Is the Rapture shown in 1Thess 4 showing in Revelation? If so, where?

[iamlamad]

Yes, there is a correlation. The wilderness idea in Rev.12 is a symbol, not a literal wilderness. The subject of the wilderness of Rev.12:14 forward is about God's protection of His servants spiritually, not being deceived by the waters 'AS' a flood coming out of the serpent's mouth after the woman (Church).

Even with comparing it to the OT wilderness when Israel trekked forty years in, that period signified a period of purification, God weeding out the rebellious among Israel during that time. That is how the wilderness idea in Rev.12 is used, about a period of spiritual purification, not a physical escape. The way it is easy to know this is because if the wilderness was about a literal physical escape of the woman, then the serpent would NOT be able to cast the flood out of his mouth after the woman. We see the earth helps the woman, and swallows up the flood of waters, showing they are right in the midst of battle with that serpent.

If you are going to symbolize away the true meaning of scripture, go ahead, but the day will come when you will know the truth and regret making symbols of plain scripture. I will not even comment.

 

[Davy]

It is not a lie; the problem is that we disagree. You simply don't understand the Day of the Lord.

We disagree because you are not following the Scriptures as written. It's that simple, as I have already proven it several times. That's why you cannot answer my question put forth to you about the 2 Peter 3:10-12 Scripture regarding the "day of the Lord".

Do you understands "comes" is different than "duration?" Peter is only telling us that the Day of the Lord will START with no warning.

This is EXACTLY what Paul tells us in his now famous rapture passage. The rapture sequence of events will begin SUDDENLY with no warning - because HE comes as a thief in the night. When HE comes, the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised, then those alive will be raised while at the same time those left behind will NOT be raised but will suffer Paul's sudden destruction beginning of the Day of the Lord.

Why is this so difficult? It is written out plainly. And John shows us the same exact BEGINNING of the Day of the Lord. The problem is, what is written does not fit your theory - and instead of adjusting your theory, you rearrange scripture to fit. Davy, it is not wise! Just form your theories from the word of God AS WRITTEN. Don't try to rearrange, as if the Holy Spirit did not know the proper order of things.

You keep presenting BS about what is plain while disregarding the simplicity of the actual Scripture as written.

2 Peter 3:10-12
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
KJV

In that 2 Peter 3 Chapter, Peter was covering the subject of God ending world ages. He covered God's ending of the time before Noah with a flood over the whole earth. And Peter showed how this present world we are now in is preserved unto destruction by fire. Now, do you believe the flood of Noah's day destroyed the whole earth? I do, and it's written that it did. And regardless, it targeted God's enemies on earth, just as the destruction by fire on the last day of this world will also. And that means the reign of the wicked on earth when that happens... IS OVER! Tribulation ENDED! Not begun.

So trying to say that "day of the Lord" event of fire burning man's works off this earth happens over an expanded period of time is just balderdash, junk speech, and goes directly against the written Scripture by Peter.

Next, when something makes plain sense as written, don't try to make it into a symbol of something else!

Sudden does NOT mean an extended period of time like you try to say

It seems you lack understanding of the start of something versus the ending of something. These scriptures are speaking of the sudden BEGINNING, and have nothing to do with duration!

Davy, have you EVER read any of the commentaries?

The fact is, Peter and Paul are saying the same thing, so I saw no need to quote it or even talk about it. He is speaking of the START, not the duration or the finish.

Here is a quote from the first commentary I found:
"The Day of the Lord refers to God’s special interventions into the course of world events to judge His enemies, accomplish His purpose for history, and thereby demonstrate who He is—the sovereign God of the universe.1

There is some disagreement concerning whether the phrase “Day of the Lord” refers just to the time of tribulation, or whether it also includes the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth which follows.
The most common biblical term for the seven years of Tribulation in both testaments is the Day of Jehovah or Day of the Lord. There are many who use the term, the Day of the Lord, to apply to both the Tribulation and the Messianic Kingdom. This is generally based on the assumption that the phrases, the Day of the Lord and that day, are synonymous. While it is true that the expression, that day, has a wide meaning that includes both the Tribulation and the Messianic Kingdom, in those passages where the actual phrase, the Day of the Lord (Jehovah) is used, they never refer to the Millennium, but always to the Tribulation.2

We believe there are reasons to understand the phrase as including the millennial reign:

1. Peter’s description of the Day of the Lord appears to include events following the Millennium"

Again I have a simple question: why not just believe the text as written.John shows us all the Old Testament signs for the day, the tells us the day has come. Why argue?

You're only trying to drum up support from other deceived ones like yourself to believe your lies.

The word "sudden" that Apostle Paul used in 1 Thess.5 is a Greek word that literally means 'SUDDENLY', 'UNEXPECTED' (Strong's no.160). That "day of the Lord" will come "as a thief in the night" like Paul and Peter said, meaning it will be a SUDDEN destruction upon the wicked also, like Paul said.

 

[Davy]

If you are going to symbolize away the true meaning of scripture, go ahead, but the day will come when you will know the truth and regret making symbols of plain scripture. I will not even comment.

Since you don't have the ability to understand when a metaphor or allegory is used in God's Holy Writ, then you must believe the locusts of Rev.9 are literal monsters!!

I find your problem among most on the false Pre-trib Rapture theory. They often wrongly interpret metaphor as literal meaning, and often wrongly interpret things meant literally as metaphor. Backwards, just like their doctrine which is designed to lead the deceived to fly away to the first supernatural messiah that appears working great signs and wonders, which will be the Antichrist.

 

[iamlamad]

You keep presenting BS about what is plain while disregarding the simplicity of the actual Scripture as written.

2 Peter 3:10-12
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
KJV

...

So trying to say that "day of the Lord" event of fire burning man's works off this earth happens over an expanded period of time is just balderdash, junk speech, and goes directly against the written Scripture by Peter.

..

The word "sudden" that Apostle Paul used in 1 Thess.5 is a Greek word that literally means 'SUDDENLY', 'UNEXPECTED' (Strong's no.160). That "day of the Lord" will come "as a thief in the night" like Paul and Peter said, meaning it will be a SUDDEN destruction upon the wicked also, like Paul said.

You should look up the word "come!" That is the word you don't understand!

 

[iamlamad]

Since you don't have the ability to understand when a metaphor or allegory is used in God's Holy Writ, then you must believe the locusts of Rev.9 are literal monsters!!

I find your problem among most on the false Pre-trib Rapture theory. They often wrongly interpret metaphor as literal meaning, and often wrongly interpret things meant literally as metaphor. Backwards, just like their doctrine which is designed to lead the deceived to fly away to the first supernatural messiah that appears working great signs and wonders, which will be the Antichrist.

Here is a good lesson to learn: wish I had written it!

If the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense.

Many people on these threads live in a nonsense world.

By the way, since you have chosen to be left behind, please don't blame me or other pretribbers: we TRIED to tell you.

Sadly some have such solid preconceived ideas that anything new, like the truth, cannot find entrance. It is sad.

Did you ever read:

heb. 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Now, read that slowly and ask yourself WHO Jesus will be appearing to.

I should add, untold MILLIONS of believers know that pretrib is truth.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here are the poll results as of today:

Is the Rapture showing in Revelation?

1. Yes
   9 vote(s)
   50.0%
2. No
   6 vote(s)
   33.3%
3. Maybe
   1 vote(s)
   5.6%
4. *
   I don't know
   2 vote(s)
   11.1%
5. Doesn't matter
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
6. other
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%

 

[Copperhead]

By the way, since you have chosen to be left behind, please don't blame me or other pretribbers: we TRIED to tell you.

I am not quite that harsh. I always like to say to those who don't agree with a pre-trib removal of the righteous that "It is Ok. We will explain it to you on the way up!" I know, it adds a little humor to the issue. We don't have to get so serious that we are angry all the time.

I should add, untold MILLIONS of believers know that pretrib is truth.

There is actually many unbelievers that know a pre-trib removal will happen. They just understand and describe it differently. Many New Age types that are into channelling, UFO's and other gobblety gook have written extensively how there will be a disappearance of perhaps millions from the earth early on in the "cleansing process" that is coming upon the earth. It will be required because those people are not in "harmonic vibration" with the earth changes. And in none of their writings has Satan tried to explain away a possible mid trib or post trib type of removal.

 

[Copperhead]

Has anyone ever noticed how pre-trib folks really don't rant and rail about the other positions (unless attacked personally for their views), but those who dislike the pre-trib position will really go off the charts in their vitriol on those who do hold to it? I know it doesn't prove the point that a pre-trib is a viable position, but it really is interesting. It is almost as if those who disagree want to see everyone suffer and die just so they can later gloat how right they were. Whereas, the pre-trib position folks seem to have most folk's best interest in mind and want to "comfort one another with these words" as Paul wrote.

We are not going to agree on every minute detail of eschatology, but we don't have to resort to slander and inflammatory comments. It is likely that all of us will have egg on our face in some way on how we viewed the upcoming events. And it is our job to present Yeshua to a lost world that He overcomes and wins and wants as many as possible to be a part of that.

 

[jgr]

Has anyone ever noticed how pre-trib folks really don't rant and rail about the other positions (unless attacked personally for their views), but those who dislike the pre-trib position will really go off the charts in their vitriol on those who do hold to it? I know it doesn't prove the point that a pre-trib is a viable position, but it really is interesting. It is almost as if those who disagree want to see everyone suffer and die just so they can later gloat how right they were. Whereas, the pre-trib position folks seem to have most folk's best interest in mind and want to "comfort one another with these words" as Paul wrote.

We are not going to agree on every minute detail of eschatology, but we don't have to resort to slander and inflammatory comments. It is likely that all of us will have egg on our face in some way on how we viewed the upcoming events. And it is our job to present Yeshua to a lost world that He overcomes and wins and wants as many as possible to be a part of that.

I've lost count of the number of times I, and others on this forum, have been accused of "making God a liar" because we disputed pretribism. I've never leveled the same accusation myself, and I see minimal examples of other non-pretribbers doing the same.

Why are you unable to find comfort in the following?

John 16:33
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Acts 14:22
Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Romans 5:3
And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

Romans 12:12
Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

2 Corinthians 1:4
Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

2 Corinthians 7:4
Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation.

 

[ewq1938]

It only takes two verses to prove that pre-trib is a false doctrine.


1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: (the second coming) and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (the resurrection of the dead in Christ)
1Th 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. (the rapture)

Since the resurrection only happens at the second coming and that we have the rapture happening AFTER the resurrection and second coming means these two verses decisively prove the pre-trib rapture to be false.

 

[Copperhead]

It only takes two verses to prove that pre-trib is a false doctrine.


1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: (the second coming) and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (the resurrection of the dead in Christ)
1Th 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. (the rapture)

Since the resurrection only happens at the second coming and that we have the rapture happening AFTER the resurrection and second coming means these two verses decisively prove the pre-trib rapture to be false.

Ah... but the scripture also says that before a matter can be determined, it must be substantiated by two or more witnesses. The Bereans were commended for searching the scripture to determine if what Paul taught them was true or false. They were commended for that. The only scripture they had was the OT.

Therefore, for any "proof" to be that the pre-trib position is false, it has to come from both the NT and the OT. Counter to your assertion, there is evidence in both NT and OT that supports a pre-trib position. Probably more in the OT than in the NT. But you brought the accusation, so you are in the hot seat to support that accusation using the evidence standard required by scripture.

So you must also provide scripture evidence from the OT that the pre-trib position is false, conclusively, or your assertion is not supported.... that is scripture, the requirement of the Torah. It is not anyone else's job to counter what you assert, it is your job to prove what you assert.

If you cannot make the case, then your assertion is invalid.

 

[jgr]

Ah... but the scripture also says that before a matter can be determined, it must be substantiated by two or more witnesses. The Bereans were commended for searching the scripture to determine if what Paul taught them was true or false. They were commended for that. The only scripture they had was the OT.

Therefore, for any "proof" to be that the pre-trib position is false, it has to come from both the NT and the OT. Counter to your assertion, there is evidence in both NT and OT that supports a pre-trib position. Probably more in the OT than in the NT. But you brought the accusation, so you are in the hot seat to support that accusation using the evidence standard required by scripture.

So you must also provide scripture evidence from the OT that the pre-trib position is false, conclusively, or your assertion is not supported.... that is scripture, the requirement of the Torah. It is not anyone else's job to counter what you assert, it is your job to prove what you assert.

If you cannot make the case, then your assertion is invalid.

How did the prevailing majority of the true Christian Church for over eighteen centuries miss the evidence which you claim exists?

 

[Copperhead]

How did the prevailing majority of the true Christian Church for over eighteen centuries miss the evidence which you claim exists?

"true" Christian Church needs to be explained. There is a lot of what many consider the "true" Christian church that fails the test of being "true". And the "Church" in general couldn't even get out of the 1st century before it was starting to go goofy. The letters to the Churches in Revelation supports that assertion, let alone the letters to the Corinthians at least.

I would suggest that after the 2nd century, the organized church started distancing itself from it's Hebrew roots and the OT was relegated to a sub class compared to the NT. Many of the earlier church writers texts exhibit a pre-trib, pre-millenial position. It would be difficult to post every reference to every early church writer on the subject here, so I would recommend some books by Dr. Ken Johnson who specializes in the early writings of the Church as a base resource with a ton of well documented textual comments by earliest Church writers.

And when one doesn't follow the standard outlined in the OT for how a matter can be determined, then just about anything goes and any idea can be proposed.

As an example, the woman who was caught in the act of adultery in John 8. When those that had brought her before Yeshua departed, that only left the woman and Yeshua. I am sure that Yeshua knew that the woman was guilty, but following the requirement of evidentiary testimony of the Torah, the testimony of two or more witnesses, He could not rightly condemn her by Himself or He would be violating the Torah. So He did not condemn her but told her to go and sin no more.

 

[ewq1938]

Therefore, for any "proof" to be that the pre-trib position is false, it has to come from both the NT and the OT.

That is false. Paul is the only one to use the word rapture and he places it after the second coming and after the resurrection.

 

[Copperhead]

That is false. Paul is the only one to use the word rapture and he places it after the second coming and after the resurrection.

You would be incorrect. Paul never used the word "rapture". He used the Greek word Harpazo, which Jerome in the Latin Vulgate translated as rapturo or raptus, from which we get our transliterated word rapture. Harpazo simply means a forcible snatching away. By the way, it is the word used after Philip had dealt with the Ethiopian in Acts 8:39 when Philip is "caught away".

The lack of the use of the word itself doesn't negate the concept. The Trinity is never mentioned in scripture, but the concept is valid. The Bible is never mentioned in scripture, but it is a valid term. Likewise, the concept of a pre-tribulational removal, separation, and protection of the righteous is in many places in the text of the OT.

And as in the case of the Bereans, anything Paul or any of the Apostles for that matter, wrote or taught has to be confirmed in the OT. A little slogan that has been used by many Bible expositors over the years is in order here..... the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.

 

[ewq1938]

You would be incorrect. Paul never used the word "rapture". He used the Greek word Harpazo, which Jerome in the Latin Vulgate translated as rapturo or raptus, from which we get our transliterated word rapture.

Which means he used the Greek word for rapture...which means I was already correct before you posted.

 

[jgr]

"true" Christian Church needs to be explained. There is a lot of what many consider the "true" Christian church that fails the test of being "true". And the "Church" in general couldn't even get out of the 1st century before it was starting to go goofy. The letters to the Churches in Revelation supports that assertion, let alone the letters to the Corinthians at least.

I would suggest that after the 2nd century, the organized church started distancing itself from it's Hebrew roots and the OT was relegated to a sub class compared to the NT. Many of the earlier church writers texts exhibit a pre-trib, pre-millenial position. It would be difficult to post every reference to every early church writer on the subject here, so I would recommend a book by Dr. Ken Johnson who specializes in the early writings of the Church as a base resource with a ton of well documented textual comments by earliest Church writers.

And when one doesn't follow the standard outlined in the OT for how a matter can be determined, then just about anything goes and any idea can be proposed.

As an example, the woman who was caught in the act of adultery in John 8. When those that had brought her before Yeshua departed, that only left the woman and Yeshua. I am sure that Yeshua knew that the woman was guilty, but following the requirement of evidentiary testimony of the Torah, the testimony of two or more witnesses, He could not rightly condemn her by Himself or He would be violating the Torah. So He did not condemn her but told her to go and sin no more.

The true Christian Church is that part of the Church which did not participate in the apostasy which began in the 4th century AD, and which survived to participate in the Reformation.

There were a number of premils among the early church fathers. There were but a handful of whom it could be said espoused pretribism, and those are debatable. In comparison to the total number of early church fathers and apologists, including the more recent Reformers, the number of pretribbers is vanishingly small. They can be found in Thomas Ice's article here.

 

[Copperhead]

Which means he used the Greek word for rapture...which means I was already correct before you posted.

How was Philip "raptured" then in Acts 8:39?

Still, back to the original thrust of this debate, one has to prove that a pre-trib position is invalid from both the OT and the NT for it to be a valid assertion. That is the requirement of the scripture mandate of a matter has to be supported by the testimony of two or more witnesses. It is the standard we are shown in the example of the Bereans.

 

[ewq1938]

How was Philip "raptured" then in Acts 8:39?

It isn't relevant to our current discussion. Paul says the rapture happens after the trib, not before it and much of his second letter is devoted to teaching against a pre-trib rapture belief...yet here we are in 2018 with people who still believe a pre-trib rapture.

 

[ewq1938]

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.

He shouldn't even have to speak of these things because he would have told them in person when he was with them but for some reason he decides in fact to re-tell them this:

1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.


This is it. The idea that Christ could come suddenly without any warning before the tribulation and Antichrist etc is what started the Pre-trib concept. This one sentence will be misunderstood and the idea that Christ could come at any time, even before the tribulation happens, is born. The facts are that Christ cannot and will not just suddenly appear because there are major events that have to take place first before he arrives but those who are unsaved and spiritually blind won't know this and so the second coming will surprise them without warning as a thief in the night but not those who are awake and watching for the right signs.


1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.


And this is the part that was missed or ignored. Christ only comes suddenly, without any warning to those who are deceived, in darkness, and are worshiping a false god in the tribulation. Christ's actual appearance will be sudden and shocking to them! But not to us!


1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
1Th 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night



So the confusion about Christ appearing suddenly at any moment reached Paul and he wrote a second letter to explain what he meant in the first one!


2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

He is saying DO NOT BE WORRIED THAT CHRIST CAN JUST SUDDENLY RETURN AND SURPRISE YOU!

Look at his words:

1. by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ

That is the second coming!

2. and by our gathering together unto him

That is the rapture!

3. that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Don't be worried that the second coming and the rapture "is at hand" meaning they could happen right away instead of after the tribulation as Christ said in the gospels.



2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

There are major things that happen first which will let the faithful know the return of Christ is soon! That is mainly the Tribulation and Apostasy where essentially the whole world, all religions and even Atheists, will believe in this person who will claim and seem to be God! I believe he will claim to be Jesus Christ leading so many astray.

So Paul has just said don't be worried that the second coming and rapture can happen before the tribulation and the Apostasy led by the Antichrist! IE: a pre-trib rapture is not true, right from the mouth of Paul himself.

2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?


Now he has to remind them...but some will never let go of this "any moment" doctrine that Christ can return suddenly to "rapture the Church away".

The Bible makes it clear that there is no pre-tribulation rapture. The tribulation and the appearance of the Antichrist will come first before any rapture takes place. Scripture speaks of the same order of events elsewhere:


1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 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.

Context is the second coming!

1Th 4:15 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.

Context is the second coming!

1Th 4:16 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:

This is the second coming!


1Th 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.

So, the proper order of events according to scripture:

1. the second coming begins/Christ leaves heaven. (1Th 4:16) (this doesn't happen until the tribulation has ended, Mat_24:29)
2. the resurrection. (dead saints resurrect bodily in heaven and follow Christ as he returns to the Earth-second coming) (1Th 4:14-16)
3. the rapture. (living saints on Earth are gathered together from where ever they are on the Earth in order to meet Christ in the clouds when he arrives)(1Th 4:17)
This proves the pre-trib (and mid-trib) rapture to be false because the second coming comes after the tribulation not before or during it, Mat 24:29-30


A rapture before the tribulation is impossible according to Mat 24:29-30, and a rapture before the second coming is impossible according to 1Th 4:13-17.


So, the proper order of events according to scripture including Mat_24:29:

1. the great tribulation ends. (Mat_24:29)
2. the second coming begins/Christ leaves heaven. (1Th 4:16, Mat_24:30)
3. the resurrection. (dead saints resurrect bodily in heaven and follow Christ as he returns to the Earth-second coming) (1Th 4:14-16)
4. the rapture. (living saints on Earth are gathered together from where ever they are on the Earth in order to meet Christ in the clouds when he arrives)(1Th 4:17)


Again we see that certain events must happen first before a rapture takes place!