Eschatology: The "Left Behind" narrative is unbiblical

tdidymas said:

The "left behind" narrative appears to conflict with scripture. It places the "rapture" before the antichrist is revealed, but 2 Thes. 2:3 clearly places the "rapture" (1st resurrection) AFTER the antichrist is revealed.

This issue came up when I read a statement by (the very respected and knowledgeable) David Jeremiah: "No, the Bible does not tell us who the Antichrist will be. In fact, Paul tells us in the second chapter of [2] Thessalonians that this coming world ruler will not be revealed until after the Rapture of the church. 'So if you ever reach the point where you think you know who he is, that must mean you have been left behind.'" (quoting Tim LaHaye, and agreeing). Quoted from "The Book of Signs," p. 248.

But that scripture clearly states the opposite (2 Thes. 2:3) "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed..."
"That day" is referring to v. 1 "the coming of our Lord and our gathering together to Him" (i.e., the "rapture", or the 1 Cor. 15 resurrection.
"the man of lawlessness" is obviously referring to The Antichrist (which is the beast of Rev. 13).

Before vs. after - can anyone explain this conflict?

I'm a skeptic when it comes to constructed chronologies of eshcatology. I would like to believe in the Pre-trib idea, but I'm having a rough time with it. I haven't found anything anywhere that adequately explains this conflict. All I've seen so far is assertions and opinions. Can anyone help?

Click to expand...

I believe in pre-trib rapture for the following reasons:

1) Jesus says no knows the day of His coming but God alone. If it was in the middle, or after the Great Tribulation, then we know the day.

2) Luke 21 36 But stay awake at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” Escape all things = the rapture happens before the tribulation.

3) Where is the Church during the Tribulation? Will the Church experience the wrath of God as He pours His judgement upon the earth? There are many believers that believe this will happen. They believe the Church has not lived up to the spotless bride level, so we need some straightening up.
I'm trying to understand the bridegroom (Jesus) mindset in this situation. 'My dear, I can't wait to marry you, but I don't know if you are dedicated enough to me yet. So I am going to put you through misery , so you learn to love me more'

If we are in Christ, that means He took the wrath of God for our sin on Him. God cannot judge his people in any way because His people have already been judged in Jesus. When Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath he drank it to the dregs. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus and that means on the final day and every day until then. God is never judging you for your sin if you are in Christ. Why would then Christians experience God's wrath?

4) Consider the following passages, and the preposition from
1 Thess 1 9 For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Revelation 3 10 Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.


5) Chapter 2&3 of the book of revelation describe the Church during it's age, chapter 4 starts like this ' After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”'. So from chapter 4, we have what happens after the age of the Church. Notice also how from chapter 4 the language changes to the OT language, we have the temple etc. Something happens to Church between chapter 3&4 of Revelation. The word 'church' occurs 19 times in chapters 1-3, then nothing until chapter 22. Where did we go? I think the first verse of chapter 4 is very telling.

tdidymas said:

The "left behind" narrative appears to conflict with scripture. It places the "rapture" before the antichrist is revealed, but 2 Thes. 2:3 clearly places the "rapture" (1st resurrection) AFTER the antichrist is revealed.

This issue came up when I read a statement by (the very respected and knowledgeable) David Jeremiah: "No, the Bible does not tell us who the Antichrist will be. In fact, Paul tells us in the second chapter of [2] Thessalonians that this coming world ruler will not be revealed until after the Rapture of the church. 'So if you ever reach the point where you think you know who he is, that must mean you have been left behind.'" (quoting Tim LaHaye, and agreeing). Quoted from "The Book of Signs," p. 248.

But that scripture clearly states the opposite (2 Thes. 2:3) "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed..."
"That day" is referring to v. 1 "the coming of our Lord and our gathering together to Him" (i.e., the "rapture", or the 1 Cor. 15 resurrection.
"the man of lawlessness" is obviously referring to The Antichrist (which is the beast of Rev. 13).

Before vs. after - can anyone explain this conflict?

I'm a skeptic when it comes to constructed chronologies of eshcatology. I would like to believe in the Pre-trib idea, but I'm having a rough time with it. I haven't found anything anywhere that adequately explains this conflict. All I've seen so far is assertions and opinions. Can anyone help?

Click to expand...

It is a bit easier read from the Aramaic Peshitta 500 A.D.

2Thessalonians

2:1 - NOW we beseech you, my brethren, concerning the coming of our LORD Jesus Christ, and concerning our gathering together with him,

2:2 - That you let not your minds be hastily excited or troubled, neither by word, nor by prophecy of the spirit, nor by an epistle, supposedly from us, stating that “the day of the Lord” [wrath] is at hand.

2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, unless it is preceded by a rebellion or (the departure) and the man of sin be revealed as the son of perdition,

2:4 - Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is reverenced; so that even in the temple of God, he sits as a god, and shows himself, as though he were a god.

2:5 - Do you not remember, that when I was with you I told you these things?

2:6 - And now you know what has prevented him from being revealed in his time.

2:7 - For the mystery of iniquity is already at work: until he who now is the obstacle be taken out of the way.

2:8 - Then shall the Wicked be exposed, that one whom our LORD Jesus shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the revelation of his coming:

tdidymas said:

The "left behind" narrative appears to conflict with scripture. It places the "rapture" before the antichrist is revealed, but 2 Thes. 2:3 clearly places the "rapture" (1st resurrection) AFTER the antichrist is revealed.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've been shouting this from the housetops since the mid-70s. It all starts with the predicate that God did not determine to bring wrath upon the Church at the Coming of Christ. So instead of just saying Christ is coming back to give us immortality it was thought that Christ must secretly come back first in a hidden gnostic revelation of his Coming in order to deliver people from the entire reign of Antichrist--something that goes against the whole flow of Revelation. This is probably why we were told not to mess with the content of that book!

Pretribbers add their own false content to the book of Revelation, and they take from it the very experience we were warned to endure in. People, believe the book--not the Pretribbers!

tdidymas said:

This issue came up when I read a statement by (the very respected and knowledgeable) David Jeremiah: "No, the Bible does not tell us who the Antichrist will be. In fact, Paul tells us in the second chapter of [2] Thessalonians that this coming world ruler will not be revealed until after the Rapture of the church. 'So if you ever reach the point where you think you know who he is, that must mean you have been left behind.'" (quoting Tim LaHaye, and agreeing). Quoted from "The Book of Signs," p. 248.

Click to expand...

I have to admit I enjoy watching some of the Left Behind kind of movies. But it's more like Sci Fi or post-apocalyptic movies than truth. What is true are their depictions of Christian life under Antichristian persecution.

tdidymas said:

But that scripture clearly states the opposite (2 Thes. 2:3) "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed..."
"That day" is referring to v. 1 "the coming of our Lord and our gathering together to Him" (i.e., the "rapture", or the 1 Cor. 15 resurrection.
"the man of lawlessness" is obviously referring to The Antichrist (which is the beast of Rev. 13).

Before vs. after - can anyone explain this conflict?

Click to expand...

Yes, I've been explaining this for decades.

tdidymas said:

I'm a skeptic when it comes to constructed chronologies of eshcatology. I would like to believe in the Pre-trib idea, but I'm having a rough time with it. I haven't found anything anywhere that adequately explains this conflict. All I've seen so far is assertions and opinions. Can anyone help?

Click to expand...

Yes, do you have all day?

tdidymas said:

The question I asked was mainly for pre-tribbers to try to work around it. Mostly they avoid it, or (like LaHaye and Jeremiah) say the opposite without working around it. Can you provide a link to the eschatology you agree with, so I can spend some time on it? Tks.

Click to expand...

My eschatology is my eschatology. I've been working at it, praying about it, for years. I belong to the school of Postrib, and have read books like Ladd's "The Blessed Hope," Gundry's "The Church and the Tribulation," and James McKeever's materials. I wrote to encourage Postrib advocates like Pat Robertson and Walter Martin. I don't think I agree 100% with any of them. Not a big thing with me.

The modern Premillennial movement, of which I'm a part, unfortunately had a major impetus with Edward Irving and John Darby, who combined a Pretribulational Rapture of the Church with belief in a future Antichrist and a future Millennium. Although I would agree with much of this, I do not agree with the Pretribulational Rapture of the Church for the same reason you reject it, because Paul taught the opposite in 2 Thes 2.

In fact, I had become associated with the Jesus Movement in the 70s, who were largely Pretrib. But when I began a project of Bible memorization, I memorized 2 Thessalonians and to my astonishment Paul was teaching against Pretrib Doctrine! And so, I abandoned my Pretrib beliefs for Postribulationism. I did suffer some doubts when I moved to Southern California and read Chuck Smith's Commentary on the Revelation. But eventually I had to face the reality of what Paul taught, and stop trying to get around it.

I consider it a personal call to come out against Pretrib. But I don't consider it my job to change minds. I just tell the truth. People have to see for themselves. How much it matters is not my concern. It's just one of many truths I feel led to deal with.

I'm sorry but there are too many side issues that I cannot spend the time to provide links or arguments for. The idea of Postribulationism is simple. Christ returns only at one moment, to destroy Antichrist and to initiate his new age and Kingdom.

This is when the dead saints will rise, and when all Christians up to that point, who are truly born again, will receive immortal bodies and reign forever together with Christ. All of the other matters, connected to this, just as the beliefs about Antichrist, will have to wait until we discuss them. But I think it's good to pursue them.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

I believe in pre-trib rapture for the following reasons:

1) Jesus says no knows the day of His coming but God alone. If it was in the middle, or after the Great Tribulation, then we know the day.

Click to expand...

The reason nobody is to know the Day of Christ's Coming is to separate those who live in readiness, or in moral purity, from those who live unconcerned about God's judgment. Preparing for judgment in advance of a trial gives the defendant plenty of time to prep for giving the "right answers." If you don't know when you're going to be judged, you will hardly prepare indefinitely and end up committing to who you really are.

When the Antichrist arises, it won't be like everybody gets stamped with "666," though the films and the books do portray it that way. It will be much more subtle than that. I know a lady who went through WW2 and thought Hitler was the Antichrist. But most likely did not think that, and only saw him as a dictator. There have been many such "antichrists" in history. "666" is just code from a restored Roman Empire in Europe, since 666 is the number of the 1st Roman king.

Those who suspect we are in the 3.5 years of Antichrist's reign may surmise that Christ will return at the end of the 1260 days. But that's not what we're told in the book of Revelation. At the end of that time the 2 Witnesses lay in the street for 3 more days. And following that there is a mass mobilization of troops from the East to Armageddon in Israel. This will likely take some time, and we aren't given an exact time like we are for Antichrist's reign.

The exact time of 1260 days is given for Antichrist's reign because for that time he will be beyond defeat, and will rule without opposition. But after 1260 days it appears that armies will march, indicating Antichrist's invincibility loses its luster, and the armies of the East march against him, located in Israel.

I don't really know if this is the true scenario, but we know that Satan and the Antichrist call for the armies of the East to mobilize to Armageddon. This may be an effort to destroy any sense of a Christianization of Israel and of Europe. And the point is that there is no predicted time for Christ to return. It takes eyes to see what is happening, and the wise will know how short the time is, if even the exact day is unknown.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

2) Luke 21 36 But stay awake at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” Escape all things = the rapture happens before the tribulation.

Click to expand...

This happened in 66-70 AD, when the Romans, the AoD, came to Jerusalem to destroy it and the temple. This judgment from God was directed at the rebellious Jews, and not at believing Jews, who were told to flee to the desert. And they did flee to Pella.

The wrath not designed for Christians is eternal wrath--not Antichristian persecution. We are told that we cannot escape all troubles, though at times we can be delivered, as King David was.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

3) Where is the Church during the Tribulation?

Click to expand...

The book of Revelation was written to 7 churches in Asia to warn them that before Christ returns there will be antichrists in the present age. We are to overcome them by our faith and by our witness.

Showing examples of believers escaping outpouring of wrath against pagans is not proof of Pretribism. Saying that John was caught up to heaven to see visions of the future does not prove the Church will be caught up before the revelation of Antichrist.

When the Holy Spirit teaches, He does not mince words. Pretribism is not based on biblical theology, but upon mystical twists of biblical allusions that Christians want to believe will make us immune from suffering. Good luck!

tdidymas said:

Just a couple of questions to begin:
1. Who was the 1st Roman "king" you're talking about, and how do you work out 666 to his name?
2. What's the chronology of "meeting the Lord in the air" and reigning with Him (on Earth?) when He comes?

I saw #1 in your other post, and #2 is a pre-trib objection to a resurrection when Jesus comes to rule. Thus, they have Jesus and the saints watching the 7 yr trib from the sky.

Click to expand...

I've posted this a few times....

There are many speculations, almost as old as the Bible text itself, regarding the meaning of 666 or to whom it is referencing. The Catholic Church states that Irenaeus (130 - 202 A.D.), an early church "father," wrote about whom this number might reference. He stated that the Greek word "Lateinos," when given their corresponding Greek values and added up (30 + 1 + 330 + 5 + 10 + 50 + 70 + 200), equals 666. The word itself means "Latin man."

Lateinos is perhaps the equivalent of Latino. That is, the Antichrist will be Latin, or Roman.

King Lateinos was the founder of Rome and the Roman Empire. In the Greek, every letter has a numerical value. The numerical value for “Lateinos” is 666. Therefore, the beast is clearly identified as the Roman Empire, as the number 666 identifies the founder of the Roman Empire–Lateinos.

I don't believe any of the Church Fathers believed Nero was 666 or the Antichrist.

The chronology of Christ's Coming is based on Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes to earth from the clouds, having a mandate to establish God's Kingdom on earth. He does this by destroying the Beast Empire, which by default means the saints are rescued. The dead are raised, and the faithful are given immortality.

Then, I believe a Millennial Kingdom will be set up. Some think that Kingdom is already here--I do not.

The idea that the saints must go up 7 years before Christ comes has no biblical basis. It is just a thought out sense that before you can come, you must 1st leave. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that this all takes place in a moment, in the "twinkling of an eye."

The whole reason we leave is to equip us to come back with Christ to the earth. In order to participate in the establishment of his Kingdom we must 1st become like he is, immortal.

So all of this takes place in an instant. We are called up to heaven in order to participate in his return from heaven. We instantly become immortal so as to rule with him on the new earth. Some of my fellows have a different view of the Millennium, and that's okay. We would agree on some of this. Only Dispensationalists believe in this 2-stage sense of Christ's Coming.

tdidymas said:

The "left behind" narrative appears to conflict with scripture. It places the "rapture" before the antichrist is revealed, but 2 Thes. 2:3 clearly places the "rapture" (1st resurrection) AFTER the antichrist is revealed.
This issue came up when I read a statement by (the very respected and knowledgeable) David Jeremiah: "No, the Bible does not tell us who the Antichrist will be. In fact, Paul tells us in the second chapter of [2] Thessalonians that this coming world ruler will not be revealed until after the Rapture of the church. 'So if you ever reach the point where you think you know who he is, that must mean you have been left behind.'" (quoting Tim LaHaye, and agreeing). Quoted from "The Book of Signs," p. 248.
But that scripture clearly states the opposite (2 Thes. 2:3) "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed..."

Click to expand...

"That day" is referring to v. 1 "the coming of our Lord and our gathering together to Him" (i.e., the "rapture", or the 1 Cor. 15 resurrection.
"the man of lawlessness" is obviously referring to The Antichrist (which is the beast of Rev. 13).
Before vs. after - can anyone explain this conflict?
I'm a skeptic when it comes to constructed chronologies of eshcatology. I would like to believe in the Pre-trib idea, but I'm having a rough time with it. I haven't found anything anywhere that adequately explains this conflict. All I've seen so far is assertions and opinions. Can anyoneEs help?

Click to expand...

Eschatology is based in interpretation of prophetic riddles subject to more than one interpretation.
There is only one rule for interpretation not to be disqualified: it must be in agreement with NT apostolic teaching.
Much of purported eschatology is in disagreement with NT apostolic teaching and is, therefore, in error.

tdidymas said:

Irenaeus thought that Lateinos was the most likely prospect, although he cited other possibilities, and in the context of his warning about speculation. To conclude it's that is a shakey foundation. Besides that, isn't Lateinos just a different rendering of Latinus? Like Irenaeus wrote, many different names work out to 666, especially if you try different renderings of them, like they did Nero.

It seems I need to be more specific on the 2nd question: 1 Thes. 4:17 "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."
and:
Zech. 14:4-5 "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives... and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee."
If these two passages are descriptive of the 2nd Advent, it appears to be 2 different events, one with the saints going up into the air, and one with the saints coming down with Christ to reign on Earth. (with Rev. 20:4 "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

Do you see these as two separate events?

Click to expand...

Yes, they are the same event to me, though each passage is describing something different about it. In one, Paul is describing the fact Christians must meet with Christ where he is in order to participate in his Coming. In the second case, the Prophet is describing how Christ will bring deliverance to Israel at the time of her restoration and deliverance.

In the case of Zechariah, the OT focus exclusively on Israel is in focus. At that time only Israel was God's People. So the Prophet is describing how Christ's 2nd Coming impacts Israel with respect to hostility coming from their enemies elsewhere.

In the case of Paul's description God was gathering people outside of Israel to join Israel in this final deliverance. Christians will be the saints who is coming with Christ at his 2nd Coming. Israel will just begin with Christ at his Coming. That is the time of their national restoration.

tdidymas said:

Irenaeus thought that Lateinos was the most likely prospect, although he cited other possibilities, and in the context of his warning about speculation. To conclude it's that is a shakey foundation. Besides that, isn't Lateinos just a different rendering of Latinus? Like Irenaeus wrote, many different names work out to 666, especially if you try different renderings of them, like they did Nero.
It seems I need to be more specific on the 2nd question: 1 Thes. 4:17 "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."
and:

Click to expand...

Zech. 14:4-5 "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives... and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee."
If these two passages are descriptive of the 2nd Advent, it appears to be 2 different events, one with the saints going up into the air, and one with the saints coming down with Christ to reign on Earth. (with Rev. 20:4 "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."
Do you see these as two separate events?

Click to expand...

These are the same event--a parousia; i.e., a going out to meet a dignitary coming to a city to welcome and accompany him into the city, as in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem--the saints going out (up) to meet Jesus in the air in his second coming to earth, welcoming him and accompanying him back down to earth to assist in the Judgment.

tdidymas said:

The "left behind" narrative appears to conflict with scripture. It places the "rapture" before the antichrist is revealed, but 2 Thes. 2:3 clearly places the "rapture" (1st resurrection) AFTER the antichrist is revealed.

This issue came up when I read a statement by (the very respected and knowledgeable) David Jeremiah: "No, the Bible does not tell us who the Antichrist will be. In fact, Paul tells us in the second chapter of [2] Thessalonians that this coming world ruler will not be revealed until after the Rapture of the church. 'So if you ever reach the point where you think you know who he is, that must mean you have been left behind.'" (quoting Tim LaHaye, and agreeing). Quoted from "The Book of Signs," p. 248.

But that scripture clearly states the opposite (2 Thes. 2:3) "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed..."
"That day" is referring to v. 1 "the coming of our Lord and our gathering together to Him" (i.e., the "rapture", or the 1 Cor. 15 resurrection.
"the man of lawlessness" is obviously referring to The Antichrist (which is the beast of Rev. 13).

Before vs. after - can anyone explain this conflict?

I'm a skeptic when it comes to constructed chronologies of eshcatology. I would like to believe in the Pre-trib idea, but I'm having a rough time with it. I haven't found anything anywhere that adequately explains this conflict. All I've seen so far is assertions and opinions. Can anyone help?

Click to expand...

Do you know that 2 Th 2:3 never had any word related to "falling away" until the KJV used "falling away" in verse 3 in 1611? The first KJV Bible used "falling away" for the first time, in verse 3, in 1611. You may not know this either: KJV would never say why they made this sea change in verse 3 by using "falling away." They still won't answer for it. I know, because I've tried. I can prove they've dodged this question since 1611, when inquiry minds wanted to know then why such a drastic change was made in verse 3. The original word in the Greek verse 3 translates to "apostasia." It has five definitions. The top two definitions to "apostasia" are (1) defection/revolt; and (2) departure/disappearance. There you have two definitions for spiritual departure (as in falling away) in definition (1); and physical departure (like a rapture) as in definition (2).

When you know those things, reading 2 Th 2:1-3 can begin to make sense. What else you need to know is what motivated Paul to even write those three verses. Paul's flock received a fraudulent letter, made to look like it was from Paul, that said they had missed the rapture and were in the Trib. When you know that much (which is all in those three verses), you will properly understand those verses. So, in verse 1, Paul raised the topic of the rapture. In verse 2, he said not to be deceived by certain things, such as a fraudulent letter made to look like it came from Paul, saying that they had missed the rapture and were in the Day of the Lord (Trib). In verse 3, Paul corrects that deception that tricked his flock. The verses from early Bibles that say these exact things, are below. The three verses below are all from early English Bibles. They are like the original English versions of 2 Th 2:1-3:

2 Th 2:1 (Geneva Bible): Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him,

2 Th 2:2 (NLT): Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us.

2 Th 2:3 (Geneva Bible): Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

Notice in verse 3, the word "departing" is used. In the definitions above for "apostasia," only definition (2) fits because "departing "in Greek means physically departing, as in a rapture. That is what Paul was actually teaching in 2 Th 2:1-3. He needed to address the topic of the rapture (verse 1). And to address the deception from a fraudulent letter made to look like it came from Paul (verse 2). To put this matte to rest, that day (Day of the Lord --- Trib) will not come, except there come a departing (a physical departing) first, ...

Paul, who wrote earlier about the rapture in 1 Th 4:16-17, would only mean in 2 Th 2:3, that the rapture will happen first, before the Trib. Therefore, the pre-Trib timing of the rapture is factually in early bibles.

tdidymas said:

I'm a skeptic when it comes to constructed chronologies of eshcatology. I would like to believe in the Pre-trib idea, but I'm having a rough time with it. I haven't found anything anywhere that adequately explains this conflict. All I've seen so far is assertions and opinions. Can anyone help?

Click to expand...

2 Thes. 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him... 3 ...that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition...

The key phrase is "the Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ." If you understand what the word Parousia means, then there can be no mistake that the Son of Perdition will precede the Rapture. Because "the/His/Your Parousia" is the term used in all of the great resurrection and rapture passages of the NT:

" 1) The parousia will be preceded by the Abomination of Desolation, the Great Tribulation, false christs, wars, famines and pestilences; and thereafter signs in the heavens and cataclysms on earth. Matt. 24:3-31.; much of which is mirrored in Rev. 6:1-14. And also by the apostasia, and the coming of the Son of Perdition/Lawless One. 2 Thes. 2:1-4, 8

" 2) The parousia will be concurrent with the resurrection of the dead, the gathering together of the believing saints by the angels of heaven, and these saints being caught up/raptured into the clouds of heaven. Matt. 24:30-31; 1 Cor. 15:21-23; 1 Thes 2:19; 3:13; 4:14-17 "

(For the complete article from which the above is quoted, go here: The Parousia of the Son of Man

The only answer pre-tribbers ever come up with to try to deny the above, is that they claim there must be TWO "the Parousias." Sorry, but "the" means only one. And NT prophecy is explicitly in agreement that it will precede the Son of Perdition. (Who, by the way, is AN antichrist, not THE antichrist, because there is to be no single antichrist, but "many antichrists." 1 John 2:18)

Ivan Hlavanda said:

I believe in pre-trib rapture for the following reasons:

1) Jesus says no knows the day of His coming but God alone. If it was in the middle, or after the Great Tribulation, then we know the day.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. But regardless, Jesus said "no one knows": present tense verb. He did NOT say, "and no one will ever know" (future tense). Don't add to the Word a presumption that isn't stated.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

2) Luke 21 36 But stay awake at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” Escape all things = the rapture happens before the tribulation.

Click to expand...

Here we have the standard pre-trib presumption that the Trib and the Wrath are the same thing. But the Word nowhere says anything of the kind. They are two different things, as the contexts of the two terms show.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

3) Where is the Church during the Tribulation? Will the Church experience the wrath of God as He pours His judgement upon the earth?

Click to expand...

Same erroneous presumption. The Tribulation precedes "the Parousia of the Son of Man" (Matt. 24:15, 21, 27). Whereas the Wrath of God comes immediately after the Parousia and the rapture that comes at that event. See the above post.

Ivan Hlavanda said:

5) Chapter 2&3 of the book of revelation describe the Church during it's age, chapter 4 starts like this ' After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”'. So from chapter 4, we have what happens after the age of the Church. Notice also how from chapter 4 the language changes to the OT language, we have the temple etc. Something happens to Church between chapter 3&4 of Revelation. The word 'church' occurs 19 times in chapters 1-3, then nothing until chapter 22. Where did we go? I think the first verse of chapter 4 is very telling.

Click to expand...

"The Church," speaking of the WHOLE Church, is never spoken of in Rev. 2-3, only seven individual churches. This argument is a red herring. The first five seals of Revelation 6 speak of the same things that Jesus did in Matthew 24:5-11; that is, events of the Great Tribulation. The 6th seal speaks of the same heavenly and earthly cataclysms that Jesus foretold in Matthew 24:29; followed by the appearance of Christ in Matthew 24:30-31 = Revelation 6:16-17. The time of God's Wrath begins only then -- "His wrath has come" ; that Wrath being post-trib.

If one just reads the passages in their literal context, without adding any presumptions into them, then it is really not that hard to understand the correct sequence of events.

Jeffrey Bowden said:

Do you know that 2 Th 2:3 never had any word related to "falling away" until the KJV used "falling away" in verse 3 in 1611? The first KJV Bible used "falling away" for the first time, in verse 3, in 1611.

Click to expand...

The word used in the Greek manuscripts of 2 Th 2:3 is apostasia (apostasy), which meaning is "falling away," and which the KJV translated correctly.

tdidymas said:

I don't agree that we would know the day or the hour. Does the apostle Paul imply that in 2 Thes. 2:3? I don't think so. Jesus said "when you see these signs..." which means the general time doesn't come as a surprise. But we have to be ready at all times, whether we see signs or not. But the fact that Jesus alerted us to signs, and Paul puts the resurrection chronologically after the rise of the antichrist, it is clear we can look for those things to happen before expecting the 2nd advent.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think that even though we don't know the day or the hour one can know the general time. He states to watch for those signs so that one's house need not be broken up. And states that if one does see "all of these things" come to pass, we can know it's at the door. We can lift our heads up because our redemption is near.

And anyone reading Matthew 24 for the first time without any preconceived ideas about the timing would see that Christ returns immediately the tribulation of those days. And Paul is a second witness to this fact after nailing down the timing in 2nd Thessalonians.

tdidymas said:

Apostasy means a departing from the truth or forsaking the faith, according to other Biblical contexts, and according to the lexicons I have access to. Therefore, the KJV and all 12 other translations I have access to are correct in saying it's a falling away (from the truth), an apostasy, a rebellion, etc., and it is in the context of "the man of lawlessness". Therefore "departing" in the Geneva Bible means departing from the truth or departing from the law of God, since "man of sin" and "man of lawlessness" is equivalent.

Click to expand...

True. Apostasy as always meant departing from the faith/truth. It's written in more than one place as well that some will depart from the faith in the latter times. And the words falling away/fall away always have that intent/meaning.