Why I believe the rapture will be before the tribulation.

[Kingdom_Come]

Would you prove how this is a spiritual concept as you say.. Your claim is not enough.

And until people understand the distinction.. we will continue to have people reference Matthew 24 as proof that the rapture of the church happens after the tribulation.

It's that simple.



Here is proof, show me the church of God on earth in Revelation 4-20... which pertains to the Day of the Lord.. the things which shall be hereafter.. here and after the things which are.. which is this present time.

that's a nice place to start.

Hi Old Timer,

You yourself said that them refers to the Israelites. Thus, a straightforward reading of the passage in question, Romans 11:17-21, yields the obvious interpretation that the wild olive tree (Gentile church) has been grafted in among them (the branches) which represents Israel, and both are nourished by the same root (God). I fail to see what is difficult in understanding that. A natural extension of this is the metaphor of the church being part of the Israel of God. In this sense, the metaphor merely implies that the church has become part of the people of God. It isn’t much different than referring to the church as the bride of Christ as well as the body of Christ. Taking either literally will lead to tremendous confusion and unnecessary debate. However, most understand the nature of such metaphors, so there is no need to worry about misinterpretation based on someone trying to apply a literal interpretation to these concepts. Having said that, if you cannot see it now, then we will have to agree to disagree on that subject as I have made my case. You yourself admit to the meaning of these metaphorical symbols, so all you need to do is read the passage as it is written with that same understanding.

Furthermore, as I have stated previously, this point does nothing to help advance your claim of a pre-tribulation rapture. You appear to think that if I would stop thinking of the church as part of the Israel of God, I’d come to understand that Matthew 24 does not pertain to the church. Thus, I’d logically conclude that the second coming is for Israel, and a separate event, the pre-tribulation rapture, must be the event for the church. The flaw in that logic is assuming that I only think Matthew 24 applies to the church because I consider the church to be part of the Israel of God. This implies that I too believe that Matthew 24 is written to and about Israel and only Israel and can only justify applying it to the church because I think the church is part of the Israel of God.

Yet this has nothing to do with why I believe Matthew 24 applies to the church. In other words, even if I stipulated to everything you are saying regarding Romans 11:17-21, I would still believe that the church is the elect Jesus speaks of sending His angels to gather from all over the world when He returns (Mark 13:27). I would still believe that Paul is referring to this exact same event in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. I would still believe that Paul confirms this in 2 Thessalonians 2 where he speaks about the coming of Christ and our gathering together unto him (which happens at His coming) and the destruction of the man of sin by the brightness of that same coming of The Lord. I would still believe that it is the dead in Christ that are the saints that He will bring with Him when He comes as Paul describes it in 1 Thessalonians 4. None of this would change even if I decided to stop referring to the church as part of the Israel of God. Proving a pre-tribulation rapture to me will take more than that.

I have asked for your input on certain passages, and you have simply ignored them. I have asked you to find a place in Scripture that clearly places a rapture as pre-tribulation in the prophetic order of events, and you have essentially admitted that this is too much to ask. You reply with your own comments but with little to no Scripture. You offer little to no actual rebuttal to any of the points made using Scripture. I have made my case via Scripture. I now ask that you either offer a Scriptural based rebuttal or at least outline your own view by using the Scripture. You may use my previous posts on this very thread as a basis for responding to the points I’ve made. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then this discussion will be fruitless for both of us.

“But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God.” (Gal 6:14-16 RSV)

 

[Kingdom_Come]

Matthew 24:36
English Standard Version (ESV)
No One Knows That Day and Hour

36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Wish you stop trying to make something out of this verse into something that's not. It's pretty straight forward and the emphasis is on 1) only The Father knows, 2) no one else knows and 3) the day and hour, not Peri.

Whether if you change it to "concerning that day and hour" or "of that day and hour" or "regarding that day and hour" or "but of that day and hour," they all speak in reference to that day and hour.

And it's not in the same reference as Hell and The Lake of Fire. Those are clearly two different places. Hell is just a waiting room for those that denies The Son awaiting judgement at the end of the millennium. The Lake of Fire is eternal and the final resting place of Hell (Hell will be cast into The Lake of Fire, as well as Death) and those who's name not found in the Book of Life.

Hi TPeterY,

I am not trying to make something out of that verse that is not there. Quite the opposite actually, I’m trying to make something out of that verse that is there. That word is not an addition by English translators for clarification. It wouldn’t make much sense considering that the passage would be plainer without it if that were the case. That word is there precisely because it is in the Greek text from which the verse was translated into English. That word belongs there, and it means pertaining to, concerning, or about. It does affect the way that passage is read and understood.

If I said to you that I was going to host a celebration but only my planner knew the day or hour of that celebration, it would not mean the same thing as if I said I was going to host a celebration, and only my planner knew about the things that would take place during that celebration on that day and in that hour. In scenario A, I could conceivably tell you everything that will happen at the celebration, but I would not be able to tell you when it will take place. In scenario B, I could conceivably tell you when the celebration will take place, but I’d be unable to tell you everything that will happen during the celebration as some, most, or even all of those details would be known only to my planner.

This is exactly the difference this one word makes to the reading of this verse. If the Greek word peri is ignored, then it is easy to read the passage as saying no one knows the day or hour. Essentially no one knows when. However, if He is saying no one knows about that day or hour except The Father, He is saying that there are details concerning that time period that no one knows. It would imply that while He might be able to tell them some details concerning that day, He would not be able to tell them everything that will happen on that day. The two things do not mean the same thing.

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” (1 Co 2:9)

Now, let me take this a step further and present the other side of the proverbial coin. It doesn’t actually matter which way you read it. Even if you read it as no one knows the time, it doesn’t mean that a pre-tribulation timing of the rapture is His intended message. Allow me to clarify.

Suppose I tell you that I want you to come visit me. I give you a list of directions using landmarks so you know when to turn left or right. I tell you to get on the highway and drive north until you see a big sign that says, “for Kingdom Come’s house, take this Exit.” I never tell you how long you will be driving. You may drive 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days, or possibly 5 years before you reach that sign. You don’t know what day or hour you will reach that sign, but you will know once you’ve reached that sign. Suppose I also tell you that once you reach that sign and take that exit, you will arrive at my home within 15 minutes. You wouldn’t know what time you’d reach that exit sign, but you’d know that once you did, you only have 15 more minutes to drive until you reach my house.

In other words, the fact that Jesus gave signs to look for to know His return and our gathering is imminent does not mean He told us how long it will be before those signs are seen. However, once they are seen, we know that the time is near. We know that the generation alive at that time will not pass away until He returns. After all, what day and hour was He talking about? What day and hour did He just tell them about? In other words, what was His subject? That would likely be the day and hour He was referring to: the timing of His coming and the end of the age. His subject was not about a pre-tribulation gathering; rather, it was about a gathering at His appearing in power and glory. Thus, the day and hour of which no one knows would logically refer to the day and hour of His second coming and the end of the age. It would not make sense for Him to have altered His subject when there are no indications within the text that He has changed His subject from the second coming to a secret coming.

 

[Kingdom_Come]

Now look at the rest of the chapter 24 from verse 36-42.

Matthew 24:37-41
New King James Version (NKJV)

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.

Jesus described what the rapture will be like in verses 40 & 41. And it will happen when people are eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. Who's gonna be eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage immediately after the worst 7 years in man's history? This indicates the rapture is more likely before the 7 year tribulation.

These verses can apply just as easily to a post-tribulation gathering as a pre-tribulation gathering. In either case, in that very moment, one will be taken, and one will be left. It is only when one is predisposed to a pre-tribulation way of thinking that they interpret these passages as insinuating a pre-tribulation timing. However, they can fit either scenario. Much like 1 Thessalonians 4, they describe what will happen, not when.

Again, consider Jesus’ subject. He did not deviate from it. What you suggest is that He changed His subject in the middle of His message from His second coming to a separate pre-tribulation gathering, yet we are given no indication of this by Him. Thus, it makes sense to see it all as pertaining to the same subject: the second coming and the end of the age. If we understand that He is still speaking of His second coming and the end of the age, then we realize that it is incumbent upon us to interpret the following descriptions and parables in light of that same subject.

And to answer the question of who will be eating, drinking, and marrying? Well, who were doing those things when Noah entered the ark? Those are the same people (kind of people) that will be doing it during the time period Christ is describing. And just as those doing it during Noah’s day were overcome by the coming flood, so too will those doing it that day be overcome by His sudden appearing.

Ahh Paul didn't write the book of Revelation, John wrote it. Sorry.

Well Peter and Paul did not write the Synoptic Gospels either, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t speak about many of the same things and same concepts we find in the Gospels. Peter and Paul both speak about some of the same things recorded in Revelation by John, or do you deny this? If they do (and they do), then the information they provide is as relevant and applicable to understanding the bigger picture as what John recorded.

 

[Kingdom_Come]

He's not gonna punish the faithful. I think we can both agree on that. But that does not mean He will leave us here either. That's where Jesus comes in. (1st Thessalonians 1:10 [NKJV] and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come). And the manner of how He'll do it is explain again (Matthew 24:40-41 [NKJV]40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left).

Sorry bud, but the wrath to come isn't geographical or locational, it will strike the whole earth. Everyone will be tested, some more than others. Some might lose their life, some might only lose just a house, but all will be effected. Since you brought up Revelation 3:10, look.

Revelation 3:10
New King James Version (NKJV)
10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.



1 Thessalonians 1:10 (NKJV)
10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 3:13 (NKJV)
13 so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.

Really? You can't see interpretation of those two verses? Jesus delivers (not hide, protect or pardon) us from the wrath to come(furture tense). Paul is saying Jesus delivers us first, wrath comes second. That's a Pre-Trib statement.

And He comes with His saints. As in Rev 19 on a White Horse for the battle of Armageddon. This is before the end of the tribulation. So a Post Trib is impossible under that verse.

Again, deliverance does not equate to rapture. One must first accept the notion of a pre-tribulation rapture in order to limit their interpretation of deliverance to a rapture. I maintain that God can deliver the faithful without rapturing them. As I said in the beginning of this thread, the entire argument for a pre-tribulation rapture comes down to inferring it based on certain passages. It is not explicitly taught anywhere that I have seen. One points to a passage often taken out of context, concludes that this is an example of or a reference to a pretribulation rapture, then argues that only a pre-tribulation understanding of the timing of the rapture could fit that description. They often ignore the logical inconsistencies that go along with such an interpretation. For example, they imply that Paul or Christ changed their stated subject in the middle of their message even though neither gives any indication that they are talking about something different than what they started out talking about. A change in subject in such a manner would lead to confusion. Accepting their stated subject leads to a different interpretation than pre-tribulation proponents would like.

Now the fun part. Actually, sorry bud, but it's very wrong. Revelation 3:10 is actually a rapture of the faithful church.

You know why there's no rapture? It's because all 7 churches are representations of all Christians that ever live(d) on earth. Each church is symbolic of our sins or obedience. Every Christian falls under one or more of those Churches based on their works. It is not 7 churches representing a time frame from the time of Christ to the present day.

I’m not sure where this argument came from, but on this point, I happen to mostly agree (with the obvious exception that Rev 3:10 is referring to a rapture). I don’t recall ever saying anything different. I believe the churches are archetypical of various believers: some at the extreme of rebellion and others at the extreme of righteousness. This does not mean that the churches were not literal churches that existed at the time of John. However, the messages and the warnings to each are generally applicable to all Christians regardless of where or when they live.

My primary point was that Christ never promised a pre-tribulation rapture to any of these churches, and He confirmed that some within some of these churches would be allowed to endure great tribulation. That does not track with the idea that the church is to be raptured away from all tribulation. I also asked how The Lord kept His promise to the faithful churches to whom the letter was written (the actual churches John wrote the letter to)?

 

[Old Timer]

Hi Old Timer,

You yourself said that them refers to the Israelites. Thus, a straightforward reading of the passage in question, Romans 11:17-21, yields the obvious interpretation that the wild olive tree (Gentile church) has been grafted in among them (the branches) which represents Israel, and both are nourished by the same root (God). I fail to see what is difficult in understanding that.

I don't have difficulty understanding that.. the simple difference is that you say that the church of God is grafted into Israel whereas I say that it is grafted into Christ.

A natural extension of this is the metaphor of the church being part of the Israel of God. In this sense, the metaphor merely implies that the church has become part of the people of God.

Israel is an earthly entity consisting of those who are descendants of Jacob, whereas the church of God is a heavenly entity from every tribe, nation, and tongue.

There is a significant difference.

It isn’t much different than referring to the church as the bride of Christ as well as the body of Christ. Taking either literally will lead to tremendous confusion and unnecessary debate. However, most understand the nature of such metaphors, so there is no need to worry about misinterpretation based on someone trying to apply a literal interpretation to these concepts. Having said that, if you cannot see it now, then we will have to agree to disagree on that subject as I have made my case. You yourself admit to the meaning of these metaphorical symbols, so all you need to do is read the passage as it is written with that same understanding.

I'm not sure what you mean here.. the church of God is literally the future bride of Christ, and the body of Christ.. these are not metaphors but rather scriptural truths.

Furthermore, as I have stated previously, this point does nothing to help advance your claim of a pre-tribulation rapture. You appear to think that if I would stop thinking of the church as part of the Israel of God, I’d come to understand that Matthew 24 does not pertain to the church. Thus, I’d logically conclude that the second coming is for Israel, and a separate event, the pre-tribulation rapture, must be the event for the church. The flaw in that logic is assuming that I only think Matthew 24 applies to the church because I consider the church to be part of the Israel of God. This implies that I too believe that Matthew 24 is written to and about Israel and only Israel and can only justify applying it to the church because I think the church is part of the Israel of God.

Yet this has nothing to do with why I believe Matthew 24 applies to the church. In other words, even if I stipulated to everything you are saying regarding Romans 11:17-21, I would still believe that the church is the elect Jesus speaks of sending His angels to gather from all over the world when He returns (Mark 13:27). I would still believe that Paul is referring to this exact same event in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. I would still believe that Paul confirms this in 2 Thessalonians 2 where he speaks about the coming of Christ and our gathering together unto him (which happens at His coming) and the destruction of the man of sin by the brightness of that same coming of The Lord. I would still believe that it is the dead in Christ that are the saints that He will bring with Him when He comes as Paul describes it in 1 Thessalonians 4. None of this would change even if I decided to stop referring to the church as part of the Israel of God. Proving a pre-tribulation rapture to me will take more than that.

So regardless of the fact that Matthew 24 is within the context of Israelites in Judaea fleeing to the wilderness, and that their flight doesn't happen on the Sabbath day.. you're still going to apply it to the church of God which didn't yet exist at the time.

Nobody can stop you from doing that.. although simply pointing it out sometimes can help see the contextual error in doing so.

I have asked for your input on certain passages, and you have simply ignored them. I have asked you to find a place in Scripture that clearly places a rapture as pre-tribulation in the prophetic order of events, and you have essentially admitted that this is too much to ask. You reply with your own comments but with little to no Scripture. You offer little to no actual rebuttal to any of the points made using Scripture. I have made my case via Scripture. I now ask that you either offer a Scriptural based rebuttal or at least outline your own view by using the Scripture. You may use my previous posts on this very thread as a basis for responding to the points I’ve made. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then this discussion will be fruitless for both of us.

Sorry if you believe that I have ignored any points you may have made.. although in my opinion you haven't answered any I have made.. beginning with the simple fact that the church of God is nowhere to be found on earth in the Revelation of Jesus Christ which does pertain to the things which shall be hereafter.. the Day of the Lord.. the time of Jacob's trouble..

 

[Old Timer]

As mentioned.. another proof or test is the marriage of the Lamb which clearly takes place in heaven before the Lord comes to destroy the man of sin..

This places the church of God in heaven before the coming of Christ..

That's if context matters.

 

[Kingdom_Come]

I'm not sure what you mean here.. the church of God is literally the future bride of Christ, and the body of Christ.. these are not metaphors but rather scriptural truths.

Do you literally think each member of the church is part of some large body? Who is the finger, and who is the toe? It’s obviously a metaphor meaning that the church is what the world sees. The church is what ministers to the world. In this way, the church functions as the body of Christ. Do you think the church will morph into a giant woman? The metaphor of the bride and Bridegroom is intended to emphasize the depth of God’s love for His church. Familial relationships are used throughout Scripture as a way of explaining Divine concepts in ways that humans can understand. We do not exist as God exists, and our thoughts are not on the same level as His thoughts. Thus, it is necessary to use things we do understand to explain certain concepts.

Who comprises the church? Would it not be the saints? Who carries the testimony of Jesus Christ if not the church? We see them in Revelation 12 as the brethren who overcome by the blood of The Lamb. Who besides the church or saints of God does this? I believe I have made this point already.

There are many prophecies in the OT written by Jewish prophets about things that encompass far more than the Hebrew people. Moreover, the idea that Daniel spoke only of Jews in, for example, Daniel 7 is not a sound conclusion. First, when we consider Daniel 2 and Daniel’s exposition of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, we realize that God will set up His kingdom at the end of the age. This tracks quite well with what Daniel records in Chapter 7 where The Ancient of Days appears to destroy the little horn, deliver His saints from the persecution of the little horn (Anti-Christ), and establish His kingdom (Dan 7:18 & 27). This tracks quite well with what John reveals in Revelation, and we know that John is describing events after the dawn of the church age; and where Daniel describes this era being ushered in by the appearance of The Ancient of Days, John describes it being ushered in by The Lamb: Jesus Christ. The saints that Daniel describes as being worn out by the little horn are described by John in Revelation 12 as those who have the testimony of Jesus Christ, for Satan will persecute the woman (Israel) and the remnant of her seed that have the testimony of Jesus Christ (the church).

As mentioned.. another proof or test is the marriage of the Lamb which clearly takes place in heaven before the Lord comes to destroy the man of sin..

This places the church of God in heaven before the coming of Christ..

That's if context matters.

Please show me this Scripture that shows the marriage supper of The Lamb happening before the Second Coming.

Sorry if you believe that I have ignored any points you may have made.. although in my opinion you haven't answered any I have made.. beginning with the simple fact that the church of God is nowhere to be found on earth in the Revelation of Jesus Christ which does pertain to the things which shall be hereafter.. the Day of the Lord.. the time of Jacob's trouble..

Please prove this.

 

[Old Timer]

Do you literally think each member of the church is part of some large body?

Of course.. the body of Christ.. the Lamb's wife to be.

Who is the finger, and who is the toe?

That is for the Lord to decide.

It’s obviously a metaphor meaning that the church is what the world sees. The church is what ministers to the world. In this way, the church functions as the body of Christ. Do you think the church will morph into a giant woman? The metaphor of the bride and Bridegroom is intended to emphasize the depth of God’s love for His church. Familial relationships are used throughout Scripture as a way of explaining Divine concepts in ways that humans can understand. We do not exist as God exists, and our thoughts are not on the same level as His thoughts. Thus, it is necessary to use things we do understand to explain certain concepts.

Then we must disagree.. for I do believe that the church of God will be presented to Christ as a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.. and this will be the marriage of the Lamb which Revelation 19 details wondrously.

Who comprises the church? Would it not be the saints? Who carries the testimony of Jesus Christ if not the church? We see them in Revelation 12 as the brethren who overcome by the blood of The Lamb. Who besides the church or saints of God does this? I believe I have made this point already.

The church of God began at Pentecost following the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.. and it will be complete when the fullness of the Gentiles come in.

Revelation 12 concerns Israel (the woman with child) born again and having the testimony of Jesus Christ in that Day.. for its context is the things which shall be hereafter.

Please show me this Scripture that shows the marriage supper of The Lamb happening before the Second Coming.

Read Revelation 19 about 100 times.. as it too is within the context of the things which shall be hereafter.

Please prove this.

It proves itself.. the church of God is nowhere on earth within the portion of the revelation which pertains to the things which shall be hereafter.. and that is Rev 4 onward.

 

[Bible2]

shturt678s said in post 98:

So you're saying that Jeses prophecy in Matt.24:2 was fully fulfilled as Josephus said it was, ie, In no way shall there be left here stone upon stone which shall not be thrown down".

The end of Herod's temple building (also called the 2nd temple building) in 70 AD didn't fulfill Matthew 24:2. For the stones of the 2nd temple's Western Wall (also called the Wailing Wall) still stand today one on top of the other, just as they did when Jesus spoke that prophecy. Matthew 24:2 included the Wailing Wall, for Matthew 24:2 wasn't referring to only the single 2nd temple building in the center of the Temple Mount (the building that contained the holy place and the most holy place), but was referring to "all these things", all the plural "buildings"/structures/oikodome (G3619) of the entire 2nd temple complex (Matthew 24:1). Indeed, Matthew 24:2 could even have been spoken just to the north and west of the Wailing Wall. For it was spoken just after Jesus had departed from the temple complex (Matthew 24:1), and one of the main temple complex exits (called Wilson's Arch and bridge by archaeologists) was just to the north of the Wailing Wall and at the same level as the top of the Temple Mount (see the temple complex map insert in the December 2008 issue of National Geographic magazine).

Also, in Matthew 24:2, the "here" can include not just the entire 2nd temple complex, but every structure throughout Jerusalem. For the similar statement in Luke 19:44 applied to the whole city (Luke 19:41-44). Matthew 24:2 and Luke 19:44 could be fulfilled at the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, right before and at Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

 

[Bible2]

Kingdom_Come said in post 101:

Thus, a straightforward reading of the passage in question, Romans 11:17-21, yields the obvious interpretation that the wild olive tree (Gentile church) has been grafted in among them (the branches) which represents Israel, and both are nourished by the same root (God).

That's right. Just as all believers are individual branches in the vine which is Jesus (John 15:5), the only way to salvation (John 14:6, Acts 4:12), so all believers are individual branches in the good olive tree of Israel, the Jews' own tree (Romans 11:17,24, Jeremiah 11:16-17). For all Jewish believers remain part of Israel (Romans 11:1) as the natural branches in the tree of Israel (Romans 11:24). And all Gentile believers have been grafted as branches from a wild olive tree into the tree of Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29) so they can partake of the salvation of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). This doesn't mean a wild branch becomes a natural branch, that a Gentile believer becomes a genetic Jew, but that Gentile believers, even while remaining branches from a wild olive tree, even while remaining genetic Gentiles, are still grafted in to become part of the good olive tree of Israel (Romans 11:17,24).

Similarly, all those in the church, whether Jews or Gentiles, are spiritually Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:29). And Abraham's seed is Israel (Isaiah 41:8, Romans 11:1; 2 Chronicles 20:7). So the entire church is Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). Not just the Jews in the church (e.g. Romans 11:1b) but also the Gentiles in the church are spiritually Abraham's seed of promise (Romans 9:7,8,24) as Isaac was (Galatians 4:28) and as Jesus is (Galatians 3:16,29). And so Gentiles in the church, along with Jews in the church, are heirs of all the promises made by God to Israel (Ephesians 3:6, Ephesians 2:12,19, Romans 15:27, Galatians 3:29b, Romans 11:17,24).

 

[Bible2]

Old Timer said in post 105:

So regardless of the fact that Matthew 24 is within the context of Israelites in Judaea fleeing to the wilderness, and that their flight doesn't happen on the Sabbath day.. you're still going to apply it to the church of God which didn't yet exist at the time.

Matthew 24 refers to the future tribulation, by which time the church will have existed for some 2,000 years. The saints who will be in the tribulation will be the church, for they will be believers in Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 7:9,14, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6), and now there are no believers outside of the church (Ephesians 4:4-6). Those in the church who will be in the tribulation could include most of the believers alive today, for there will be no pre-tribulation rapture (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Matthew 24:29-31).

Also, Matthew 24 was addressed privately to only believers (Matthew 24:3,4,9), and in Jesus' mind all believers of all times are one (John 17:20-21, Ephesians 4:4-6). The entire book of Revelation was likewise addressed to only believers (Revelation 1:1-4, Revelation 22:16). Just as the (mistaken) pre-tribulation rapture view admits that, for example, John 14 and Matthew 24's parallel chapter of Luke 21 can apply to those in the church today (e.g. Luke 21:36, John 14:3), so the pre-tribulation rapture view should be able to admit that Matthew 24 and Revelation chapters 6 to 18 can apply to those in the church today.

Matthew 24:9-13 refers to the future killing of Christians, those who will be hated and killed for the name of Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:9) in every nation of the earth during the future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign of the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") (Revelation 13:5-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6). Matthew 24:9-13 shows that not all Christians will continue to love Jesus during that time, but some Christians' love for him will grow cold because of their unrepentant sin (Matthew 24:12; 1 Timothy 4:1-2; 2 Timothy 4:3-4) or because they will become offended (Matthew 24:10) that he's letting them suffer in the tribulation (Matthew 13:21, Isaiah 8:21-22; 1 Peter 4:12-13). Only those Christians who continue to love Jesus to the end will be ultimately saved (Matthew 24:13).

Old Timer said in post 105:

So regardless of the fact that Matthew 24 is within the context of Israelites in Judaea fleeing to the wilderness, and that their flight doesn't happen on the Sabbath day.. you're still going to apply it to the church of God which didn't yet exist at the time.

Regarding "Judaea" (Matthew 24:16), there are many churches in Judaea (southern Israel) today. And they contain mostly Gentile believers, not just Jewish believers. The church began and has always been in Judaea: "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea" (Acts 9:31); "the churches of Judaea" (Galatians 1:22); "the churches... in Judaea" (1 Thessalonians 2:14). Matthew 24:16 refers to those in the church, both Gentiles and Jews, who will be living in Judaea at the future point in time when the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) is set up in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31).

The Antichrist's persecution of the church could begin in Jerusalem and Judaea right after the abomination of desolation is set up and the Antichrist himself sits in the temple (at least one time) and proclaims himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). So to avoid this persecution (cf. Matthew 10:23a), those in the church living in Judaea should flee immediately after they see the abomination of desolation set up (Matthew 24:15-16), which event could occur at the midpoint of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, and which event could mark the start of the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:4-18). Eventually, the Antichrist's persecution of the church will reach every nation of the earth (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13), so that the basic principle of Matthew 24:16 of fleeing (the Antichrist's persecution) would apply to believers around the world.

Just as the woman in Revelation 12:6 represents many different people in the church around the world, so the protected wilderness place she flees to represents many different protected wilderness places around the world. When those in the church living in Judaea see the abomination of desolation set up, they should flee into places in the wilderness east of Judaea, the mountains (Matthew 24:16) of Jordan. And those in the church who will be living in places in the world other than Judaea should flee into other wilderness places, mountainous places (Ezekiel 7:16), in the regions of the world where they live.

And they should have prepared beforehand hideouts in these wilderness/mountain places, hideouts already fully stocked with all the emergency supplies of food, water, warm clothing, etc., that they and their families and fellow Christians will need to survive (1 Timothy 5:8, Matthew 24:45-46, cf. Genesis 41:48,36, Genesis 45:7) until Jesus returns, possibly on the 1,335th day after the abomination of desolation is set up (Daniel 12:11-12, Revelation 16:15). For they shouldn't carry any supplies with them when they flee (Matthew 24:17-18). They should flee as unhindered and quickly as possible, knowing that when the abomination of desolation is set up, that could signal the beginning of the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year Luciferian (Satanic) worldwide reign of terror (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9), when he will be given power to make war against all those in the church that he can get his hands on, and to physically overcome them and kill them (by beheading) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

Old Timer said in post 105:

So regardless of the fact that Matthew 24 is within the context of Israelites in Judaea fleeing to the wilderness, and that their flight doesn't happen on the Sabbath day.. you're still going to apply it to the church of God which didn't yet exist at the time.

Matthew 24:20 doesn't require that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath will be in effect (as far as God is concerned) at the time Matthew 24:20 is fulfilled. And the parallel verse in Mark 13:18 doesn't mention the sabbath. For some Christians choose to keep the sabbath, while others choose not to keep it (Romans 14:5). The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law sabbath hasn't been in effect since Jesus' crucifixion, when, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52), of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the 2nd covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15),so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).

All believers, both Jews and Gentles, of all times, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and shouldn't keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Galatians 2:11-21) or have any desire to keep it (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25). Believers keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

--

Matthew 24:19-20 means it will be more difficult for pregnant women and women carrying infants to flee (Matthew 24:16), just as will be more difficult to flee in the winter or on a sabbath. This would apply in cases where those fleeing don't have cars (or petrol), and so will have to walk a long way to their place of refuge. For walking a long way will be more difficult for pregnant women and women carrying infants, and for anyone at a time of wintry cold and wind, rain, or snow, and for any Christian on the sabbath who believes that to walk a long way on the sabbath is a sin. Also, by the time Matthew 24:15-20 is fulfilled in our future, the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Judaea (southern Israel) could have reestablished sabbath police there, who could attack with sticks anyone trying to walk a long way on the sabbath.

Also, the ultra-Orthodox Jews believe that it's a sin to even turn on a light switch on the sabbath, as they see it as breaking the commandment not to kindle a fire on the sabbath (Exodus 35:3). So they could similarly forbid people to start a car on the sabbath, as this would be kindling a fire within its combustion engine. Also, the ultra-Orthodox Jews could set up roadblocks to prevent anyone from driving a car anywhere on the sabbath.

Old Timer said in post 105:

Sorry if you believe that I have ignored any points you may have made.. although in my opinion you haven't answered any I have made.. beginning with the simple fact that the church of God is nowhere to be found on earth in the Revelation of Jesus Christ which does pertain to the things which shall be hereafter.. the Day of the Lord.. the time of Jacob's trouble..

The time of Jacob's trouble which he will be saved out of (Jeremiah 30:7) won't be the entire future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, but only the final pillaging of the Jews in Jerusalem at the very end of the tribulation, right before Jesus returns and saves them (Zechariah 14:2-5). The church, including Gentile believers (Revelation 7:9,14), will be in the tribulation (Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6).

 

[Bible2]

Old Timer said in post 106:

As mentioned.. another proof or test is the marriage of the Lamb which clearly takes place in heaven before the Lord comes to destroy the man of sin..

By "heaven" do you mean the 3rd heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2b)? If so, note that no scripture requires believers will be raptured any higher than the clouds of the sky (the 1st heaven) to hold a meeting in the air with Jesus at his 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17). After that meeting, in which the church will be judged by Jesus (Psalms 50:3-5, cf. Mark 13:27) and the obedient part of the church will be married to Jesus (Revelation 19:7, Matthew 25:1-13), the obedient part of the church will come back down from the sky (the first heaven) with Jesus (Revelation 19:15-21) to reign on the earth with him for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). After the 1,000 years and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-15, Ezekiel chapters 38-39), the obedient part of the church will live on the new earth with God the Father and Jesus in the literal city of New Jerusalem (Revelation chapters 21-22).

Old Timer said in post 106:

This places the church of God in heaven before the coming of Christ..

The 10-virgins parable (Matthew 25:1-13) shows that the marriage of the church to Jesus won't occur until his 2nd coming (Matthew 25:10), which Jesus had just finished saying won't occur until "immediately after the tribulation" (Matthew 24:29-31), just like Revelation 19:7 shows that the marriage won't occur until after the (never fulfilled) tribulation, shown in Revelation chapters 6 to 18. The parable's extra oil (Matthew 25:4,9b) could represent the continued good works of believers, by which they will be able to pass the judgment of the church by Jesus (Matthew 25:19-30, Romans 2:6-8) and enter the marriage of the church to Jesus at his 2nd coming (Matthew 25:10, Revelation 19:7-21).

The marriage supper (Revelation 19:9) won't have yet begun by the time of Revelation 19, which won't begin until after the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (cf. Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8). For regarding the church, the marriage supper will be a literal feast in the earthly Jerusalem after the resurrection and marriage of the church at Jesus' 2nd coming (Isaiah 25:6-9; 1 Corinthians 15:54, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-54). While the church will enjoy a feast "of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined" (Isaiah 25:6), the birds will feast on the corpses of the world's armies defeated at Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:17-21).

Also, regarding the 10-virgins parable, in Matthew 25:6 "midnight" could represent mid-tribulation, when the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) could be set up in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31). So when it says "at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh" (Matthew 25:6), this could mean that at the mid-tribulation point when the abomination of desolation is set up, the church will be given the knowledge of the date (as in the year, month, and day) of Jesus' 2nd coming. This date could be the 1,335th day after the abomination of desolation is set up (Daniel 12:11-12, cf. Revelation 16:15).

*******

Old Timer said in post 108:

Revelation 12 concerns Israel (the woman with child) born again and having the testimony of Jesus Christ in that Day.. for its context is the things which shall be hereafter.

The woman in Revelation 12 represents the church (which is Israel: Romans 11:1,17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). She's clothed with the sun (Revelation 12:1) of righteousness (Malachi 4:2) through her faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22), just as later we see the church clothed with righteousness (Revelation 19:8). The moon under her feet (Revelation 12:1) represents Satan under her feet (Romans 16:20) as she overcomes him spiritually by her faith in Jesus (Revelation 12:11). The crown of 12 stars on her head (Revelation 12:1) represents the 12 apostles (of Matthew 10:2-4, Acts 1:16-26), who have been placed over the church (1 Corinthians 12:28).

Her giving birth to the "man child", and his being caught up to the throne of God (Revelation 12:5) immediately before she flees into the wilderness for a literal 3.5 years (Revelation 12:6), represents the future, mid-tribulation catching up of the 144,000 male-virgins part of the church in their mortal bodies to the throne of God in heaven (Revelation 14:1,4,5, Textus Receptus), like how Enoch and Elijah were caught up in their mortal bodies to heaven (Hebrews 11:5; 2 Kings 2:11).

Her fleeing into and remaining in a protected wilderness place for a literal 3.5 years (Revelation 12:6,14) represents those in the church who will flee into and remain in divinely-protected wilderness places during the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5-18), which will be in the latter half of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24.

The remnant of her seed (Revelation 12:17) represents those in the church during that time who won't flee into wilderness places, but will remain in the cities, and will be persecuted in every nation, imprisoned, and beheaded by the Antichrist (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

Also, Genesis 37:9-10 isn't (as is sometimes claimed) being referred to in Revelation 12:1. For in Revelation 12:1, the church/Israel isn't clothed with the man Jacob (Genesis 37:9-10), but with the sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2), through her faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22), just as later we see the church/Israel clothed with righteousness (Revelation 19:8, cf. also Revelation 21:2,9,12). Also, the church/Israel doesn't have the woman Rachel under her feet (Genesis 37:9-10), but Satan (Romans 16:20), as the church/Israel overcomes him spiritually by her faith in Jesus (Revelation 12:11). And the church/Israel doesn't have Jacob's 12 sons placed over her (Genesis 37:9-10), but the 12 apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28, Matthew 10:2, Acts 1:26), each one of whom will rule over one of her 12 tribes (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30).

 

[TPeterY]

Hi TPeterY,

I am not trying to make something out of that verse that is not there. Quite the opposite actually, I’m trying to make something out of that verse that is there. That word is not an addition by English translators for clarification. It wouldn’t make much sense considering that the passage would be plainer without it if that were the case. That word is there precisely because it is in the Greek text from which the verse was translated into English. That word belongs there, and it means pertaining to, concerning, or about. It does affect the way that passage is read and understood.

If I said to you that I was going to host a celebration but only my planner knew the day or hour of that celebration, it would not mean the same thing as if I said I was going to host a celebration, and only my planner knew about the things that would take place during that celebration on that day and in that hour. In scenario A, I could conceivably tell you everything that will happen at the celebration, but I would not be able to tell you when it will take place. In scenario B, I could conceivably tell you when the celebration will take place, but I’d be unable to tell you everything that will happen during the celebration as some, most, or even all of those details would be known only to my planner.

This is exactly the difference this one word makes to the reading of this verse. If the Greek word peri is ignored, then it is easy to read the passage as saying no one knows the day or hour. Essentially no one knows when. However, if He is saying no one knows about that day or hour except The Father, He is saying that there are details concerning that time period that no one knows. It would imply that while He might be able to tell them some details concerning that day, He would not be able to tell them everything that will happen on that day. The two things do not mean the same thing.

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” (1 Co 2:9)

Now, let me take this a step further and present the other side of the proverbial coin. It doesn’t actually matter which way you read it. Even if you read it as no one knows the time, it doesn’t mean that a pre-tribulation timing of the rapture is His intended message. Allow me to clarify.

Suppose I tell you that I want you to come visit me. I give you a list of directions using landmarks so you know when to turn left or right. I tell you to get on the highway and drive north until you see a big sign that says, “for Kingdom Come’s house, take this Exit.” I never tell you how long you will be driving. You may drive 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days, or possibly 5 years before you reach that sign. You don’t know what day or hour you will reach that sign, but you will know once you’ve reached that sign. Suppose I also tell you that once you reach that sign and take that exit, you will arrive at my home within 15 minutes. You wouldn’t know what time you’d reach that exit sign, but you’d know that once you did, you only have 15 more minutes to drive until you reach my house.

In other words, the fact that Jesus gave signs to look for to know His return and our gathering is imminent does not mean He told us how long it will be before those signs are seen. However, once they are seen, we know that the time is near. We know that the generation alive at that time will not pass away until He returns. After all, what day and hour was He talking about? What day and hour did He just tell them about? In other words, what was His subject? That would likely be the day and hour He was referring to: the timing of His coming and the end of the age. His subject was not about a pre-tribulation gathering; rather, it was about a gathering at His appearing in power and glory. Thus, the day and hour of which no one knows would logically refer to the day and hour of His second coming and the end of the age. It would not make sense for Him to have altered His subject when there are no indications within the text that He has changed His subject from the second coming to a secret coming.

Oh my goodness. Dude, buddy, pal, brother, my friend!!! LOL. Sorry!!!

Okay, I'm pause right here first before I go any further. I'm just gonna apologize in advance because I'm gonna end up embarrassing you like the description of the 7 churches I wrote. I'm not trying to poke fun at you, but if I'm gonna to explain something to you, that's how it'll come out. Please, remember, I'm really trying to help and not make fun at you.

Now I'll begin. "The End of The Age" is not the 2nd coming of Jesus as on a white horse. As some verses describes, that's "The great and terrible day of the Lord."

"The End of the Age" Jesus spoke about is "The Church Age" (Age of Grace). when the Church Age ends, that's when Daniel's 70th week begins. The prophecy of Daniel's 70th week can NOT begin until The Church Age ends.

How many times have you heard pastors, preachers, theologians say "The End will come when the gospel is preached all over the world, then Jesus will return?" Jesus is concerned about the church from the wrath to come, not the sinners.

Now let's look at Matthew 24:3-14. Notice how even the title said "The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age?" See how He tells them 3 times the end will not come until the gospel is preached throughout the world? He's talking solely to the church and even warns us we will suffer persecution preaching the gospel.

Matthew 24:3-14
New King James Version (NKJV)

The Signs of the Times and the End of the Age

3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” 4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

And if you check verses 15-31 from the time of the tribulation till His 2nd coming, not once did He mention the words "The End." It's because we're (church) gone, rapture after verse 14 (for those smart enough to realize it).

 

[Shocker]

Great writeup TPeterY

 

[TPeterY]

These verses can apply just as easily to a post-tribulation gathering as a pre-tribulation gathering. In either case, in that very moment, one will be taken, and one will be left. It is only when one is predisposed to a pre-tribulation way of thinking that they interpret these passages as insinuating a pre-tribulation timing. However, they can fit either scenario. Much like 1 Thessalonians 4, they describe what will happen, not when.

Again, consider Jesus’ subject. He did not deviate from it. What you suggest is that He changed His subject in the middle of His message from His second coming to a separate pre-tribulation gathering, yet we are given no indication of this by Him. Thus, it makes sense to see it all as pertaining to the same subject: the second coming and the end of the age. If we understand that He is still speaking of His second coming and the end of the age, then we realize that it is incumbent upon us to interpret the following descriptions and parables in light of that same subject.

And to answer the question of who will be eating, drinking, and marrying? Well, who were doing those things when Noah entered the ark? Those are the same people (kind of people) that will be doing it during the time period Christ is describing. And just as those doing it during Noah’s day were overcome by the coming flood, so too will those doing it that day be overcome by His sudden appearing.

Last time I didn't want to go into too much detail about Matthew 24:37-42 because I thought it was obvious of the timing on the rapture, but I guess I was wrong. So we'll explain below.

Matthew 24:37-42
New King James Version (NKJV)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.

For those that didn't realize, this is a prophecy by Jesus of His return, and compares it to the days of Noah. Look at it from this illustration.

Current day:
"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" before the tribulation = Is it logical and possible? Yes. It's a time of peace. There's churches where people can get marry. Pastors still here or alive.

"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" after the tribulation = Is it logical and possible? No. The world went through the worst 7 years in history. Billions of people died. Everyone still alive will be mourning, in a state of shock, and screening it's the end of the world. Their moods will not be festive. No one's gonna want to party, and even if they did, there's no church Buildings will be in ruins. Many pastors probably died. People will likely hold funeral services instead of weddings.

Days of Noah:
"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" before the flood = Is it logical and possible? Yeah.

"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" after the flood = Is it logical and possible? No, everyone died. Even Noah's sons are all already married.

"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" as the flood came = Is it logical and possible? No. If you saw the flood coming, Are you gonna be eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage? No, you're gonna run to the Ark and shout at Noah to open the door.

Jesus said as in the days of Noah. Those were His words and His prophecy. If you can understand what He meant, you can see it's a Pre-Trib rapture, not Post. Best not to challenge Him asking "when." Plus the story of Enoch is about a Pre-Trib also.

Well Peter and Paul did not write the Synoptic Gospels either, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t speak about many of the same things and same concepts we find in the Gospels. Peter and Paul both speak about some of the same things recorded in Revelation by John, or do you deny this? If they do (and they do), then the information they provide is as relevant and applicable to understanding the bigger picture as what John recorded.

No, I don't deny it, I absolutely agree with you here. But you have to take into consideration the difference between "in reference to and pertaining to."

Since you brought it up, let's use 1st Thessalonians 4, lets use that as an example. Paul is talking about in "reference" to Jesus' coming at the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God.

Paul is not "pertaining" to the last trumpet in Revelation 11. Jesus will come at the last trumpet, but not this trumpet. Reasons below.

1) Paul wrote 1st Thes before John wrote Revelation. So Paul knows nothing about the 7 trumpets of wrath in Revelation.
2) Paul dunno when the rapture will occur, only The Father knows. (Matthew 24:36).
3) The trumpet in 1st Thes is blown by an Archangel with a trumpet of God. The trumpet in Revelation is blown by an angel with one of 7 trumpets.
4) The blowing of trumpets is a common occurrence in Heaven mentioned in the bible at least 110 times. Yes, it'll be on the last trumpet, just not the trumpets in Revelation.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Comfort of Christ’s Coming

13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Revelation 11:15
New King James Version (NKJV)
Seventh Trumpet: The Kingdom Proclaimed

15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

 

[rockytopva]

The bible speaks of the event (so dubbed the rapture) as something that happens in everyday times...

1. As in the days of Noah
2. As in the days of Lot

Everyday times! No warning whatsoever... That is why the bible speaks of the Lord coming as a thief. Unannounced, with no heads up.

 

[Shocker]

Last time I didn't want to go into too much detail about Matthew 24:37-42 because I thought it was obvious of the timing on the rapture, but I guess I was wrong. So we'll explain below.

Matthew 24:37-42
New King James Version (NKJV)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.

For those that didn't realize, this is a prophecy by Jesus of His return, and compares it to the days of Noah. Look at it from this illustration.

Current day:
"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" before the tribulation = Is it logical and possible? Yes. It's a time of peace. There's churches where people can get marry. Pastors still here or alive.

"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" after the tribulation = Is it logical and possible? No. The world went through the worst 7 years in history. Billions of people died. Everyone still alive will be mourning, in a state of shock, and screening it's the end of the world. Their moods will not be festive. No one's gonna want to party, and even if they did, there's no church Buildings will be in ruins. Many pastors probably died. People will likely hold funeral services instead of weddings.

Days of Noah:
"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" before the flood = Is it logical and possible? Yeah.

"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" after the flood = Is it logical and possible? No, everyone died. Even Noah's sons are all already married.

"Eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" as the flood came = Is it logical and possible? No. If you saw the flood coming, Are you gonna be eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage? No, you're gonna run to the Ark and shout at Noah to open the door.

Jesus said as in the days of Noah. Those were His words and His prophecy. If you can understand what He meant, you can see it's a Pre-Trib rapture, not Post. Best not to challenge Him asking "when." Plus the story of Enoch is about a Pre-Trib also.



No, I don't deny it, I absolutely agree with you here. But you have to take into consideration the difference between "in reference to and pertaining to."

Since you brought it up, let's use 1st Thessalonians 4, lets use that as an example. Paul is talking about in "reference" to Jesus' coming at the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God.

Paul is not "pertaining" to the last trumpet in Revelation 11. Jesus will come at the last trumpet, but not this trumpet. Reasons below.

1) Paul wrote 1st Thes before John wrote Revelation. So Paul knows nothing about the 7 trumpets of wrath in Revelation.
2) Paul dunno when the rapture will occur, only The Father knows. (Matthew 24:36).
3) The trumpet in 1st Thes is blown by an Archangel with a trumpet of God. The trumpet in Revelation is blown by an angel with one of 7 trumpets.
4) The blowing of trumpets is a common occurrence in Heaven mentioned in the bible at least 110 times. Yes, it'll be on the last trumpet, just not the trumpets in Revelation.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Comfort of Christ’s Coming

13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Revelation 11:15
New King James Version (NKJV)
Seventh Trumpet: The Kingdom Proclaimed

15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

Yes, yes, and YES.

 

[TPeterY]

Great writeup TPeterY

Thanks, still writing. LOL

 

[Shocker]

That is why the bible speaks of the Lord coming as a thief. Unannounced, with no heads up.

For those not looking!

 

[TPeterY]

Again, deliverance does not equate to rapture. One must first accept the notion of a pre-tribulation rapture in order to limit their interpretation of deliverance to a rapture. I maintain that God can deliver the faithful without rapturing them. As I said in the beginning of this thread, the entire argument for a pre-tribulation rapture comes down to inferring it based on certain passages. It is not explicitly taught anywhere that I have seen. One points to a passage often taken out of context, concludes that this is an example of or a reference to a pretribulation rapture, then argues that only a pre-tribulation understanding of the timing of the rapture could fit that description. They often ignore the logical inconsistencies that go along with such an interpretation. For example, they imply that Paul or Christ changed their stated subject in the middle of their message even though neither gives any indication that they are talking about something different than what they started out talking about. A change in subject in such a manner would lead to confusion. Accepting their stated subject leads to a different interpretation than pre-tribulation proponents would like.

I won't make this too lengthy. I don't want to feel like I'm rubbing it in. Anyways, yes it's true deliverance can mean several things. But under this circumstance, Jesus said His deliverance is described in Matthew 24:40-42.


Matthew 24:40-42
New King James Version (NKJV)
40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.

Those were His words of how He will deliver us. Not mines, and that's how He'll do it.

I’m not sure where this argument came from, but on this point, I happen to mostly agree (with the obvious exception that Rev 3:10 is referring to a rapture). I don’t recall ever saying anything different. I believe the churches are archetypical of various believers: some at the extreme of rebellion and others at the extreme of righteousness. This does not mean that the churches were not literal churches that existed at the time of John. However, the messages and the warnings to each are generally applicable to all Christians regardless of where or when they live.

My primary point was that Christ never promised a pre-tribulation rapture to any of these churches, and He confirmed that some within some of these churches would be allowed to endure great tribulation. That does not track with the idea that the church is to be raptured away from all tribulation. I also asked how The Lord kept His promise to the faithful churches to whom the letter was written (the actual churches John wrote the letter to)?

Well i actually didn't want to write all that about the 7 churches but you kinda forced me to explain when you questioned why there was no rapture with those churches. It didn't seem like you understand John's messages about the churches so I had to explain. But like I told you in my PM, I'm not here to argue or debate. I'm really just trying to help people understand. So if I embarrass anyone, I don't mean to and apologize.

Just hurry up and knock some sense into your head with the Spirit of Truth. I rather be playing SimCity. LOL!