No one sang of futurism, historically

[Biblewriter]

Note that it hasn't been proven that when the ancients spoke of "the tribulation", they meant the 2nd half of what is today commonly referred to as the tribulation. Also, note that no quotes that have been given show that any ancients taught what is today commonly referred to as the pre-tribulation rapture. So your claim to the contrary is misleading.

I find it interesting that you rave on and on with your suppositions of what "might" happen, or what "could" happen, and defend it by claiming that no scripture says it could not happen. (which claim is not always correct.)

But when you do not want to believe something, you demand hard proof of even the smallest detail. It would take more quotations than I am willing to work up to "prove" that the ancients meant only the last thee and a half years as the tribulation. But this is well known to those who have spent any significant time studying their writings, which is something I have done.

What was shown in sections 3 and 4 of post 8 was that nothing requires that Irenaeus or Pseudo-Ephraem ever taught what is today commonly referred to as the pre-tribulation rapture. And your quote in post 12 of a Victorinus rapture at the 6th seal, and pre-Revelation 15, isn't pre-trib, unless you can show that he denied that seals 2-5 would be part of the tribulation, and that he claimed that none of the events of Revelation chapters 8 to 14 could happen before the rapture.

This was not "shown" in your post. It was alleged. There is a vast difference between showing something as a fact and simply claiming it is a fact.

What has been shown, and clearly shown, whether or not you will admit it, is that several ancient writers clearly described a rapture before what they called the tribulation.

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter said in post 41:

I find it interesting that you rave on and on with your suppositions of what "might" happen, or what "could" happen, and defend it by claiming that no scripture says it could not happen. (which claim is not always correct.)

How has it been proven to be incorrect?

Biblewriter said in post 41:

But when you do not want to believe something, you demand hard proof of even the smallest detail.

That's when what has been presented has been presented not as a possibility, but as a definite fact.

Biblewriter said in post 41:

It would take more quotations than I am willing to work up to "prove" that the ancients meant only the last thee and a half years as the tribulation. But this is well known to those who have spent any significant time studying their writings, which is something I have done.

But you've made the claim of ancient "pre-tribulation" teachings based on the quotations already presented, which have been shown not to be pre-trib (as that term is understood today), or even necessarily mid-trib.

Biblewriter said in post 41:

But this is well known to those who have spent any significant time studying their writings, which is something I have done.

Don't make the claim that what you're presenting is a definite fact, unless you're willing to take the time to support it. For anyone can claim anything without support.

Biblewriter said in post 41:

This was not "shown" in your post. It was alleged. There is a vast difference between showing something as a fact and simply claiming it is a fact.

It was indeed shown in sections 3 and 4 of post 8 that nothing requires that Irenaeus or Pseudo-Ephraem ever taught what is today commonly referred to as the pre-tribulation rapture. Even you must admit this, as you misleadingly try to employ "pre-tribulation" in the sense of what's today called mid-tribulation. And nothing in Irenaeus or Pseudo-Ephraem even requires a mid-trib rapture, instead of a post-trib one, as was shown.

Biblewriter said in post 41:

What has been shown, and clearly shown, whether or not you will admit it, is that several ancient writers clearly described a rapture before what they called the tribulation.

What was shown was that they could have been referring to what we today call the post-trib judgment on the world at the 2nd coming (Revelation 19:11-21, Matthew 24:29-31).

It would be best just to abandon any future claim of an ancient teaching of (what we today call) a "pre-tribulation" rapture, and focus on what you have proven so well: ancient teachings of futurism per se and premillennialism per se.

 

[Biblewriter]

It was indeed shown in sections 3 and 4 of post 8 that nothing requires that Irenaeus or Pseudo-Ephraem ever taught what is today commonly referred to as the pre-tribulation rapture. Even you must admit this, as you misleadingly try to employ "pre-tribulation" in the sense of what's today called mid-tribulation. And nothing in Irenaeus or Pseudo-Ephraem even requires a mid-trib rapture, instead of a post-trib one, as was shown.

Enough of this nonsense!

In the first place, you most absolutely did not "show" this. You only alleged it. And if you bothered to read what I posted a long time ago. That they did not see the rapture as coming until about three and a half years before our Lord's coming in power and glory. You are either simply being stubborn, or are trolling. I either case, I am not going to continue this nonsense.
Over and out.

 

[PeterAV]

I have never heard even one futurist ever make such a claim as you are trying to debunk. The only ones who claim that their doctrine is what the church always taught are the amils, the preterists, and the post-tribbers. And the falsehood of all these claims has been repeatedly disproved here in this sub-forum.

*******

Immediately AFTER the tribulation
After that man of sin be revealed
After the falling away
After the trumpets of tribulation
After the sun, moon and stars
After the heavens be no more.

Never ever before!
Pre-trib is a myth.
At the last trump, not before the first is to sound.
Behold, I am coming as a thief. Revelation 16:15 After the vials of God's wrath and not before! At the last day.
With the resurrection.
*******
The only way you can disprove post trib truth is to opinionate instead of believing scriptures.
*******
God's pure word always trumps human opinions.
Otherwise, we turn into little Evites, changing the word of God arbitrarily to suit our puny understandings.
There is no pre-trib verse in the entire Bible or else it would have been posted thousands of times each day.
*******
Post that imaginary pre-trib verse that has the rapture separate from the resurrection. You can't because your pre-trib fib is an out and out lie, and we all know no lie is of the truth.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

 

[PeterAV]

I find it interesting that you rave on and on with your suppositions of what "might" happen, or what "could" happen, and defend it by claiming that no scripture says it could not happen. (which claim is not always correct.)

But when you do not want to believe something, you demand hard proof of even the smallest detail. It would take more quotations than I am willing to work up to "prove" that the ancients meant only the last thee and a half years as the tribulation. But this is well known to those who have spent any significant time studying their writings, which is something I have done.



This was not "shown" in your post. It was alleged. There is a vast difference between showing something as a fact and simply claiming it is a fact.

What has been shown, and clearly shown, whether or not you will admit it, is that several ancient writers clearly described a rapture before what they called the tribulation.

Please show us this pre-trib verse that has the rapture seven years before the resurrection.
We are not to base our standings on the opinions of men, but the pure word of God.
Now be a Berean and show us this pre-trib rapture that happens before the resurrection.
Prophecy: No pre-trib verse put forward, only opinions or ignore. Right Biblewriter?
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
But not the opinions of man.