Do you believe in the “caught up together” event in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17?

fwGod said:

The only way that text in Luke would be relevant is if the OP topic was about marriage, and widowhood.

But the topic of the OP is about being "caught up" from 1 Thes.4:17. Therefore regardless of the marriage lasting 7 years, it's still erroneous to mention it AND claim that it's the only place in the new testament that speaks of a 7 year event.

Both of you are conveniently ignoring the new testament book of Revelation which is an extensive detail of the 70th week of Daniel.. a week being seven days, the original text indicating a week of years which amounts to 7 years. A prophetic topic.

Click to expand...

Where is a 7 year period mentioned in the book of Revelation?

While the marriage, widowhood text is not a prophetic topic. So it's apparent that neither of you can actually read your Bibles in an exegetic manner in order to gain some relevant understanding.

Click to expand...

No one said that it was a prophetic topic. He said it was the only place where a 7 year time period is mentioned in the New Testament, which is true.

It is mine in that it is not yours of the Amil theology. However it is not mine as if to say that it isn't in the Bible. The pertinent Bible text(s) clearly reveal that aside from the birth of Jesus there are two comings.. that of 1 Thes.2:1, 4:17 (a first coming), and that of Rev.19:11-13, 16 (a second coming). Therefore has developed the theological term "Second Coming" of Christ which the disciples asked Jesus. "When shall be the sign of Your coming, and the end of the age?" (Mat.24:3).

Click to expand...

He already came once long ago, so you're talking about a second coming and a third coming. Which is completely unbiblical. There is no basis whatsoever to see 1 Thess 4:13-17 as a separate event from Matthew 24:29-25:46 and Revelation 19:11-21. What you don't understand is that Paul was not done talking about the second coming at the end of 1 Thess 4. He talked about what will happen to believers at the second coming in 1 Thess 4:13-18 and what will happen to unbelievers at the second coming in 1 Thess 5.

Since you give the scripture text below I am curious if you are like sovereigngrace says he is.. formerly of the pretrib rapture belief because below you post it, but then again since it is not of the second coming, but of the first.. I would have to conclude that you have never been formerly pretrib in your theology.

Click to expand...

No, I have never believed in a pretrib rapture. It never made any sense to me at all at any time.

I do wander then why you post it since you don't include any comments to indicate how you interpret the text.
Could it be that in spite of not believing it you still attempt to teach to a pretrib rapture student what is already known of, and more than you know of it..?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You are very unclear. I posted the passage to show that it speaks of "the coming of the Lord". There is only one future "coming of the Lord", so I didn't think I needed to explain that.

Here is how I interpret the passage you're referencing.

1 Thess 4:14 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.

First of all, I see a lot of similarities in what is described there compared to what is described here:

Mark 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

I color coded each passage to show where I see the similarities. Both passages mention the coming of Christ from heaven. Both passages also mention a gathering of believers from heaven and a gathering of believers from earth. I believe the gathering of believers from "the uttermost part of heaven" are the souls of the dead in Christ which Jesus brings with Him as mentioned in 1 Thess 4:14.

Paul wrote about that here as well:

1 Thess 3:13 3 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

The gathering of believers "from the uttermost part of the earth" is those who are alive and remain who are then caught up together with the bodily raised dead in Christ to meet the Lord in the air.

Really. The same text was already featured in one of sovereigngrace's posts to me. You two are like peas in a pod.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I take that as a compliment.

Nope. As I've indicated to sovereigngrace on three occasions in three different posts.. I don't see any scripture to support the third coming that apparently someone else has at one time shared during a prior discussion with you or s.g.

Click to expand...

You just shared above that you see a first future coming of the Lord (1 Thess 4:13-17) and a second future coming of the Lord (Rev 19). His first coming happened long ago, obviously, so your 2 future comings of the Lord would be a second and third coming of the Lord, overall.

The scripture text that you provide below is a reference to the second coming.
The similar text in Revelation can be found in Rev.6:12-13.
The event is in Rev.19:11-16.
That is regarding a means of angelic assisted translation as was done with Philip Acts.8:39.. or by conventional transportation of the elect which at His Coming are located in different nations all over the world. The text can refer to a use of airplanes.. as was historically done to transport the discovered descendants of Israel who had lived in Africa to Israel to live.

Click to expand...

You think that believers will be escorted by airplane to Christ? How can you expect to be taken seriously with an interpretation like that?

For the Jews they have been for some years making the call for Jews living in other nations to return to Israel or at least come to Israel to make an Aliya. It was also done on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:5-11.

There are those who mistakenly suppose that verse 31 is referring to a rapture but it clearly isn't for the word rapture with it's correct surrounding text implies a quick removal from the confines of the earth and to heaven. But, such an idea is not possible to conclude when reading it correctly.

Click to expand...

Where are you seeing that the gathering of the elect mentioned in Matthew 24:31 is a slow process? It does not say that. You bring a lot of assumptions and speculation into this that isn't warranted.

robycop3 said:

Please show us from a reliable, unbiased work of history where it happened. Otherwise, it's still a future event.

Click to expand...

First, you show me where it indicates that Jesus was addressing people other than the first century church of Philadelphia in that text.

robycop3 said:

To answer your question, Jesus' commendation applied to that church at that time.

Click to expand...

What do you mean? Can you tell me exactly which part of Revelation 3:7-10 you believe was addressed specifically to the first century church of Philadelphia?

robycop3 said:

And the rapture is not a "coming". Jesus will call us to Him, not Him come down to us. His actual return to the earth comes later.

Click to expand...

Why do you not accept the terms that scripture uses?

1 Thess 4:14 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.

robycop3 said:

Holler til yer lips turn blue, but you're afraid to address the fact that the "trial/temptation" hasn't yet come. And NONE of us can be sure HOW Jesus will keep the Philadelphia church or His whole Church from it.

Click to expand...

How can He keep the Philadelphia church from it when they all died a long time ago?

Spiritual Jew said:

You just shared above that you see a first future coming of the Lord (1 Thess 4:13-17) and a second future coming of the Lord (Rev 19). His first coming happened long ago, obviously, so your 2 future comings of the Lord would be a second and third coming of the Lord, overall.

Click to expand...

The bible does not call Jesus coming for believers for the rapture/resurrection as first, second, third, fourth, fifth..... coming. Because Jesus does not come back to planet earth in that event.

The raptured saints, and the resurrected dead in Christ, meet Jesus in the air. It will be in the proximety of the earth, but not on the earth itself, unlike the second coming when Jesus returns and stands on the Mt. of Olives.

Spiritual Jew said:

Where is a 7 year period mentioned in the book of Revelation?

Click to expand...

The Amillenial view is a non-event driven view, therefore, it's adherents cannot form a timeline of events. Unlike Endtimes Eventism, which the events, including all of those found in Revelation, can be placed on a timeline, fitting the Ezekiel 39 infallible timeline framework for the end times.

The 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9 is still unfulfilled and the vision in Daniel 9:23 Gabriel spoke of, referring to the little's horn's stoppage of the daily sacrifice and transgression of desolation, in a 2300 day time unit, must fit within the 7 years.

Amillennial eschatology is basically a collection of fragmented denial principles, without any cohesive anaylysis of the events of the end times in a structured fashion.

Douggg said:

The Amillenial view is a non-event driven view, therefore, it's adherents cannot form a timeline of events.


Amillennial eschatology is basically a collection of fragmented denial principles, without any cohesive anaylysis of the events of the end times in a structured fashion.

Click to expand...

As to Amil, I think the above sums it up nicely. That's the impression I get about Amil as well. This doesn't mean I necessarily agree with your timeline of events, but at least you have a timeline of events, something Amils don't appear to have.

Douggg said:

The bible does not call Jesus coming for believers for the rapture/resurrection as first, second, third, fourth, fifth..... coming. Because Jesus does not come back to planet earth in that event.

Click to expand...

Not true
Heb 9
but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Doug said
The raptured saints, and the resurrected dead in Christ, meet Jesus in the air. It will be in the proximety of the earth, but not on the earth itself, unlike the second coming when Jesus returns and stands on the Mt. of Olives.


Heaven and earth pass away at his second coming. Its a judgment event like Noahs day

35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be

This is why Paul taught this..,

This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. 6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.


Doug said
The 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9 is still unfulfilled



Jesus completed the work that the Father gave him to do....it is finished.


Doug said
Amillennial eschatology is basically a collection of fragmented denial principles, without any cohesive anaylysis of the events of the end times in a structured fashion.


The NT revelation is rock solid. Jesus , Paul, Peter etc were clear Amills

I haven't been discussing these matters with other believers very often so I am genuinely unaware of how many people believe in various end time scenarios. So I have very little idea whether my concept of these matters is similar to many, few, or even nobody else.

I can't see much evidence for the coming of the Lord in the clouds of heaven (and the rapture whether literal or figurative) being a totally different event from the Second Coming prophesied return to the Mount of Olives. I could imagine these being two parts of one event, or two views of it by a prophet who was being shown visions of a distant (to him) future.

His concept of "clouds of heaven" and "meeting in the air" could be his way of understanding modern or even future technology. If you showed the prophet John of Patmos videotape of current or future events, we have to be aware that this would in itself be a shock, while you and I are used to watching television news or movie documentaries, John of Patmos would not have known such things existed before the time he received his vision (which sounds very much like a series of news segments because as I think almost everyone seems to agree, Revelations does not just follow some simple chronological pattern).

My view (and I am not sure what label I get for this) is that much of end time prophecy was validated in the period of the second world war, that the historical time since then has been figuratively a millennial kingdom, and that now we are in the little season and about to enter the second end time which will be where Jesus becomes visible and known. Right now, wherever Jesus is, the kingdom has only been established spiritually. The modern evangelical movement represents the response to that call (in the Spirit).

What is about to come is the final stage that most people would call "the second coming" although in my view, the second coming has been a two-part event somewhat mirror image to the end of the first advent, where Jesus was seen in the Spirit after the resurrection. Now it is a case of time moving in the opposite direction, the past two or three generations have had the opportunity (many rejected it) to be born again in the spirit, and to know Jesus on a very personal level. But the world awaits something more concrete, physically "real" (to those for whom Spirit-based reality is unknown or unattainable), and that will be the second coming as the world expects it.

Both end times had a tribulation, the tribulations of the 1941-45 period are fairly extensive and worse than most of the tribulations we are facing. But the modern variety is certainly bad enough and we are deep into that now. This is why I think it was underscored numerous times that the end would come like a thief in the night, because clearly most of the faithful think we are only in an early stage or about to enter the end times, when in fact the thief has the ladder up against the wall and is coming through the window any time now.

Seeing evidence of that on (let's say) television news would be a rapturous event, but the word rapture did not mean what it means in our experience, it meant "caught up, taken" although the modern meaning comes through in the text. You have to wonder if the "trump of God" is some sort of an indicator also. The current situation in the world very much resembles the whole panorama of end time prophecy, but in some ways is less cataclysmic than the final stages of the world war. So if we believe these to be the end times, how can we just toss out any possible significance to those tumultuous times? If my view is essentially valid, then we should hope that the "thousand years" is more of a figure of speech and perhaps a reference to the millennial time we have witnessed, rather than taking a literal view that we are seventy-five (or so) years into a thousand year allegorical time, meaning all these things we discuss are going to happen around 2945 A.D. -- which brings me to a final point, as I said not being that much in communication with people on specifics, is there much widespread belief that we are going to see the start of a literal thousand year kingdom, or is there a variety of views on where and when that happens in relation to a more permanent Kingdom age? This has always been a bit of a paradox in my view, that Jesus comes with "power and great glory" yet brings forth a kingdom that will still face a confrontation with the vanquished foes after a thousand years. In my view the beast, dragon and false prophet, who already had their main act in historical times, are loose now from the bottomless pit and are about to be given their final justice.

I would love to know which of the 57 varieties that makes me -- I get confused reading the descriptions and about all I know is that I'm not a pre-trib rapture believer. I suppose there are so many different combinations of beliefs that 57 may be a serious underestimation.

Douggg said:

The bible does not call Jesus coming for believers for the rapture/resurrection as first, second, third, fourth, fifth..... coming. Because Jesus does not come back to planet earth in that event.

Click to expand...

You believe He will descend from heaven twice in the future. Scripture doesn't teach that He will descend from heaven more than once, but that's what you believe.

The raptured saints, and the resurrected dead in Christ, meet Jesus in the air. It will be in the proximety of the earth, but not on the earth itself, unlike the second coming when Jesus returns and stands on the Mt. of Olives.

Click to expand...

There are a number of problems with you interpreting Zechariah 14 as relating to the second coming of Christ. One is that it forces you to believe in the ridiculous notion that animal sacrifices would be reinstituted. And, the other is that in verse 11 it says regarding Jerusalem "there shall be no more utter destruction". If that was talking about earthly Jerusalem during a future millennium and, if 2 Peter 3:10-12 has not yet occurred at that point, as you believe (I think) then that would make Zech 14:11 not true as it would be destroyed by fire when 2 Peter 3:10-12 occurs.

The Amillenial view is a non-event driven view, therefore, it's adherents cannot form a timeline of events.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. We do believe that the falling away from the faith has to occur, an overall increase in wickedness and the man of sin being revealed before the second coming (2 Thess 2:1-3). Some Amils, like myself, associate the time of the falling away and unrestrained wickedness as being equivalent to Satan's little season (Rev 20:3,7-9).

Unlike Endtimes Eventism, which the events, including all of those found in Revelation, can be placed on a timeline, fitting the Ezekiel 39 infallible timeline framework for the end times.

Click to expand...

The "Ezekiel 39 infallible timeline framework for the end times". You just like saying that, don't you? Too bad it's not even close to being infallible. It's quite fallible. What good is your timeline when it's full of errors as yours is? None.

The 7 year 70th week of Daniel 9 is still unfulfilled and the vision in Daniel 9:23 Gabriel spoke of, referring to the little's horn's stoppage of the daily sacrifice and transgression of desolation, in a 2300 day time unit, must fit within the 7 years.

Click to expand...

No, the 70th week of Daniel 9 was gloriously fulfilled by Christ establishing the new covenant in the middle of it with His death and resurrection. The 2nd half of the 70th week involved the confirming of the new covenant to the people of Israel through the preaching of the gospel with the power of the Holy Spirit before it started going out to the Gentiles.

Amillennial eschatology is basically a collection of fragmented denial principles, without any cohesive anaylysis of the events of the end times in a structured fashion.

Click to expand...

That is hilarious. Your so-called "structured fashion" is an absolute, convoluted mess that no one but you can comprehend.

Just because we see several different things happening on the day Christ returns doesn't mean there isn't any structure to what we believe.

So, here we are at the end of your post and it's quite apparent you didn't answer my question. So, I will ask it again. Where does the book of Revelation mention a 7 year time period?

DavidPT said:

As to Amil, I think the above sums it up nicely. That's the impression I get about Amil as well. This doesn't mean I necessarily agree with your timeline of events, but at least you have a timeline of events, something Amils don't appear to have.

Click to expand...

What good is his timeline of events when it is filled with false teaching? None. His timeline is entirely dependent on Daniel's 70th week being unfulfilled. Take that way and his timeline completely falls apart (not that it is coherent, anyway, but you know what I mean).

You do understand that there are different types of Amils, right? Partial preterists, historicists, idealists and futurists. Some Amils may have similar timelines to what premils typically have except for the timing of the thousand years.

In the case of idealist Amils like myself, here is our timeline. Starting with Christ's death and resurrection, that begins the thousand years. So, He began to reign then (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-22, etc.) and Satan was bound at that time (Heb 2:14-15, Matt 12:28-29, 1 John 3:8, etc.). His followers serve Him and often get persecuted (2 Tim 3:12) and this is an ongoing reality through the New Testament time period.

There are some signs given that indicate when His coming will be near. Those would include many false prophets rising up (Matt 24:11), many people hating each other (Matt 24:11), significantly increased wickedness (Matt 24:12, 2 Thess 2:7-12) and a mass falling away from the faith (2 Thess 2:1-3).

If we were meant to know the exact timing of things, as premils like yourself believe largely because of your understanding of the 70th week not being completely fulfilled and your belief that the time periods given in Revelation are all literal, then why did Jesus say "no one knows the day or hour" of His coming (Matt 24:36, Mark 13:32, Matt 25:13) and why did Paul say "of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you" (1 Thess 5:1)?

Spiritual Jew said:

He already came once long ago,

Click to expand...

Without scripture support what you say is just your opinion. Which you rely on so heavily to make any Biblical argument.

I'm returning your words back to you.

spiritual Jew said:

"You bring a lot of assumptions and speculation into this that isn't warranted."

Click to expand...

spiritual Jew continues said:

so you're talking about a second coming and a third coming. Which is completely unbiblical.

Click to expand...

On the contrary your words are based on your crazy quilt cherry picking strawman erecting eisogesis Amil theology which is completely unbiblical.

In contrast the pretrib rapture theology is consistently exegetical.

There is no basis whatsoever to see 1 Thess 4:13-17 as a separate event from Matthew 24:29-25:46 and Revelation 19:11-21.

Click to expand...

When Jesus spoke to the Jews there was no such thing as a Gentile church. So of course what he said to the Jews is separate from what Paul taught the Gentile believers about the rapture because Paul doesn't have a ministry to teach the Jews who didn't and still don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. So how could Jesus come rapture them out of the earth? They as an entire nation have no such promise.

Unless the Jews believe the gospels and the new testament they will be in the dark like Sardis.

What you don't understand

Click to expand...

That is a seeking to convert phrase.. no thanks.

is that Paul was not done talking about the second coming at the end of 1 Thess 4.

Click to expand...

Oh, now you use the words second coming that you earlier said was unbiblical.
Your cherry picking contradictions are like waves tossed on the sea. You don't know what you believe or don't believe.

I have no interest in being converted and wind up as scatterbrained as that.

You can object to what I post but you should refrain from using language as if you intend to convert me to your Amil beliefs. That won't ever happen.

He talked about what will happen to believers at the second coming in 1 Thess 4:13-18 and what will happen to unbelievers at the second coming in 1 Thess 5.

Click to expand...

Paul told the believers about the rapture,.. to be caught up is to be removed from the earth up to the air then on to heaven with the Lord in similar way that he had ascended up into the clouds and on to heaven in Acts.. as I already posted in my previous post.

And then continuing the context, Paul talked about the unbelievers AFTER the rapture would happen. Which I acknowledge in my previous post.

No, I have never believed in a pretrib rapture. It never made any sense to me at all at any time.

Click to expand...

What does not make sense is you using rapture text to claim that it's the second coming which you say is unbiblical.

I'm returning your words back to you.

spiritual Jew said:

you're talking about a second coming and a third coming. Which is completely unbiblical.

Click to expand...

spiritual Jew continues said:

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You are very unclear.

Click to expand...

Just because you daily dose yourself with the scatterbraining Amil theology doesn't make me responsible for anything being unclear to you.

I posted the passage to show that it speaks of "the coming of the Lord". There is only one future "coming of the Lord", so I didn't think I needed to explain that.

Click to expand...

That is a theological dodge. Since you are endeavoring to correct me as to what the phrase means to you.. then of course you ought to tell me instead of just enlarging and bolding it as if that explains it all.

Here is how I interpret the passage you're referencing.

1 Thess 4:14 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.

First of all, I see a lot of similarities in what is described there compared to what is described here:

Mark 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.​

I color coded each passage to show where I see the similarities.

Click to expand...

I TOLD YOU IN THE PREVIOUS POST THAT MY EYES CANNOT TOLERATE THE BRIGHT COLORS!

IS ENLARGED AND BOLDED THE ONLY WAY TO GET YOUR ATTENTION?

You using bright colors again is intolerable in more ways than one, it's disrespectful.

I used the blue color that I can tolerate. You didn't use a subdued color so I will not reply to any of it.

Both passages mention the coming of Christ from heaven.

Click to expand...

The context of His coming in 1 Thes.4:13-18 is only in regard to resurrection of the dead in Christ, and the alive in Christ and both are raptured.

Both passages also mention a gathering of believers from heaven and a gathering of believers from earth.

Click to expand...

But the surrounding context of those in the gospels (the Jews) in comparison of those in Paul's epistle (the Gentiles) makes obvious that the two events are happening at different timeframes.

Just because they both use the word "coming" and just because you can flip in your Bible from the gospels over to the epistles doesn't mean that the two events are the same event, or that they happen at the same time.

A strict and careful examination of the context, the different audiences, the different timeframes (before Christs crucifixion before the church age versus after Christs crucifixion and the birth of the church) will make obvious that they are separate occasions.
But those who don't distinguish those important things and only cherry pick the word "coming" will erroneously crush the two together and force them into one and thereby invent a false theology called Amil.

I believe the gathering of believers from "the uttermost part of heaven" are the souls of the dead in Christ which Jesus brings with Him as mentioned in 1 Thess 4:14.

Click to expand...

That is like cutting out 1 Thes.4:14 and pasting it to Mrk.13:27. That is what you do, not what Mark did.

just because you can flip in your Bible from the gospels over to the epistles doesn't mean that the two events are the same event, or that they happen at the same time.

Those in Mrk.13:26 that see the son of man coming in the clouds are alive and so are all the elect, non of them are dead. There's no words in vs.27 to convey that the dead are resurrected and taken from their graves alive to an earthly location where all are gathered together. The words "resurrect the dead" are not there.

You're making it say what it doesn't say. That is eisogesis.

Paul wrote about that here as well:

1 Thess 3:13 3 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

Click to expand...

Paul wrote his epistle to the Gentile saints. Therefore, the coming is the rapture, which he outlines in the next chapter 1 Thes.4:13-18. Paul doesn't talk about the Second Coming. The apostle John does in Revelation 19.

The gathering of believers "from the uttermost part of the earth" is those who are alive and remain who are then caught up together with the bodily raised dead in Christ to meet the Lord in the air.

Click to expand...

As Paul wrote of in 1 Thes.4:13-18.

That in no way makes that event the Second Coming.. nor does it state in Revelation of His actual Second Coming in chapter 19 that the dead are raised, nor are the elect gathered there at the same time that he's wiping the proverbial floor with the rebellious wicked people's army.

That is why the different events are found in different books, chapters, verses and timeframes. God did all that he could do to get over to people that they are different events.. but even he can't help the foolish.

You just shared above that you see a first future coming of the Lord (1 Thess 4:13-17)

Click to expand...

Verse 18 is included. That coming is to rapture the saints during the church age.

and a second future coming of the Lord (Rev 19).

Click to expand...

That happens at the end of the 7 year Tribulation to stop the antichrist and false prophet.

Both comings have different purposes.

His first coming happened long ago, obviously,

Click to expand...

You are negligent in only saying that because without scripture to support it, then it's only your unbiblical eisogesis. So, what scripture do you use to claim that?

so your 2 future comings of the Lord would be a second and third coming of the Lord, overall.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the rapture coming in 1 Thes.4:13-18 by calling it the second coming, and you are ignoring the Second Coming in Revelation 19 by saying that it previously happened long ago.

Now that is very much messed up eschatology! And further more, I'll use your words "You bring a lot of assumptions and speculation into this that isn't warranted."

You think that believers will be escorted by airplane to Christ? How can you expect to be taken seriously with an interpretation like that?

Click to expand...

Ohh.. I'll gladly apply that latter sentence to everything you've said.

But, you ignore my scripture proof and my logical historical proof that I gave in my previous post.
So nothing I said was of my own personal non scripture opinion. But you can't claim that with any intellectual honesty about the things you've said.

Where are you seeing that the gathering of the elect mentioned in Matthew 24:31 is a slow process? It does not say that.

Click to expand...

I agree. It doesn't say that. So why would you think that I said it? I can only guess that you are falsely interpreting what I actually said. That will happen when a person practices the same thing when reading the Bible.

fwGod said:

Without scripture support what you say is just your opinion. Which you rely on so heavily to make any Biblical argument.

I'm returning your words back to you.


On the contrary your words are based on your crazy quilt cherry picking strawman erecting eisogesis Amil theology which is completely unbiblical.

In contrast the pretrib rapture theology is consistently exegetical.
When Jesus spoke to the Jews there was no such thing as a Gentile church. So of course what he said to the Jews is separate from what Paul taught the Gentile believers about the rapture because Paul doesn't have a ministry to teach the Jews who didn't and still don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. So how could Jesus come rapture them out of the earth? They as an entire nation have no such promise.

Unless the Jews believe the gospels and the new testament they will be in the dark like Sardis.
That is a seeking to convert phrase.. no thanks.
Oh, now you use the words second coming that you earlier said was unbiblical.
Your cherry picking contradictions are like waves tossed on the sea. You don't know what you believe or don't believe.

I have no interest in being converted and wind up as scatterbrained as that.

You can object to what I post but you should refrain from using language as if you intend to convert me to your Amil beliefs. That won't ever happen.
Paul told the believers about the rapture,.. to be caught up is to be removed from the earth up to the air then on to heaven with the Lord in similar way that he had ascended up into the clouds and on to heaven in Acts.. as I already posted in my previous post.

And then continuing the context, Paul talked about the unbelievers AFTER the rapture would happen. Which I acknowledge in my previous post.
What does not make sense is you using rapture text to claim that it's the second coming which you say is unbiblical.

I'm returning your words back to you.
Just because you daily dose yourself with the scatterbraining Amil theology doesn't make me responsible for anything being unclear to you.
That is a theological dodge. Since you are endeavoring to correct me as to what the phrase means to you.. then of course you ought to tell me instead of just enlarging and bolding it as if that explains it all.
I TOLD YOU IN THE PREVIOUS POST THAT MY EYES CANNOT TOLERATE THE BRIGHT COLORS!

IS ENLARGED AND BOLDED THE ONLY WAY TO GET YOUR ATTENTION?

You using bright colors again is intolerable in more ways than one, it's disrespectful.

I used the blue color that I can tolerate. You didn't use a subdued color so I will not reply to any of it.
The context of His coming in 1 Thes.4:13-18 is only in regard to resurrection of the dead in Christ, and the alive in Christ and both are raptured.
But the surrounding context of those in the gospels (the Jews) in comparison of those in Paul's epistle (the Gentiles) makes obvious that the two events are happening at different timeframes.

Just because they both use the word "coming" and just because you can flip in your Bible from the gospels over to the epistles doesn't mean that the two events are the same event, or that they happen at the same time.

A strict and careful examination of the context, the different audiences, the different timeframes (before Christs crucifixion before the church age versus after Christs crucifixion and the birth of the church) will make obvious that they are separate occasions.
But those who don't distinguish those important things and only cherry pick the word "coming" will erroneously crush the two together and force them into one and thereby invent a false theology called Amil.
That is like cutting out 1 Thes.4:14 and pasting it to Mrk.13:27. That is what you do, not what Mark did.

just because you can flip in your Bible from the gospels over to the epistles doesn't mean that the two events are the same event, or that they happen at the same time.

Those in Mrk.13:26 that see the son of man coming in the clouds are alive and so are all the elect, non of them are dead. There's no words in vs.27 to convey that the dead are resurrected and taken from their graves alive to an earthly location where all are gathered together. The words "resurrect the dead" are not there.

You're making it say what it doesn't say. That is eisogesis.
Paul wrote his epistle to the Gentile saints. Therefore, the coming is the rapture, which he outlines in the next chapter 1 Thes.4:13-18. Paul doesn't talk about the Second Coming. The apostle John does in Revelation 19.
As Paul wrote of in 1 Thes.4:13-18.

That in no way makes that event the Second Coming.. nor does it state in Revelation of His actual Second Coming in chapter 19 that the dead are raised, nor are the elect gathered there at the same time that he's wiping the proverbial floor with the rebellious wicked people's army.

That is why the different events are found in different books, chapters, verses and timeframes. God did all that he could do to get over to people that they are different events.. but even he can't help the foolish.
Verse 18 is included. That coming is to rapture the saints during the church age.
That happens at the end of the 7 year Tribulation to stop the antichrist and false prophet.

Both comings have different purposes.
You are negligent in only saying that because without scripture to support it, then it's only your unbiblical eisogesis. So, what scripture do you use to claim that?
You are ignoring the rapture coming in 1 Thes.4:13-18 by calling it the second coming, and you are ignoring the Second Coming in Revelation 19 by saying that it previously happened long ago.

Now that is very much messed up eschatology! And further more, I'll use your words "You bring a lot of assumptions and speculation into this that isn't warranted."
Ohh.. I'll gladly apply that latter sentence to everything you've said.

But, you ignore my scripture proof and my logical historical proof that I gave in my previous post.
So nothing I said was of my own personal non scripture opinion. But you can't claim that with any intellectual honesty about the things you've said.
I agree. It doesn't say that. So why would you think that I said it? I can only guess that you are falsely interpreting what I actually said. That will happen when a person practices the same thing when reading the Bible.

Click to expand...

This is rich coming from you, who has not provided one clear proof-text that supports your teaching. Your views do not abide the Word. That is why they should be rejected. Before you lecture anyone, you need to look in the mirror and produce something of evidential worth.

sovereigngrace said:

This is rich coming from you, who has not one proof-text to bring to the table to support your teaching. Your views do not abide the Word. That is why they should be rejected. Before you lecture anyone, you need to look in the mirror and produce something of evidential worth.

Click to expand...

You can have whatever opinion that you like. I'm not trying to convert you. All I'm required to do is give a reason why I believe what I believe. I am not required to make you believe it. So you are barking up the wrong tree in telling me that I have to impress you with my responses.

fwGod said:

You can have whatever opinion that you like. I'm not trying to convert you. All I'm required to do is give a reason why I believe what I believe. I am not required to make you believe it. So you are barking up the wrong tree in telling me that I have to impress you with my responses.

Click to expand...

Pretribbers do not because they cannot. I get that. That is why many are abandoning that error. I am one of many.

fwGod said:

Without scripture support what you say is just your opinion. Which you rely on so heavily to make any Biblical argument.

I'm returning your words back to you.

Click to expand...

You said this in response to me saying He already came once long ago. Are you suggesting that Jesus didn't already come once long ago?

On the contrary your words are based on your crazy quilt cherry picking strawman erecting eisogesis Amil theology which is completely unbiblical.

Click to expand...

LOL That was clever. And ridiculous. Just like your doctrine.

In contrast the pretrib rapture theology is consistently exegetical.

Click to expand...

Not even close. Are you kidding me? Show me a clear passage that speaks of a rapture, followed by a period of tribulation, followed by the second coming of Christ. Good luck with that.

When Jesus spoke to the Jews there was no such thing as a Gentile church. So of course what he said to the Jews is separate from what Paul taught the Gentile believers about the rapture because Paul doesn't have a ministry to teach the Jews who didn't and still don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. So how could Jesus come rapture them out of the earth? They as an entire nation have no such promise.

Click to expand...

There has never been such thing as a Gentile church. Show me where that is taught in scripture. Instead, it teaches that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the church and that all believers, Jew or Gentile, are one in Christ Jesus in His church.

Unless the Jews believe the gospels and the new testament they will be in the dark like Sardis.
That is a seeking to convert phrase.. no thanks.
Oh, now you use the words second coming that you earlier said was unbiblical.
Your cherry picking contradictions are like waves tossed on the sea. You don't know what you believe or don't believe.

Click to expand...

LOL. You are incoherent. You're just babbling here. I never said the words "second coming" was unbiblical. I'm showing that there is only one second coming of Christ and He is not going to descend/come from heaven twice in the future as you believe.

I have no interest in being converted and wind up as scatterbrained as that.

Click to expand...

Anyone reading this post would find you to be the one who is scatterbrained.

You can object to what I post but you should refrain from using language as if you intend to convert me to your Amil beliefs. That won't ever happen.

Click to expand...

Look at the way you're talking to me in this post. And you're accusing me of using an offensive tone?

Paul told the believers about the rapture,.. to be caught up is to be removed from the earth up to the air then on to heaven with the Lord in similar way that he had ascended up into the clouds and on to heaven in Acts.. as I already posted in my previous post.

And then continuing the context, Paul talked about the unbelievers AFTER the rapture would happen. Which I acknowledge in my previous post.
What does not make sense is you using rapture text to claim that it's the second coming which you say is unbiblical.

Click to expand...

I have not once said that the second coming is unbiblical. You are interpreting my words about as well as you interpret scripture. I'm saying that everything within 1 Thess 4:14-5:6 happens on the same day when Christ returns. Am I being clear enough for you here?

I'm returning your words back to you.
Just because you daily dose yourself with the scatterbraining Amil theology doesn't make me responsible for anything being unclear to you.
That is a theological dodge. Since you are endeavoring to correct me as to what the phrase means to you.. then of course you ought to tell me instead of just enlarging and bolding it as if that explains it all.

Click to expand...

You deny that the rapture is a coming and then I showed you otherwise. And, now you're upset that I proved you wrong. I know it's not comfortable to be proven wrong, so I guess I can understand.

I TOLD YOU IN THE PREVIOUS POST THAT MY EYES CANNOT TOLERATE THE BRIGHT COLORS!

Click to expand...

Can you tell me which post number you are referring to here? I don't recall you ever telling me this before. I would not purposely try to cause you harm. If you think that's the kind of person I am then please just stop responding to me because I don't want anything to do with someone who thinks of me that way.

IS ENLARGED AND BOLDED THE ONLY WAY TO GET YOUR ATTENTION?

Click to expand...

When I want to emphasize a certain part of scripture, I enlarge and bold it and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. A vast majority don't have a problem with the colors, either, but I will refrain from using colors to highlight text when I respond to you from now on because I do respect people enough to not try to harm them even if I disagree with them.

You using bright colors again is intolerable in more ways than one, it's disrespectful.

Click to expand...

No, it is not. You are the first person to ever say anything about it. I color code text to show the similarities I see in two passages. There is nothing wrong with that the vast majority of the time, but it so happens that you are sensitive to it. So, I won't do it when I respond to you from now on.

The context of His coming in 1 Thes.4:13-18 is only in regard to resurrection of the dead in Christ, and the alive in Christ and both are raptured.
But the surrounding context of those in the gospels (the Jews) in comparison of those in Paul's epistle (the Gentiles) makes obvious that the two events are happening at different timeframes.

Click to expand...

Paul isn't talking about just a rapture or catching up of Gentiles. It will be the catching up of both Jew and Gentile believers. Why do you try to separate (Jews from Gentiles) what Jesus brought together (Jew and Gentile believers) by His blood long ago (Eph 1:11-22, Gal 3:26-29, etc.)?

Just because they both use the word "coming" and just because you can flip in your Bible from the gospels over to the epistles doesn't mean that the two events are the same event, or that they happen at the same time.

Click to expand...

If you see 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 as one event like I do then it lines up with what Paul taught elsewhere in 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Thess 2:1-12, and what Jesus taught in Matthew 24:29-51.

A strict and careful examination of the context, the different audiences, the different timeframes (before Christs crucifixion before the church age versus after Christs crucifixion and the birth of the church) will make obvious that they are separate occasions.
But those who don't distinguish those important things and only cherry pick the word "coming" will erroneously crush the two together and force them into one and thereby invent a false theology called Amil.
That is like cutting out 1 Thes.4:14 and pasting it to Mrk.13:27. That is what you do, not what Mark did.

Click to expand...

Yes, how dare I see several similarities between two passages and conclude that they are speaking of the same event?

just because you can flip in your Bible from the gospels over to the epistles doesn't mean that the two events are the same event, or that they happen at the same time.

Those in Mrk.13:26 that see the son of man coming in the clouds are alive and so are all the elect, non of them are dead. There's no words in vs.27 to convey that the dead are resurrected and taken from their graves alive to an earthly location where all are gathered together. The words "resurrect the dead" are not there.

Click to expand...

Just because two passages don't contain all of the same details doesn't mean they can't be related. Do you believe Mark 13:24-27 is the same event as Revelation 19:11-21? If so, how? They contain differing details, so based on your flawed method of interpretation they can't relate to each other.

fwGod said:

You can have whatever opinion that you like. I'm not trying to convert you. All I'm required to do is give a reason why I believe what I believe. I am not required to make you believe it. So you are barking up the wrong tree in telling me that I have to impress you with my responses.

Click to expand...

Well, your responses are definitely not impressive, so if that's your goal then you have succeeded.

Spiritual Jew said:

In the case of idealist Amils like myself, here is our timeline. Starting with Christ's death and resurrection, that begins the thousand years. So, He began to reign then (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-22, etc.) and Satan was bound at that time (Heb 2:14-15, Matt 12:28-29, 1 John 3:8, etc.). His followers serve Him and often get persecuted (2 Tim 3:12) and this is an ongoing reality through the New Testament time period.

Click to expand...

Amil therefore only recognizes two events in the bible.

1. Jesus's death and resurrection.
2. Satan bound. (false, but the Amil thinking, nonetheless)

Douggg said:

Amil therefore only recognizes two events in the bible.

1. Jesus's death and resurrection.
2. Satan bound. (false, but the Amil thinking, nonetheless)

Click to expand...

Why did you only quote that part of my post? I also said this:

"There are some signs given that indicate when His coming will be near. Those would include many false prophets rising up (Matt 24:11), many people hating each other (Matt 24:11), significantly increased wickedness (Matt 24:12, 2 Thess 2:7-12) and a mass falling away from the faith (2 Thess 2:1-3).".

I see that time period as being equivalent to Satan's little season (Rev 20:3,7-9).

Also, there are plenty of other events that happened in the Bible before Christ came as recorded in the Old Testament, events that happened while He was on the earth, events that happened with the early church as recorded in the book of Acts and other New Testament books and so on. So, nice try in deceptively trying to act as if I only believe that two events are recorded in the Bible.

I see some things that preterists think all happened in the past and futurists think all happen in the future to instead be things that happen on an ongoing basis throughout the New Testament time period. Such as the beast and dragon waging war with the saints and persecuting them.

2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Douggg said:

Amil therefore only recognizes two events in the bible.

1. Jesus's death and resurrection.
2. Satan bound. (false, but the Amil thinking, nonetheless)

Click to expand...

You are deliberately misrepresenting Amil. You must because you have no answer for the many climactic Scriptures presented by Amils. You can only duck around the evidence for so long.

Amil is Christ-centered. It sees Scripture's focus upon His first and second Advents. Pretrib denies this narrative. They invent an imaginary coming in- between these 2 pivotal events.

sovereigngrace said:

You are deliberately misrepresenting Amil. You must because you have no answer for the many climactic Scriptures presented by Amils. You can only duck around the evidence for so long.

Amil is Christ-centered. It sees Scripture's focus upon His first and second Advents. Pretrib denies this narrative. They invent an imaginary coming in- between these 2 pivotal events.

Click to expand...

Amil view has no timeline of events to duck around. Amil is basically a idealist philosophical view that doesn't deal in bible prophecy. Endtimes Eventism, on the other hand, produces a timeline for end times bible prophecy events.