Where are we now in the book of Revelation?

[10s3r]

In response to some things Lamad said,

It's really impressive the depth pretribbers have to go to fabricate and complicate things. It can be easily be debunked that this "sudden event" you talk about is a rapture. I keep telling you that what you need is a sensible hermeneutic. 1 Thes. 5 is a great passage to explain how you go wrong.

First. Paul tells the Thessalonians that it's not necessary for him to tell them about the times and seasons because they already know the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night. The times and seasons would indicate "troublesome times." Not a time of peace and safety!

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

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

So right away verse 1 and 2 is directed to Christians. They know the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night!

The passage doesn't imply that people are living in peace and safety. They are actually saying "peace and safety," and it's only logical to assume it's because there's violence and war all around the earth. People cry for peace when there's war, not when there's peace.

Christians are not implied in the sudden destruction because...

The word 'they' is directed to 'unbelievers' because of the words, "but ye" in verse 4.

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.

The sudden destruction can't mean Christians because the words 'but ye."

But is a conjunction that shows opposition and distinction. In this case, it distinguishes the between the heathen or 'they' in verse 3 to Christians "but ye" in verse 4.

Verse 4 actually says that the brethren will not be overtaken like a thief, again implying they have nothing to do with the 'sudden destruction' of verse 3. Verse 4-9 the distinction is again made between they 'they' who are in darkness and Christians.

4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

The passage attributes not being appointed to wrath to salvation and not a rapture!

Pre-tribbers have changed the timing of "the day of the Lord." In every passage I know the day of the Lord happens when He returns to do battle toward the end of tribulation.

He removes His own simply to prevent "friendly fire."

 

[iamlamad]

In response to some things Lamad said,

It's really impressive the depth pretribbers have to go to fabricate and complicate things. It can be easily be debunked that this "sudden event" you talk about is a rapture. I keep telling you that what you need is a sensible hermeneutic. 1 Thes. 5 is a great passage to explain how you go wrong.

First. Paul tells the Thessalonians that it's not necessary for him to tell them about the times and seasons because they already know the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night. The times and seasons would indicate "troublesome times." Not a time of peace and safety!

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

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

So right away verse 1 and 2 is directed to Christians. They know the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night!

The passage doesn't imply that people are living in peace and safety. They are actually saying "peace and safety and it's only logical to assume it's because there's violence and war all around the earth. People cry for peace when there's war, not when there's peace.

Christians are not implied in the sudden destruction because...

The word 'they' is directed to 'unbelievers' because of the words, "but ye" in verse 4.

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.

The sudden destruction can't mean Christians because the words 'but ye."

But is a conjunction that shows opposition and distinction. In this case, it distinguishes the between the heathen or 'they' in verse 3 to Christians "but ye" in verse 4.

Verse 4 actually says that the brethren will not be overtaken like a thief, again implying they have nothing to do with the 'sudden destruction' of verse 3. Verse 4-9 the distinction is again made between they 'they' who are in darkness and Christians.

4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

The passage attributes not being appointed to wrath to salvation and not a rapture?

Pre-tribbers have changed the timing of "the day of the Lord." In every passage I know the day of the Lord happens when He returns to do battle toward the end of tribulation

He removes His own simply to prevent "friendly fire."

You can believe all your nonsense if you wish. It is not truth. If you read all the Old Testament passages on the Day of the Lord, you will discover that it begins EXACTLY where John tells us it begins: "The day of His wrath has come." WHERE is that? Is it in chapter 19 when Jesus really does return to earth? NO! It is JUST BEFORE the Day of the Lord and the 70th week begins with the first trumpet judgment. The 7th seal broken in heaven is the MARKER in heaven that opens the 70th week: 30 minutes of silence.

People CAN say "peace and safety" when there IS peace and safety.

It was not necessary for Paul to talk about the times and seasons because he taught them in depth when he was there. In His letter he will just remind them of what he taught. WE DID NOT HEAR his teaching so we have only what He wrote.

Did you not notice that Paul mentions the "Day of the Lord" only three verses AFTER "The Lord will descent from heaven with a SHOUT?" Do you imagine he changed subjects? OF COURSE he did not. Did you not notice, in chapter 4 he wrote, "so shall we ever be with the Lord." In chapter 5 he wrote the same thing, just different words: "get to live together with Him." OF COURSE getting raptured and getting to live together with Him, while God's wrath is unleashed on earth IS A GREAT COMFORT.

What kind of comfort would you find in these words: Church, I love you, and one day you will be my bride; but first I will cause you to be beat up, overcome, suffer through my wrath, and most of you, if not all of you forced to either lose your head, or take a mark - in which case you will be lost forever. But if you do survive - which you won't because I have already given your enemy authority to overcome you - I will return to claim any who have survived."

You will scoff at this, but it is absolute truth if a post trib rapture was truth - which of course it is NOT.

Did you not notice that both the Day of the Lord and Jesus coming both come as a thief? WHY would God write it this way? It is very simple, Jesus comes pretrib AS A THIEF, then the sudden destruction of the start of the Day of the Lord also comes as a thief. The great, worldwide earthquake caused by the dead in Christ rising will come only microseconds or picoseconds after the rapture. For all intents and purposes they are ONE EVENT. That is why Paul wrote that those left behind would suffer SUDDEN DESTRUCTION, while those in the Light would get salvation [rapture] and get to live together with Him [rapture]. That is why Paul wrote that God will not make us an appointment with His wrath - we will be GONE.

I am well aware of the YE and they. What you are not aware of is the fact that Paul is talking of a PRETRIB rapture. MANY lukewarm Christians will be found to be "they" and not "ye." However, for the most part it WILL BE those living in darkness that suffer the sudden destruction.

Those living in the light will not be caught as a thief might catch them because THEY WILL BE WATCHING. How many times did Jesus mention WATCH? Paul also here mentions to WATCH.

OF COURSE the "salvation" here is referencing the rapture. That is the THEME. Not to mention, Paul writes, "get to live together with Him." Before He wrote, "so shall we every be with the Lord." He is saying the SAME THING, just different words.

Yes, He will come pretrib to get His bride so they will not suffer HIS wrath. You got that one part right!

So far, your "hermaneutic" has left you confused and wrong about almost everything. Of course you don't realize this.....but you will when you are left behind.

LAMAD

 

[Old Timer]

First you should note what Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice..." If you are not hearing, I would wonder WHY? HE SPEAKS!

Allow me to respond to this first, because imo it's the root of the problem.

I gave you three scriptural reasons why I believe that these are the things which shall be hereafter and your response was initially that you heard the voice of God saying that it's history..

Well, if what you say is true, then that would be end of story, correct..? THEN you say that He always speaks according to His word.. right?

Although you claim to have the distinct advantage of having the written word AND hearing the audible voice of God, so obviously anything this voice says must be true.. you even said so yourself..

So now you're forced to believe that voice because otherwise you'd be wrong and there would be the possibility of you hearing a different voice than the voice of God..

Peter tells us clearly that we have a more sure word in the scriptures than if we were to hear God's voice audibly, as he DID..

Your testimony here contradicts that.. or at least it overrides it... because you now MUST believe Rev 12 pertains to history simply because the voice told you so.. and there's clearly no other possibility.

Today men hear the voice of God through the scriptures.. they do not hear His voice audibly.. for if that were true, then we'd have every Christian you could imagine talking about how the LORD told them that this means this or that Rev 12 is a history lesson and there's no other possible way in which His word in Rev 12 can speak.. because we heard Him audibly.

 

[miamited]

We can easily read in Rev. 1 that John was alive. He wrote, "I John, in the tribulation."

Just as easily we can read in chapter 21 of a time at the very least a thousand years into the future from today. (I am ignoring those that can't see the 1000 year reign of Christ in our future. John clearly tells us "after the 1000 years.")

So with the first page nearly 2000 years ago, and the last page far into our future, it makes sense that somewhere in between is where we are now.

So my question, "WHERE ARE WE NOW?"

Can you pin in down between two chapters? Or even between two verses?

LAMAD

Hi lamad,

I believe that we are somewhere among the seven seals of chapter 6. Although, I'm not convinced that all of the Revelation necessarily follows in chronological sequence. Chapter 12 obviously, to me, describes some things which have already taken place.

The last seal describes a time of silence in heaven and we may well be living now through that time of silence. However, I am not dogmatic about the issue. I just find that some of the things described in the Revelation seem to have obviously already happened and some things not.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Old Timer]

I believe that I also provided the scriptural reference to Micah 5 which another person pointed out to me recently.. concerning Christ giving them up (Israel) until this time..

Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops:
he hath laid siege against us:
they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Therefore will he give them up,
until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth:
then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

It's simply another perfect connection to Revelation 12 and the woman being with child..

In that Day, the Day of the Lord, The Day of Jesus Christ.

 

[Old Timer]

And Isaiah 66 connects perfectly again..

Before she travailed, she brought forth;
before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.

Who hath heard such a thing?
who hath seen such things?
Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day?
or shall a nation be born at once?
for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth?
saith the Lord:
shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb?
saith thy God.

It almost sounds to me that looking at Revelation 12 from a historical point of view would be a mockery... at least that's how I read the prophet here..

Before she travailed, she brought forth;
before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.

Who hath heard such a thing?

I'd be interesting in hearing how others 'read' this..

 

[iamlamad]

Allow me to respond to this first, because imo it's the root of the problem.

I gave you three scriptural reasons why I believe that these are the things which shall be hereafter and your response was initially that you heard the voice of God saying that it's history..

Well, if what you say is true, then that would be end of story, correct..? THEN you say that He always speaks according to His word.. right?

Although you claim to have the distinct advantage of having the written word AND hearing the audible voice of God, so obviously anything this voice says must be true.. you even said so yourself..

So now you're forced to believe that voice because otherwise you'd be wrong and there would be the possibility of you hearing a different voice than the voice of God..

Peter tells us clearly that we have a more sure word in the scriptures than if we were to hear God's voice audibly, as he DID..

Your testimony here contradicts that.. or at least it overrides it... because you now MUST believe Rev 12 pertains to history simply because the voice told you so.. and there's clearly no other possibility.

Today men hear the voice of God through the scriptures.. they do not hear His voice audibly.. for if that were true, then we'd have every Christian you could imagine talking about how the LORD told them that this means this or that Rev 12 is a history lesson and there's no other possible way in which His word in Rev 12 can speak.. because we heard Him audibly.

OF COURSE we have a more sure word in the written scriptures. I never said anything different. What I did say is when God speaks, He ALWAYS speaks according to the scriptures. How could our God do anything different? However, at times He will speak concerning things not written. For example, someone may have a decision to make about which job to take. But when God answers a question about scripture, do you imagine He would tell someone one thing, and someone else anther thing totally different that the first? Of course He would not. In Revelation He had one thing in mind. Yet of you ask preachers, or even laymen, you will get more answers than people. It is because they are not hearing from God, although many think they do.

Now you are sadly mistaken in saying that today men don't hear God audibly. WHO TOLD YOU THIS? MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE!!!!!

Now I know where your problem is. Old Timer, you have BYPASSED Acts chapter 1 and chapter 2, and tried to live the life God wants for you WITHOUT the anointing - without the mighty baptism with the Holy Spirit. May I suggest you study Acts 8 when Philip went down to Samaria. Ask yourself these questions as you study:

WHEN were they born again?
WHEN were they baptized in water as proof they were born again?
WHAT was in the mind of the leaders in Jerusalem?
WHY did they send Peter and John?

Old Timer, the truth is, GOD HAS NOT CHANGED! HE is still the God of Elijah. He is still the God of Moses. HE STILL SPEAKS. The truth is, you have not heard Him. Did you ever notice that Jesus Himself - the very God of creation - did not do any miracles until AFTER He was anointed?


I gave you three scriptural reasons why I believe that these are the things which shall be hereafter and your response was initially that you heard the voice of God saying that it's history..

That was NOT my first response. It was my second response. The truth is, I cannot see those as reasons. I cannot believe YOU see those as reasons why you believe as you do. I KNOW John did not put God in a box by writing that John would write ONLY of future events. I know that is the way you read it, but it is not the truth of scripture.

The Day of the Lord shall come as travail upon a woman with child. This is a very true statement, but it is also JUST AS TRUE that the nation of Israel gave birth to the Messiah. You see, this is not an argument at all!

OF COURSE Michael stands up. Show me the verses you see as WHY He stands up? I know He has been waiting for centuries for the sounding of the 7th trumpet, for that will be his signal to go after the Prince of the power of the air and take him DOWN. I know in Daniel he came and helped Michael get a message through to Daniel. But please show me HOW anything about Michael tells you that Rev. 12:1-5 cannot be about the past.

anything this voice says must be true.. you even said so yourself..

When God speaks - the REAL God of creation - of course He always speaks truth. I am well aware that there are many voices speaking - but ONLY ONE is the voice of our God. I have learned to recognize His voice, just as the scripture tells me. Will you shoot me down because of this?

Does it BUG you that God wrote "my sheep know my voice" and you have never heard it? It used to bug me A LOT. I spent TIME meditating on those verses. YOU should spend time meditating on ANY verse that is not truth for YOUR life. I will say, I never heard His audible voice until I was around 35 years old. I had been bugging God about a certain scripture I did not understand, that was NOT truth for my life. I don't think I missed one day in 6 months bugging God about this verse. Finally one day as I began to ask Him about it for the 180th or so time, HE SPOKE and corrected my wrong thinking about that verse. So let me ask you: have you ever asked God about a verse day after day, day after day, just as if you had the good sense to know God will ALWAYS answer if you don't give up? Did God not say He will give you wisdom LIBERALLY if you don't waver in your faith?

So back to your three reasons: I know you think these are three good reasons why I am mistaken. I think they are not reasons at all. You might try this: you KNOW Jesus came from Israel. If God were to show this to someone on a vision, HOW would God do it? COULD He do it as seen in these 5 verses?


You are right, few Christians hear God's voice, because they are not in the right place to hear. I will agree with that part. However, it is God's will that we ALL hear His voice.
LAMAD

 

[iamlamad]

And Isaiah 66 connects perfectly again..



It almost sounds to me that looking at Revelation 12 from a historical point of view would be a mockery... at least that's how I read the prophet here..



I'd be interesting in hearing how others 'read' this..

What, in your mind, is Isaiah speaking of?

LAMAD

 

[iamlamad]

I believe that I also provided the scriptural reference to Micah 5 which another person pointed out to me recently.. concerning Christ giving them up (Israel) until this time..



It's simply another perfect connection to Revelation 12 and the woman being with child..

In that Day, the Day of the Lord, The Day of Jesus Christ.

In what way do these verses prove in any way that Rev. 12:1-5 cannot be speaking historically?

LAMAD

 

[iamlamad]

Correct.

Whatcha talkin bout Willis?!

LOL, speak bible. I have no idea what this lingo means.

What is so difficult? God asked me three questions about Rev. chapters 4 & 5.

1) Why was I not immediately seen at the right hand of the Father by John in the throne room? This vision was given to John LONG after I rose from the dead, and there are many verses saying that I went to be at the right hand of the Father, and Stephen saw me there.

2) Why was "no man found" in the search for one worthy to break the seals - that John watched end in failure? If you read ahead you see that I was found. So why was I not found in the FIRST search?

3) Why was the Holy Spirit still in the throne room in chapter 4? I said as soon as I ascend to heaven, I would send Him down.

Have you even READ these two chapters? Did you not notice that Jesus was NOT IN the throne room in chapter 4, when John first saw the vision of the throne room.

Did you not notice that the Holy Spirit (as the 7 spirits of God) WAS in the throne room in chapter 4?

Did you not notice that the first search John watched to find one worthy ended in failure and "no man was found?"

LAMAD

 

[iamlamad]

I believe that I also provided the scriptural reference to Micah 5 which another person pointed out to me recently.. concerning Christ giving them up (Israel) until this time..

It's simply another perfect connection to Revelation 12 and the woman being with child..

In that Day, the Day of the Lord, The Day of Jesus Christ.

Micah, just like Isaiah, is very difficult in most passages for human reasoning to determine the intended meaning. However, look at this:

Micah 5:
3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.
4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.


How long did Israel go with NO WORD from God, from the days of Malachi to the day Jesus was born? That was 400 years of silence! How does that compare in your mind with "therefore I will give them up" until Jesus arrives.
I believe these verses are speaking of the first coming of the Jewish Messiah, our Lord Jesus. When He came, did not many in Israel turn to Him? Of course they did. Also many more did not; that is why Micah wrote "the remnant" shall return.


I find this passage is referring to the birth of Christ.

I hope you understand, Micah jumps from Jesus' birth straight to the day of the Lord - a 2000 year jump. This is not unusual in Old Testament prophecies.

How can you see this as proof that Rev. 12:4 & 5 are NOT referring to the birth of Christ?

LAMAD

 

[Old Timer]

LAMAD if you'd like to pretend that God speaks to you audibly then go right ahead.

Hearing The Lord's voice has absolutely nothing to do with hearing Him audibly.

That's why we have a more sure word of prophecy in the scriptures... To prevent every believer from pretending that they heard God tell them that Rev 12 is a history lesson when it expressly states that these are the things which shall be hereafter.

 

[Old Timer]

What, in your mind, is Isaiah speaking of?

LAMAD

Exactly what he is saying..

Who ever heard of such a thing as what you say.. That Israel brought forth BEFORE she travailed..

Kind of puts a huge dent in what you believe God said to you doesn't it.

 

[Old Timer]

And here's the simple truth that you can't deal with.. That thE Day of The Lord shall come as travail upon a woman with child.

It's future and it's obvious that this is speaking of the woman in Revelation 12 which just so happens to be about the things which shall be hereafter..

Go figure.

 

[Old Timer]

Well, I was wrong.

I just now asked God to speak with me audibly and tell me what Revelation 12 was about. He said that the entire portion pertains to the things which shall be hereafter in that Day, the Day of the LORD, the Day of Jesus Christ.

 

[shturt678s]

Well, I was wrong.

I just now asked God to speak with me audibly and tell me what Revelation 12 was about. He said that the entire portion pertains to the things which shall be hereafter in that Day, the Day of the LORD, the Day of Jesus Christ.

Our Lord just spoke to me only through the Word telling me the burden of Revelation is in the Preliminary miraculus judgments contained in Rev.8:7-9:21 where we are exactly at Rev. chapter 9.
Maybe I was just hearing things?

Old listener Jack

 

[Shocker]

Well, I was wrong.

I just now asked God to speak with me audibly and tell me what Revelation 12 was about. He said that the entire portion pertains to the things which shall be hereafter in that Day, the Day of the LORD, the Day of Jesus Christ.

It gets better.

 

[Shocker]

Our Lord just spoke to me only through the Word telling me the burden of Revelation is in the Preliminary miraculus judgments contained in Rev.8:7-9:21 where we are exactly at Rev. chapter 9.
Maybe I was just hearing things?

Old listener Jack

Jack, how does the Spirit communicate with you?

Have you had a conversation with Him?


For me its through conviction, or straight up telling me I need to do something, but not with an audible voice, but by giving me thoughts that I cant turn from, at least not without a measure of guilt.

 

[10s3r]

You can believe all your nonsense if you wish. It is not truth. If you read all the Old Testament passages on the Day of the Lord, you will discover that it begins EXACTLY where John tells us it begins: "The day of His wrath has come." WHERE is that? Is it in chapter 19 when Jesus really does return to earth? NO! It is JUST BEFORE the Day of the Lord and the 70th week begins with the first trumpet judgment. The 7th seal broken in heaven is the MARKER in heaven that opens the 70th week: 30 minutes of silence.

People CAN say "peace and safety" when there IS peace and safety.

It was not necessary for Paul to talk about the times and seasons because he taught them in depth when he was there. In His letter he will just remind them of what he taught. WE DID NOT HEAR his teaching so we have only what He wrote.

Did you not notice that Paul mentions the "Day of the Lord" only three verses AFTER "The Lord will descent from heaven with a SHOUT?" Do you imagine he changed subjects? OF COURSE he did not. Did you not notice, in chapter 4 he wrote, "so shall we ever be with the Lord." In chapter 5 he wrote the same thing, just different words: "get to live together with Him." OF COURSE getting raptured and getting to live together with Him, while God's wrath is unleashed on earth IS A GREAT COMFORT.

What kind of comfort would you find in these words: Church, I love you, and one day you will be my bride; but first I will cause you to be beat up, overcome, suffer through my wrath, and most of you, if not all of you forced to either lose your head, or take a mark - in which case you will be lost forever. But if you do survive - which you won't because I have already given your enemy authority to overcome you - I will return to claim any who have survived."

You will scoff at this, but it is absolute truth if a post trib rapture was truth - which of course it is NOT.

Did you not notice that both the Day of the Lord and Jesus coming both come as a thief? WHY would God write it this way? It is very simple, Jesus comes pretrib AS A THIEF, then the sudden destruction of the start of the Day of the Lord also comes as a thief. The great, worldwide earthquake caused by the dead in Christ rising will come only microseconds or picoseconds after the rapture. For all intents and purposes they are ONE EVENT. That is why Paul wrote that those left behind would suffer SUDDEN DESTRUCTION, while those in the Light would get salvation [rapture] and get to live together with Him [rapture]. That is why Paul wrote that God will not make us an appointment with His wrath - we will be GONE.

I am well aware of the YE and they. What you are not aware of is the fact that Paul is talking of a PRETRIB rapture. MANY lukewarm Christians will be found to be "they" and not "ye." However, for the most part it WILL BE those living in darkness that suffer the sudden destruction.

Those living in the light will not be caught as a thief might catch them because THEY WILL BE WATCHING. How many times did Jesus mention WATCH? Paul also here mentions to WATCH.

OF COURSE the "salvation" here is referencing the rapture. That is the THEME. Not to mention, Paul writes, "get to live together with Him." Before He wrote, "so shall we every be with the Lord." He is saying the SAME THING, just different words.

Yes, He will come pretrib to get His bride so they will not suffer HIS wrath. You got that one part right!

So far, your "hermaneutic" has left you confused and wrong about almost everything. Of course you don't realize this.....but you will when you are left behind.

LAMAD

Is that all you've got Lamad?

Paul isn't talking about a pre-trib rapture in the sudden destruction of 1 Thes. 5. That sudden destruction is the separation of the sheep and goats otherwise known as the judgment of nations. It's the judgment that debunks the nonsensical pre-trib question, "who will populate the Millennium."

What sudden destruction comes when Christ raptures people?

NONE! The only 'sudden destruction' coming after the rapture are the judgments that follow! Pre-tribbers like to use scare tactics. They would like you to think that when God takes Christians home, "planes, trains, and automobiles will crash and burn all over the earth killing untold millions of innocent people...even your kids sitting in the back seat! Is that what you mean by "sudden destruction." you're talking about? Or are you saying that after the rapture people will have to go through tribulation and therefore that's their "sudden destruction."

I know you and the others have difficulty quoting "one verse of prophecy" that implicates Rome in any way. Try this one...

Surely. If Christ truly was going to return "BEFORE" the tribulation, then there must certainly be at least "one verse of prophecy," where Christ is said to return "BEFORE' the tribulation. Can you quote ONE verse that say's Christ returns before the tribulation???

Now I know you're going to post a verse about the Lords return, and I'm sure that it will say nothing about the Lord returning "BEFORE" the tribulation.

In every verse of prophecy where the Day of the Lord is mentioned it refers to His return toward the end of tribulation for warfare and divine judgment.

Pretribulationism is the most fabricated, complicated, contradictory, and widely held false teaching of all time. It's an outright perversion of God's Word.

You have fallen for the most deceitful doctrine the Church has ever had to endure. And the rest of your eschatology reflects it!

Pretribulationsm. The devil would want it no other way!

 

[Old Timer]

Our Lord just spoke to me only through the Word telling me the burden of Revelation is in the Preliminary miraculus judgments contained in Rev.8:7-9:21 where we are exactly at Rev. chapter 9.
Maybe I was just hearing things?

Old listener Jack

OH NO! What do we do now.. I hear the voice of God, you hear the voice of God, we all hear the voice of God and He says different things to all of us..

Now what do we do?

I have an idea.. I'll pretend that I'm more spiritual than you are and basically tell you that you're not hearing the same God as I am..

There.. all fixed.