Pre-Tribulation vs. Post-Tribulation Why not both?

[jgr]

I think what you actually meant is "I don't disagree with what I think Jesus said, why do you?"

If so, then the answer to your question will emerge naturally.

So why didn't your answer emerge naturally?

What do you think Jesus said in Matthew 12:50?

 

[Guojing]

So why didn't your answer emerge naturally?

What do you think Jesus said in Matthew 12:50?

So since I think Jesus meant differently from what you think, there is no reason why I would agree with you. =)

 

[jgr]

So since I think Jesus meant differently from what you think, there is no reason why I would agree with you. =)

How can you think Jesus meant differently if you can't tell us what He said?

 

[Guojing]

How can you think Jesus meant differently if you can't tell us what He said?

I already did, but you rejected my explanation.

Just because you reject it does not mean I didn't tell you.

 

[jgr]

I already did, but you rejected my explanation.

Just because you reject it does not mean I didn't tell you.

Highlight the word "Jewish" in Matthew 12:50.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Gentiles were still cut off during the 1st coming of Jesus (Ephesians 2:11-12), we were separate from Christ, so Jesus cannot be referring to gentiles with that statement. It must still be Jews.

I disagree. He was speaking generally about anyone who would believe in Him and belong to Him as being His brethren. It's not as if He didn't know that the gospel would eventually go out to the Gentiles as well.

Remember he called Gentiles dogs in Matthew 15:26?

He was speaking in a general sense there. He wasn't talking about all Gentiles. Read this:

Acts 10:1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.

Do you think Jesus would have called Cornelius and his family dogs? Of course not. You're not using any discernment here. You take everything as blanket statements without discerning the context.

 

[Guojing]

I disagree. He was speaking generally about anyone who would believe in Him and belong to Him as being His brethren. It's not as if He didn't know that the gospel would eventually go out to the Gentiles as well.

He was speaking in a general sense there. He wasn't talking about all Gentiles. Read this:

Acts 10:1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly.

Do you think Jesus would have called Cornelius and his family dogs? Of course not. You're not using any discernment here. You take everything as blanket statements without discerning the context.

I am rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)

To mid acts dispensationalists, there is a significant difference in how gentiles were regarded in time past, and how they are regarded by God in the but now (Ephesians 2:11-13)

The event that led to that change was the stoning of Stephen at Acts 7. We believe Israel fell at Acts 7 and thru their fall, salvation has been released to the gentiles (Romans 11:11). So the Roman Centurion account came after the fall of Israel.

Thus, there is no contradiction is saying that the Canaanite lady was called a dog by Jesus in his first coming, and for the Roman Centurion to be regarded differently, by the time Acts 10 arrived.

Another consideration is that, those gentiles who blessed Israel will also be blessed by God, under the Abrahamic covenant, and vice versa. (Genesis 22:18, Deuteronomy 23:3-4). That was why Jesus was willing to help another Roman centurion in the 4 gospels (Luke 7:5).

So based on this consideration, quoting the verse that you did in Acts 10 "2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly", was also critical.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Why can't some Christians be taken at the beginning of the tribulation and some taken at the end of the tribulation?

Jesus said he would come after the trib to gather his living and the dead.
Paul teaches according to the Lords own word , and said the living would not precede the dead in Christ in our long awaited gathering to him at his coming.

 

[jgr]

Another consideration is that, those gentiles who blessed Israel will also be blessed by God, under the Abrahamic covenant, and vice versa. (Genesis 22:18, Deuteronomy 23:3-4). That was why Jesus was willing to help another Roman centurion in the 4 gospels (Luke 7:5).

Neither the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15) nor the Gadarene demoniac (Matthew 8) blessed Israel, yet Jesus blessed them.

Neither in those instances, nor in that of the Roman centurion, did Jesus in any way refer to or imply Israel as a factor in His blessings.

Jesus' blessings were entirely the result of His grace and mercy (the Gadarene demoniac), and their faith and His grace and mercy (the Canaanite woman and the Roman centurion).

Israel was irrelevant.

 

[Rachel20]

He then further still nails down the timing in 2nd Thessalonians because of their confusion, he says "that day" (same day in 1st Thes 4:17) shall not happen until certain events happened.

There are those that agree with you - that these are referring to the same "day" - but come to entirely different conclusions. For example, Bart Ehrmann uses this as proof that Paul didn't write 2 Thess. He claims 1 Thess presents a Paul who believes in imminency (thief in the night passage), whereas 2 Thess presents a Paul who doesn't (all these things must happen first). While Ehrmann isn't a believer, he presents a valid problem. Perhaps these really aren't the same day, or ... they are the same day, but it would be better to speak of "hour" or "watch", in which case this is no longer a post-trib "proof".

But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. (Matthew 24:43)

And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch,
and find them so, blessed are those servants. (Luke 12:38)

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. (Matthew 25:13)

Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: (Mark 13:35)

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I am rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)

I strongly disagree.

To mid acts dispensationalists, there is a significant difference in how gentiles were regarded in time past, and how they are regarded by God in the but now (Ephesians 2:11-13)

The event that led to that change was the stoning of Stephen at Acts 7. We believe Israel fell at Acts 7 and thru their fall, salvation has been released to the gentiles (Romans 11:11). So the Roman Centurion account came after the fall of Israel.

Thus, there is no contradiction is saying that the Canaanite lady was called a dog by Jesus in his first coming, and for the Roman Centurion to be regarded differently, by the time Acts 10 arrived.

What I was asking you is whether or not Jesus would have called Cornelius and his family dogs at the time while He was alive before His death and resurrection. Yes or no? I say definitely not since Cornelius was already devout and God-fearing at that time (he just didn't know about Jesus and the gospel yet). But, you apparently would say yes.

 

[Guojing]

I strongly disagree.

What I was asking you is whether or not Jesus would have called Cornelius and his family dogs at the time while He was alive before His death and resurrection. Yes or no? I say definitely not since Cornelius was already devout and God-fearing at that time (he just didn't know about Jesus and the gospel yet). But, you apparently would say yes.

Well, both of us are speculating here, since Jesus never had a chance to meet Cornelius.

I simply gave a scripture example of how Jesus called gentiles dogs in time past (Matthew 15:26).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Well, both of us are speculating here, since Jesus never had a chance to meet Cornelius.

I simply gave a scripture example of how Jesus called gentiles dogs in time past (Matthew 15:26).

That does not mean He considered literally all Gentiles to be dogs. That makes no sense. He was speaking in a general sense there and you're taking it too literally. He surely would not have considered devout and God fearing people like Cornelius and his family to be dogs. I guarantee that.

 

[Guojing]

That does not mean He considered literally all Gentiles to be dogs. That makes no sense. He was speaking in a general sense there and you're taking it too literally. He surely would not have considered devout and God fearing people like Cornelius and his family to be dogs. I guarantee that.

If you want to form your opinion about what Jesus really meant, I am fine.

As I said, he did not call the other Roman Centurion a dog, but he immediately agreed to help him in Luke 7 for 2 main reasons:

1. He helped the nation of Israel build a synagogue (Luke 7:5)
2. He went thru the Jewish elders, instead of asking directly, this shows he understood his position as a gentile who could not approach God directly (Luke 7:3)

Notice the Canaanite lady did not follow those procedures?

As for Cornelius, since there is evidence that he also helped those in need, which probably includes the members of Israel (Acts 10:2), I can understand and might even agree with you that Jesus would have approach him once of course he receive the vision from God to visit him, so I can agree he will not call him a dog.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that Gentiles in time past, were excluded from Christ's first ministry (Ephesians 2:11-12)

 

[jgr]

Nonetheless, the fact remains that Gentiles in time past, were excluded from Christ's first ministry (Ephesians 2:11-12)

We've seen the examples where Christ explicitly included Gentiles (with Israel irrelevant), and no examples where He explicitly excluded them.

So who excluded them?

 

[Guojing]

We've seen the examples where Christ explicitly included Gentiles (with Israel irrelevant), and no examples where He explicitly excluded them.

So who excluded them?

I have provided Ephesians 2:11-12 for your reference.

That at that time

• ye were without Christ,
• being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,
• and strangers from the covenants of promise,
• having no hope,
• and without God in the world:

 

[jgr]

I have provided Ephesians 2:11-12 for your reference.

That at that time

• ye were without Christ,
• being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,
• and strangers from the covenants of promise,
• having no hope,
• and without God in the world:

Gentiles were included by Christ, as we've seen.

Gentiles were also included by God in the true believers of OT Israel ((Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22; et al).

Paul knew of both.

So who had excluded the Ephesian Gentiles, and why?

 

[Guojing]

Gentiles were included by Christ, as we've seen.

Gentiles were also included by God in the true believers of OT Israel ((Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22; et al).

Paul knew of both.

So who had excluded the Ephesian Gentiles, and why?

Again, what you really meant to say in your first paragraph is

I think Gentiles were included by Christ, based on my interpretation of what I read.

Paul obviously did not agree with you, that is why he wrote Ephesians 2:11-12, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JulieB67]

For example, Bart Ehrmann uses this as proof that Paul didn't write 2 Thess. He claims 1 Thess presents a Paul who believes in imminency (thief in the night passage),

Paul did not teach imminency in 1st Thessalonians. But some of the Thessalonians thought he did which is why he wrote the second letter.

When people were worried about their loved ones he told them the 4:17 verses. That's the context of that chapter. It wasn't about the imminent return of Christ.

And then he goes on and tells them they already know the signs and the seasons (Christ taught them and probably Paul has as well)

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

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

I Thessalonians 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."

I Thessalonians 5:4 "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief

And we already know who will be bringing on the peace and safety. It certainly isn't the world right now,

Daniel 8:24 "And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy People."


Daniel 8:25 "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

That's the peace and safety Paul is talking about in chapter 5.


So we can see that it only comes like a thief to those not watching. And what are we watching for? The signs and the seasons. The signs that Christ laid out in the gospels. Such as "If they say here is Christ or there is Christ, believe it not.

But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. (Matthew 24:43)

And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch,
and find them so, blessed are those servants. (Luke 12:38)

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. (Matthew 25:13)

Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: (Mark 13:35)

I don't see how these later verses change what Paul taught. These verses just mean we are to always be on watch. It doesn't change the meaning of the day of the Lord. That is when Christ will return.
Paul specifically told them to not even be confused about his first letter. And he still backs up Christ's teachings about coming "after" the tribulation.

Matthew 24:43 "But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up."

This verse still coincides with Paul's teachings in 1st Thessalonians,

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

I Thessalonians 5:4 "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.".....

I Thessalonians 5:6 "Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober."

It only takes people unawares to those who are not on watch. Meaning those who know the signs that play out as Christ and Paul taught -it won't be like a thief in the night to them, they know and believe that they day won't happen until all the signs happen that especially this one,


II Thessalonians 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;"

II Thessalonians 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."

This totally lines up with 1st Thessalonians because people will be thinking peace and safety. People will think Christ has returned.

And that's Satan's Mo- is to play savior and it will be God that sends that strong delusion. He wants to see if people have accepted the love of the truth or would rather believe the lie.

II Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth,"


II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie;"

Sorry if this seems like a long answer but did want to show it all fits together.

 

[jgr]

Again, what you really meant to say in your first paragraph is

I think Gentiles were included by Christ, based on my interpretation of what I read.

Paul obviously did not agree with you, that is why he wrote Ephesians 2:11-12, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

God is not a racist.

Jesus is not a racist.

The Holy Spirit is not a racist.

Paul was not a racist.

Your failed dispensational attempt to racialize Ephesians 2:11-12 is errant and unScriptural.

There is only one condition that results in the separation and alienation described by Paul.

Unbelief.

The Ephesian Gentiles had separated and alienated themselves, as a result of their unbelief.

They were thus uncovenanted, separated and alienated from both the old and new covenants of God and His Son.

But resolved when they forsook their unbelief, and entered into a covenant relationship of faith and obedience with God and His Son.

Nothing to do with physical DNA.

Everything to do with spiritual DNA.

Two genes.

Faith and obedience.

And nothing else.