1-14
Jude 1:14-15
Revelation 4-19

---------------------------------------

 

But you keep adding to the scripture
and read your unreferenced passage like this:

Revelation 20:6 (probably KJV1769):
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first and only 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

 

But you keep adding to the scripture
and read your unreferenced passage like this:

Revelation 20:6 (probably KJV1769):
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first and only 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 </font>[/QUOTE]First means FIRST, the INITIAL ONE. Also there has been ONLY ONE resurrection to date. Something that you Darbyites won't admit is that the Book of Revelation was written for the comfort of the First Century Church as well as the Church of all time. It wasn't written for the unbelieving Jews.

What is your problem with the KJV. The passage is the same in other translations

Revelation 20:6 [NKJV]
6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

Revelation 20:6 [NASB]
6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Revelation 20:6 [Lamasa]
6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection; over such the second death has no power, but they shall be the priests of God and of his Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 20:6 [Green's Literal]
6 Blessed and holy is the one having part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.

Need some more?

 

Old Reg,

I think it was you who said (maybe someone else) that Jesus is the only one who has been resurrected to date. That does not fit with my Bible,

Matt 27:
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This would seem to be the “first resurrection”.

“FIRST, the INITIAL ONE.” – not only does this not fit with other Scripture, it does not fit with even a basic lexical treatment of the word “protos”

4413 prwtov protos pro’-tos

contracted superlative of 4253; TDNT-6:865,965; adj

AV-first 84, chief 9, first day 2, former 2, misc 7; 104

1) first in time or place
1a) in any succession of things or persons
2) first in rank
2a) influence, honour
2b) chief
2c) principal
3) first, at the first

Sorry, do not have time this A.M. to type in BAG’s def. Again, if you (and others) are going to attempt to limit the use of a word in a particular context, try to find support from some recognized lexical authority. Don’t just give a blurb and expect me to buy it because you said it.

Even the general one volume TDNT (little Kittel) would be better than just putting forth a definition because it fits your theological framework.

 

OldRegular: "First means FIRST, the INITIAL ONE ... "

No. there is no hint of "one" in "first" neither in the
English nor the Greek from which "first" is translated.
"First" means "the initial set". BTW, "initial" can
mean priority, time, or other criteria.
For example: I went to college but first i went
to all 12 grades of common school. Here "first" is
associated with "12" which is not the same as "one".

By the time discussed in Revelation 20 all the resurrections
of the just have taken place. The "first resurreciton" is
the resurrection of BILLIONS of God's own people. (SOme
will only think a few millions, but for there to be
an uncountable number in Revelation 7 it must be lots more
than 200 Million. Still, it is less than the majority
kkind of "few".)

OldRegular: "What is your problem with the KJV."

I have no problem with the KJV. I have three different ones right
by my computer desk so i can reference them. That is why i
ask (phony Christists decline, real Christians respect) each
person to put the version next to each scriputre passage. Yes,
i do check to see if the scriptures are correct. I also
check to see if what is said about the scriputre is correct.

Thank you brother Rjprince, for giving the definition of "first".
I notice you give it without ever using the word "one". Again,
thank you.

BTW, i'm not a "Darbite". I am a Paulite. I am a Jesus Phreaque.
I am a Peterite. I am a Johnite. I am not a Darbite.
I do get my eschatology from Paul, Jesus, Peter, and John.

 

It isn't. The Tribulatation is a part of the DOL. </font>[/QUOTE]Scripture?? You offer none to support this as I stated.

It's not. The Tribulation is a theological term. But the study of SCripture reveals to us a period of 7 years which consists of the outporuring of the judgment of God on sinners. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, you offer no scripture to support this. The 'tribulation' is not a theological term. It's a made up term based on a prior commitment to pre-tribulationism.

I ask again: scripture? 'The tribulation' does not exist in scripture, only in your mind. Scripture shows us the 70th week, the Great Tribulation, and The Day of the Lord, all distinct. Using SOLA SCRIPTURA, there is no such thing as a 7-year tribulation. It is forced upon the text by those who want to see it.

Actually, they are very clearly justified from Scripture. You guys act as if Pretribbers have never read the Bible. The reality is that pretribbers are very often tremendous students of the Bible. Many of the hoi polloi certainly aren't, but that is true in all camps. PreTrib scholars are very devoted to the study of Scripture. It is inaccurate to pretend that they have no scriptural support.</font>[/QUOTE]Who said you never read the Bible or study? Rather, I think most pre-tribbers simply quote the party-line and believe it because that it is what they have been taught (and no one wants to believe that their belief is wrong, especially if it is so popular).

If you have so much scriptural support, why didn't post EVEN ONE to back up your assertions?!? Again I say, you cannot provide a SINGLE scripture that asserts that the 70th week of Daniel is equivalent to the wrath of God, the Day of the Lord OR the fictional '7-year tribulation'. You may believe it, but you have scriptural basis for it.

Pre-tribism is, and will continue to be a shell-game. Challenge them on the meaning of a verse and they will 'interpret' based on another verse. Challenge that one and another verse will be called in. No verses stand on their own two feet and the goalposts are always moving.

There is no 7-year tribulation in scripture.
There is no imminent rapture in scripture (not knowing is NOT the same as any moment).
There is no equivalence of tribulation on believers and wrath on unbelievers in scripture.

 

I think it was you who said (maybe someone else) that Jesus is the only one who has been resurrected to date. That does not fit with my Bible,

Matt 27:
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This would seem to be the “first resurrection”.

“FIRST, the INITIAL ONE.” – not only does this not fit with other Scripture, it does not fit with even a basic lexical treatment of the word “protos”

4413 prwtov protos pro’-tos

contracted superlative of 4253; TDNT-6:865,965; adj

AV-first 84, chief 9, first day 2, former 2, misc 7; 104

1) first in time or place
1a) in any succession of things or persons
2) first in rank
2a) influence, honour
2b) chief
2c) principal
3) first, at the first

Sorry, do not have time this A.M. to type in BAG’s def. Again, if you (and others) are going to attempt to limit the use of a word in a particular context, try to find support from some recognized lexical authority. Don’t just give a blurb and expect me to buy it because you said it.

Even the general one volume TDNT (little Kittel) would be better than just putting forth a definition because it fits your theological framework. </font>[/QUOTE]Please read Matthew 27:53 carefully. It states: "came out of the graves after his resurrection". Also there is nothing in Scripture that indicates these Saints had resurrection bodies. Also I refer you to Acts 26:23 "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

 

NOTE: This should be: "You may believe it, but you have NO scriptural basis for it.

 

Danrusdad: "Again, you offer no scripture to support this.
The 'tribulation' is not a theological term. It's a made
up term based on a prior commitment to pre-tribulationism. "

Show me where it says in the scripture you have the right
to insist on a scripture for everything?
I think insistance upon a scripute for every thing of others
and not using the same criteria on yourself is not
Scriptural but is based on a prior commitment to hassle
your brother/sister in Christ.

BTW, yes, i do use velcro to hold my shoes on.
But nowhere in the Bible is this justified.

You will NOT STEAL my hope by foolish "prove it" prattle.
you might succed in SEALing it

 

I must disagree with you. Your eschatology is not Biblical. It did not come from Peter, Paul, Jesus Christ, John, or anywhere in Scripture. The revelation was closed with the 66 books of the Bible. Unless Darby received some additional revelation the tag Darbyite fits.

 

In response to Ed Edwards,

Maybe we could just discuss the verses you specifically feel set the timing of the rapture at before the 7 year period. I believe in the rapture and resurrection. I just do not see anything indicating the timing happens before the 7 year period.

You refer to so many passages, many of which reinforce my belief that the rapture does not occur before this 7 year period. Can you show the verses that put the rapture at that point in time, and then either quote the verse and give an explanation, or else refer to the part of the verse you think supports your point, and then give an explanation.

The Lord will return with armies/his holy ones. In Matthew 25:31, Christ says, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:" So we can expect Christ to come with 'angels' which is normally what we would think of when we hear of the hosts of heaven. Angels are 'holy' and we might consider them to be saints.

But the Bible also indicates that Christ will bring those who 'sleep in Jesus' with Him, as you point out. You use this passage to argue for a pre-tribulational rapture. But look at the timing of the rapture based on the passage.


I Thes.4
13. But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.


The Lord will DESCEND. The dead and those who are still alive will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. As John said, referring to Daniel, 'Behold He cometh with clouds.' So clouds are associated with the coming of the Lord.

The most straightforward interpretation of all this is that the saints go up to be with the Lord, and since the Lord is descending--coming for the second time, they come with Him.

Do you believe in two comings of Christ or three, or more? I believe in a Second Coming, but I see no evidence that Christ will come to the earth three times.

Paul puts this really simply in I Corinthians 15

22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Christs people will be resurrection at the coming of Christ. That is what Paul teaches here.

YOU wrote,

***7R. No Signs precede the Rapture
(1 Thess. 5:1-3, Matthew 24:31-44)
7SC. Signs precede the Second Coming
(Luke 21-11-28, Matthew 24:21-30)****


How do you get 'No Signs precede the Rapture.' The Scriptures you quote argue for the opposite of what you are saying. Why do you put those signs as signs of the Scond coming and not before the rapture? I do not see anything in the passages you quote that justify the separation.

It seems to me that you are reading these passages and fitting them into your pre-trib prophecy chart. That is not what I want. I want evidence that the prophecy chart is accurate. I want the scripture that sets the rapture 7 years before the Second Coming.

Let us look at one of the passages you referred to:

II Thess 2


1. Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6. And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9. Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,?


Paul explains to the believers that they should not think that 'the day of Christ' is at hand, because it would not happen before the man of sin was revealed. Notice
the connection between the coming of Christ, the rapture, and the day of Christ. Paul speaks of it as if it all happens together. Notice that the wicked one is destroyed at the ___coming of Christ.____ NOT 7 years after it.

Take a close look at these two verses and notice the events that happen at Christ's coming, according to Paul:

I Thes 2:9
8. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

and
I Corinthians 15
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


The wicked one is destroyed at Christ's coming. They that are Christ's are made alive at His coming. Notice there is no talk of a Third Coming of Christ in scripture.

How do you explain these passages? If the dead are raised at Christ's coming, and the wicked one is destroyed at Christ's coming, how can you hold to the pre-trib rapture theory.

Also, please point out the verses that you believe specifically point to a pretribulation rapture. I just can't find any good solid scriptural evidence, especially in light of what Paul wrote to the contrary. I was taught pre-trib growing up, but when I studied the passages, I could find none of them that said that the rapture would occur before the tribulation. Since there were saints in the Tribulation, I concluded that I had no basis for believing in a pre-trib rapture. As I read these statements of Paul, my beliefs were confirmed.