Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 289

Thread: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

  1. #91

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    TDW:

    In John 20:17, both "not yet have I ascended [active]" and "[say unto them] I ascend [active]" the words are "active".
    However, in all of the Acts 1 verses (regarding His 40-days later ascension), they are all "passive"-

    Acts 1:2 "until the day... he was taken up [passive]"

    Acts 1:9 "he was lifted up [passive]"

    Acts 1:10 "as he was going [middle/passive]"

    Acts 1:11 "having been taken up [passive] from you into heaven"


    This "visible" ascension is how He "shall so come in like manner AS YE HAVE SEEN Him go into heaven" (that is, at His "return" to the earth [2nd Coming to the earth (not our rapture)]).



    In the Upper Room Discourse, in John 16:16, Jesus had said, "A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go [away] [active] to the Father."

    At the end of Firstfruits [Resurrection Day] (after the disciples "believed not them which had seen him after he was risen"-Mark 16:14), He said to them (in Luke 24:39), "see / see Me" 3x. And so they did. John 16:16 ['I go' - active] was fulfilled that very day [ON Firstfruits--Leviticus 23:11, ('I ascend [present indicative active]'-John 20:17)].

    The disciples did see Jesus right away, after his resurrection. (And it did seem they saw him in his resurrected flesh. He still had visible wounds from the cross!) Jesus' appearance to his disciples happened well before the 2nd Coming. Jesus spoke of ascending in the sense that he was involved in rising from the dead himself. That is active. He was and is God. We can't do that, even though we also will rise from the dead. There is a sense in which Christ is also passive and receives from his Father a glorified, new body in heaven. He did this to show that we also need to receive, by grace, new immortal bodies, free of sin.

    Some of this is purely speculative to me. My point is that nothing you're saying here is doctrinal--it is purely speculative. I don't see anything in what you've said that invalidates my hypothesis, that Christ lived in a resurrected body for 40 days and then obtained his new glorified body in heaven after his ascension. The important point is that we should be careful to make doctrinal only that which is explicitly taught to us. Beyond this we can speculate while we research.
    It seems to me that you have not carefully read and considered what it is I was saying, here.

    For some reason, you are wanting to interject the idea of His 2nd Coming into here.


    "you shall not see Me"... [then, "I go [active] to the Father"]... "you shall see Me" (and they did, that very day! Luke 24:39 ["because" He did ("go")]).


    "...say unto them, I ascend [present indicative active]...".


    Jesus did not say to the woman, "do not detain Me for 40 days until I will ascend [40 days from now/40 days after Firstfruits (today)]"



    [see also, in the same context of Luke 24:39, verse 44 : http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-44.htm (Leviticus 23:11 "before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath..." [i.e. ON Firstfruits])--Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."]

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You are again ignoring the fact I distinguish between pure *assumptions,* lacking credible backup, and reasoned conclusions. Lots of assumptions we make are valid conclusions about reality. I "assume" that 2 + 2 = 4. I assume the sun will come up this morning. These are not "assumptions" in the way you're applying them.
    Because these are not assumptions. These are provable facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    In fact you seem to deliberately confuse the two.
    Because they are the same thing. If you can't *prove it* its an assumption.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I freely admit that I make assumptions, but these assumptions are valid inasmuch as they are based on *explicit Scriptural doctrines.* Other assumptions that we make, which are less reasoned or less clearly-associated with biblical statements, are the kinds of "assumptions" you wish to apply to me. You have not proven that!
    The things that I said are based on *explicit Scriptural statements* are quoted for you. I do "assume" they are true.
    Yes the scripture is true. Your doctrine based on assuming what Paul thinks and doctrine you make based on assuming what Paul *derived* his teachings on the Rapture however are assumptions clearly not based on *explicit Scripture*. Which is why all i suggested for you is that you take your own advice.

  3. #93

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    It seems to me that you have not carefully read and considered what it is I was saying, here.

    For some reason, you are wanting to interject the idea of His 2nd Coming into here.
    No, I didn't do that. The Scripture you refer to in John 16.16 was referring to the disciples seeing Jesus after his resurrection. I didn't say it had to do with his 2nd Coming. I didn't say it had to do with his ascension 40 days later.

    I think Jesus lived in his resurrected body--the body that died--for 40 days until he ascended on high and received his new glorified body. That's why he could show wounds in his body where he had been wounded at the cross.

    When Jesus told the woman not to detain him I think he was saying, "Don't try to keep me here. Don't try to hold onto me. I have to go get my glorified body. And when I do I will mark the path for you, when it is time for you to receive glorified bodies. And if I go and obtain my glorified body, I will be able to act on your behalf, and direct you through the Holy Spirit, so that what I have attained to now governs how grace applies to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark
    "you shall not see Me"... [then, "I go [active] to the Father"]... "you shall see Me" (and they did, that very day! Luke 24:39 ["because" He did ("go")]).


    "...say unto them, I ascend [present indicative active]...".


    Jesus did not say to the woman, "do not detain Me for 40 days until I will ascend [40 days from now/40 days after Firstfruits (today)]"



    [see also, in the same context of Luke 24:39, verse 44 : http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-44.htm (Leviticus 23:11 "before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath..." [i.e. ON Firstfruits])--Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."]

  4. #94

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesuslovesus View Post
    Because these are not assumptions. These are provable facts.
    Because they are the same thing. If you can't *prove it* its an assumption.
    Yes the scripture is true. Your doctrine based on assuming what Paul thinks and doctrine you make based on assuming what Paul *derived* his teachings on the Rapture however are assumptions clearly not based on *explicit Scripture*. Which is why all i suggested for you is that you take your own advice.
    The facts I gave you are facts. The passage in 2 Thessalonians 2 says exactly what I said it said. Jesus' Coming for his Church *cannot* take place unless first the Antichrist is revealed and destroyed. That is not adding to the passage. That is not changing the passage. That is not assuming something other than what the passage explicitly says. It is a *fact* that this is what the passage says!

    Now, you and I know this is arguable. But my position is *not* based on an assumption. It is based on the fact that *if* this is how the language is to be properly interpreted that this then becomes a fact--Antichrist's revelation and reign must precede Christ's coming for his Church.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The facts I gave you are facts. The passage in 2 Thessalonians 2 says exactly what I said it said. Jesus' Coming for his Church *cannot* take place unless first the Antichrist is revealed and destroyed. That is not adding to the passage. That is not changing the passage. That is not assuming something other than what the passage explicitly says. It is a *fact* that this is what the passage says!

    Now, you and I know this is arguable. But my position is *not* based on an assumption. It is based on the fact that *if* this is how the language is to be properly interpreted that this then becomes a fact--Antichrist's revelation and reign must precede Christ's coming for his Church.
    I understand you postion on this passage but this was not the subject of what i was speaking on. I was refereeing to post number *82* when you were creating doctrine based on John 20:17.

  6. #96

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, WM, I distinguish between two completely different concepts and "days." There is the eschatological Day of the Lord associated with Christ's Coming. That is a literal, 24 hour day. And there is also the Day of the Lord associated with the Millennial Kingdom. That is an era. I agree with you that the Day of the Lord can refer to an era. But in my opinion we should *not* mix up these very different "days." One is literal, and the other is an era.
    The Thessalonians wrongly believed IT [the DOTL] "IS PRESENT". Paul is telling them why that is not so.

    I've posted a portion of the following quote before, by William Kelly, from his commentary on 2 Thessalonians:

    The misleaders at Thessalonica were not so infatuated as to imagine that the Lord had come, and by His presence gathered to Himself on high all the saints, whether departed, or alive and waiting for Him. Even they never dreamt that He had descended into the air, and translated all the once suffering children of God to be with Him glorified in heaven. Since it was patent to all eyes that the saints in Thessalonica, and their brethren throughout the world, were still on earth, they could hold no such suicidal thought as that the deceased saints were already raised from their graves, and themselves were left behind. The truth is that they were not thinking about the Lord's presence: their delusion was not on this score at all, but about "the day of the Lord," as verse 2 makes clear and indisputable. They did conceive that His "day" was not merely "at hand," which is true, but "present," which is false. Identify "the coming" with "the day" of the Lord, and all is confusion; distinguishing between them, you forthwith receive light, and need put no strain on the words, which are instructive in proportion to the discernment of their exact force.

    [...]

    Now it is very intelligible that a misleader might avail himself of the germinant or partial application of the prophecies in ancient times to affirm that the sore troubles and persecution the Thessalonians then endured along with external distress and political convulsion, etc., indicated that day. It was not indeed Christ's presence, nor were the saints translated to heaven, which twofold event could not of course be pretended in any way to have taken place; for it is here pleaded as a self-evident guard against the error in circulation, that the day of the Lord's dealing with the living on earth had begun, and that the saints were involved in its terrors. So far in fact were any from so egregious a fancy as that Christ had come, that beyond controversy the apostle could entreat them by* (or, for the sake of) His presence and our gathering together unto Him, that they should not credit the alarming rumour that His day was there. That is, every believer in his senses was fully aware that Christ had not come, but was in heaven still, and that the saints were as yet on earth instead of being caught up to Him above. Therefore the apostle does make this a ground of appeal why they should not receive the mischievous report, no matter how strongly in appearance commended, that His day had actually dawned. Christ's presence and our gathering unto Him on high must precede that day. That on the one hand so great a joy, so bright a hope, was not the actual portion of the saints and that on the other (while Christ was still absent; they themselves and their brethren were as yet on earth, were obvious facts and irrefragable reasons why the day could not be come. The saints are to appear from heaven following Christ to bring in that day, See Revelation 17:14; Revelation 19:14. In order to this they must be translated there previously; and so we see them symbolised as in heaven from Rev. 4 and onward.
    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kel...alonians/2.htm


    They thought IT [the time period] "IS PRESENT".

    They did not think Jesus Himself "IS PRESENT".

    They did not think the Rapture "IS PRESENT".

    They thought the time period known as "the Day of the Lord" IS PRESENT. It STARTS with the initial "birth PANG [singular; 1Th5:2-3]" of MANY "birth PANGS [plural; Matt24:4-8 (matching the Seals), and the time following]" to follow that first one. They thought that time period "IS PRESENT" and that they were now experiencing it [per their present negative circumstances, chapter 1, and "the misleaders at Thessalonica" (as Kelly put it) telling them that was so, 2Th2:2.

    It makes no sense to think they believed a 24-hr day (the event of Christ's 2nd Coming to the earth) "IS PRESENT"... and by the time Paul can get this letter to them, they would have already wised up on their own and been in no need of a letter from Paul correcting such a wrong belief.


    Paul's purpose is to tell them,

    "that day [DOTL time period (v.2)] will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come THE Departure FIRST [the event in v.1]..."


    ...AND the man of sin BE REVEALED [the DOTL's ARRIVAL (commencement [when it WILL indeed "BE PRESENT"]) does not await "his END" (his "destruction") in order to be present (but the man of sin's COMING/REVEALED/BEGINNING)]

    [INITIAL "birth PANG [singular]" = 1st Seal = the COMING (v.9) of "the man of sin [be revealed]" = the ARRIVAL of "the Day of the Lord [time period]" as a thief "IN THE NIGHT" (Dan7:7; "in his time"; Dan9:27's "he,he,he" is the same BEGINNING, MIDDLE, and END of the "who,who,who" of 2Th2:3-9, the same "7-yr length of time" in both passages]

  7. #97

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jesuslovesus View Post
    I understand you postion on this passage but this was not the subject of what i was speaking on. I was refereeing to post number *82* when you were creating doctrine based on John 20:17.
    Okay, but hopefully you understand now that I am *not* making a doctrine out of this. This is pure speculation on my part. I've been asking for some time what others think are the origins of the Rapture doctrine of Paul? It is my personal assessment that Paul's Rapture doctrine originates from the Ascension account of Luke in Acts 1, taken in conjunction with the eschatology of the Son of Man in Dan 7. That and the reference to Enoch and Elijah give us the idea that there is only a relatively small group of faithful Christians who will be glorified at Christ's return. (I'm here referring to those who are "alive" at Christ's return.) The vast majority of Christians across the earth do not really know the Lord. And when Christ comes they will be gathered back to the place where they can truly find him in their hearts, just like it is promised to the nation Israel.

    This for me is not a doctrine, but a speculation. I find it very interesting that there is a parallel between Jesus being "taken into the clouds" and the Church being "seized and taken to the clouds." Both events may have had to do with glorified bodies being assumed, first Christ and then the Church.

    But no, don't charge me with assuming here. This is not a doctrine with me--it's a speculation.
    Last edited by randyk; Feb 18th 2017 at 04:27 PM.

  8. #98

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    The Thessalonians wrongly believed IT [the DOTL] "IS PRESENT". Paul is telling them why that is not so.
    I've posted a portion of the following quote before, by William Kelly, from his commentary on 2 Thessalonians:

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kel...alonians/2.htm
    They thought IT [the time period] "IS PRESENT".
    They did not think Jesus Himself "IS PRESENT".
    They did not think the Rapture "IS PRESENT".

    They thought the time period known as "the Day of the Lord" IS PRESENT. It STARTS with the initial "birth PANG [singular; 1Th5:2-3]" of MANY "birth PANGS [plural; Matt24:4-8 (matching the Seals), and the time following]" to follow that first one. They thought that time period "IS PRESENT" and that they were now experiencing it [per their present negative circumstances, chapter 1, and "the misleaders at Thessalonica" (as Kelly put it) telling them that was so, 2Th2:2.

    It makes no sense to think they believed a 24-hr day (the event of Christ's 2nd Coming to the earth) "IS PRESENT"... and by the time Paul can get this letter to them, they would have already wised up on their own and been in no need of a letter from Paul correcting such a wrong belief.


    Paul's purpose is to tell them,

    "that day [DOTL time period (v.2)] will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come THE Departure FIRST [the event in v.1]..."


    ...AND the man of sin BE REVEALED [the DOTL's ARRIVAL (commencement [when it WILL indeed "BE PRESENT"]) does not await "his END" (his "destruction") in order to be present (but the man of sin's COMING/REVEALED/BEGINNING)]

    [INITIAL "birth PANG [singular]" = 1st Seal = the COMING (v.9) of "the man of sin [be revealed]" = the ARRIVAL of "the Day of the Lord [time period]" as a thief "IN THE NIGHT" (Dan7:7; "in his time"; Dan9:27's "he,he,he" is the same BEGINNING, MIDDLE, and END of the "who,who,who" of 2Th2:3-9, the same "7-yr length of time" in both passages]
    With all due respect, that kind of verbosity, demonstrated by Mr. Kelly, is usually the product of a mind arguing with itself. The plain truth does not need that many words, that many rationalizations. The truth is plain-stated by Paul. The Day of the Lord *is* the day in which Christ comes to gather his saints. And that day could not yet have come since Antichrist had not yet been revealed. In fact Christ would not come until he comes to actually destroy Antichrist. Nothing could be plainer. If that is what Paul was trying to say this was the only way he could've said it.

    To try to separate the coming of the Lord for his Church and the Day of the Lord is an exercise in futility. They are spoken in the same breath. Obviously, the context demands that we understand that day as the literal day in which Christ will descend from the clouds. And to then say that the Day of the Lord is some frightening event, and not the day of Christ's Coming, is just as absurd. Paul had already identified the Day of the Lord as the coming of Christ for his church, which is hardly a frightening event.

    You just make it way too difficult, in an effort to justify a bizarre, modern eschatology. Nothing in church history countenances a Pretrib Rapture of the Church. This is a *modern heresy.* I know it's popular, and I know it exists within an otherwise doctrinally orthodox church. My own church denomination is Pretrib! But it is nevertheless, in my mind, a false doctrine, because it is *not* taught in the Bible. And it wasn't taught in the Early Church.

    So where did the Pretrib Doctrine come from? It came from Catholics who did not want to be labeled the Antichrist. Some of these Catholics were Amillennial, and wanted the Antichrist to have already been fulfilled in ancient Rome. Perhaps they were Preterists to some degree? But some of them decided that the Antichrist was indeed future, and could not be interpreted as an historical Antichrist. Some thought that the Church should be separate from failed Israel, and that they should escape the time of Tribulation for Israel and escape in a Pretrib Rapture. Some simply wanted to believe that Christ's Coming would come back sooner rather than later, to place special blessing upon those who anxiously expected his coming.

    Trouble is, no such "escape" is espoused by Paul. It must be read into the disappearing "Restrainer" in 2 Thes 2, or interpreted symbolically when John was raptured to heaven in Rev 4. Or, it is read symbolically into the church of Philadelphia who "escaped" tribulation in their day. But there is *no Pretrib doctrine!* It is a heresy. It adds to the book of Revelation, which does not distinguish between Christ's coming on the last day of the age from any other supposed coming of Christ!

  9. #99

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    No, I didn't do that. The Scripture you refer to in John 16.16 was referring to the disciples seeing Jesus after his resurrection. I didn't say it [John 16:16 ('because I go')] had to do with his 2nd Coming ['because I go, you will too' ]. I didn't say it [John 16:16 ('because I go')] had to do with his ascension 40 days later.

    I think Jesus lived in his resurrected body--the body that died--for 40 days until he ascended on high and received his new glorified body.

    [see Romans 6:5 again, "we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection"] [brackets-TDW]
    It sure seems that way to me (that you meant that).

    John 16:16 -

    --"A little while, and ye shall not see Me... " ["but Him they saw not" - Luke 24:22-24]

    --"and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me... ["See/Behold My hands and My feet... handle Me, and see... as ye see Me have" - Luke 24:39]

    --"because I go [active (and present tense)] to the Father"... ["Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father: but go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend [active (and present tense)] unto My Father, and your Father..." - John 20:17]



    What you seem to be saying is that the "because" in John 16:16 has nothing to do with the prior part of the verse.

    What I'm saying is that Jesus (in John 16:16) is telling what happens all ON THAT SAME DAY (rather than a part of it conveying what will occur some 40 days later [keeping in mind the "because" word--"because I [ACTIVELY] go to the Father" (because I go [present tense], you shall see [future tense, but yet on that very same evening--'future' to the 'go'])]).


    What you have been suggesting is that Jesus is telling Mary Magdalene to "go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend [active; PRESENT tense (rk says 'future' here) ]...because even though I'll have them 'see' Me later tonight, I'll be too lazy and too occupied eating fish and bon-bons to tell them myself [about the 40-day-later-from-now (FUTURE tense) thing]... so how 'bout being my Girl Friday, eh... even though it IS only the first [day] of the Weeks..." [ ]

    What I am saying is that Jesus is telling her to tell them what He's getting ready to do THAT VERY DAY [fulfilling something (ON Firstfruits)], in the time between [between HER seeing Him (morning) and THEM seeing Him (late evening)], and the very reason He's telling her to go say unto THEM... [i.e. the "because" between John 16:16's "ye shall not see" and "ye shall see" and the "little while" it refers to (is the "I go/ascend [active; present tense]")... not 40 days till He WILL (future) do it [which event 40 days later the record says, in every place, was "passive"] ]. He's telling her to "go to My brethren, and say unto them" [verbal testimony] something He's PRESENTLY about to do (not something He's to do some 40 days from now, which He could tell them Himself as He would have had many days "being seen of them" to do that very thing [even telling them Himself on that very day-John 16:16, Luke 24:39], but that's not what He's saying [to her, to say unto them]).


    The "future tense" of the John 16:16 verse happens AFTER [future-tense-to] the "present tense 'I GO [active]' " (yet, that "shall see [future tense thing]" also happened THAT VERY DAY, late in the evening [that is, AFTER the "I ascend [active; present tense]" occurred on that very day]).





    ["And they remembered His words...[...] and their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." Luke 24:8,10-11 (this was before anyone saw Him); ... "and [Jesus] upbraided them [the eleven] with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen." Mark 16:14 (this was later that same evening, AFTER some saw Him, and Mary M went "to My brethren, and say unto them..." John 20:18 [the things the risen Christ gave her to say unto them]). This much has to do with believing the testimony (word/words)...]

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,599

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The truth is plain-stated by Paul. The Day of the Lord *is* the day in which Christ comes to gather his saints.
    Why then do you often claim there are many days of the Lord, even in ancient history?

    To try to separate the coming of the Lord for his Church and the Day of the Lord is an exercise in futility. They are spoken in the same breath. Obviously, the context demands that we understand that day as the literal day in which Christ will descend from the clouds. And to then say that the Day of the Lord is some frightening event, and not the day of Christ's Coming, is just as absurd. Paul had already identified the Day of the Lord as the coming of Christ for his church, which is hardly a frightening event.
    The prophets say otherwise. Your own theories have boxed you in, again.

    Amos 5:18 Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! For what good is the day of the Lord to you? It will be darkness, and not light. 19 It will be as though a man fled from a lion, And a bear met him! Or as though he went into the house, Leaned his hand on the wall, And a serpent bit him!
    20 Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light? Is it not very dark, with no brightness in it?

    You just make it way too difficult, in an effort to justify a bizarre, modern eschatology. Nothing in church history countenances a Pretrib Rapture of the Church. This is a *modern heresy.* I know it's popular, and I know it exists within an otherwise doctrinally orthodox church. My own church denomination is Pretrib! But it is nevertheless, in my mind, a false doctrine, because it is *not* taught in the Bible. And it wasn't taught in the Early Church.
    Incorrect on all counts. Pretrib was indeed taught by at least the 300's in the Syrian church. Much of the early church writings were made by Catholics, people who hardly know any truth. If you look outside of the Catholic church you will find pretrib being taught. Even the book of Enoch 62 very plainly spells out the pretrib rapture doctrine, and it is older than the church itself!

    Heresy?! False doctrine?! You'd be better off calling it what it really is to you, a huge lack of faith on your part. In the end, you believe very little of the scripture means what it actually says. Thankfully, you do believe Jesus is the Christ. Outside of that, its symbolism and figurative. It's a faith issue, not a text issue.

    So where did the Pretrib Doctrine come from? It came from Catholics who did not want to be labeled the Antichrist. Some of these Catholics were Amillennial, and wanted the Antichrist to have already been fulfilled in ancient Rome. Perhaps they were Preterists to some degree? But some of them decided that the Antichrist was indeed future, and could not be interpreted as an historical Antichrist. Some thought that the Church should be separate from failed Israel, and that they should escape the time of Tribulation for Israel and escape in a Pretrib Rapture. Some simply wanted to believe that Christ's Coming would come back sooner rather than later, to place special blessing upon those who anxiously expected his coming.
    Pretrib came from scripture, Paul, the book of Enoch, the early non-Catholic church. The Catholic church invented Preterism and Amil, not pretrib.

    Trouble is, no such "escape" is espoused by Paul. It must be read into the disappearing "Restrainer" in 2 Thes 2, or interpreted symbolically when John was raptured to heaven in Rev 4. Or, it is read symbolically into the church of Philadelphia who "escaped" tribulation in their day. But there is *no Pretrib doctrine!* It is a heresy. It adds to the book of Revelation, which does not distinguish between Christ's coming on the last day of the age from any other supposed coming of Christ!
    Jesus did well to prophesy against you saying...

    Luke 17:28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

    31 “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. 36 Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.”

    37 And they answered and said to Him, “Where, Lord?”

    So He said to them, “Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”

    Read the story of Lot. Six were to be saved, only three made it out. Two died from lack of faith, one started to go and looked back. Half made it out BEFORE the wrath. The other half perished. Likewise, only half the virgins are wise. The other half get locked out. Same here in Luke 17, half are taken, half are not. Why do you want to be like Lot's two sons-in-law who perished because of their unbelief? They did not believe the angels who came to get them. So it will be on the day of rapture. Many will perish in unbelief.

    I challenge you to read Enoch 62. You have asked where Paul got the idea of meeting the Lord in the air? You just might find the answer there.

  11. #101

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    With all due respect, that kind of verbosity, demonstrated by Mr. Kelly, is usually the product of a mind arguing with itself.
    Rude.



    Actually, "that kind of verbosity" is likely due to the fact that he lived and spoke out from his place in the 1800's, when they still "understood" language (not like our dumbed down "tweet-ville" and "sound-bite city" we currently live in. )

    The plain truth does not need that many words, that many rationalizations.
    He didn't list "many" (just a couple... and I boiled them down to their essence in my words that followed). The "false conveyers" of verse 2 were not telling them those other two "suggestions" [many offer as to the meaning].

    What they were saying to the Thessalonians was so convincing BECAUSE OF the "negative" circumstances they were presently experiencing! (thus their reaction, as written in Verse 2)


    The truth is plain-stated by Paul.
    Agreed. Very plain.

    It's just that people want to "make up" their own definition of what constitutes "the Day of the Lord" divorced from its OT origination [even if, like you, they want to say there is more than one, and those old ones [having already taken place according to you] were merely the "template"--one must still include all that it entails, and it entails a period of time which includes "judgment/s" and "birth PANGS" and "DARKness" etc--not just the "happy" events ]

    The Day of the Lord *is* the day in which Christ comes to gather his saints. And that day could not yet have come since Antichrist had not yet been revealed. In fact Christ would not come until he comes to actually destroy Antichrist. Nothing could be plainer. If that is what Paul was trying to say this was the only way he could've said it.
    "that day [the DOTL] will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come The Departure FIRST, AND the man of sin BE REVEALED"

    That's what he said.

    ["BE REVEALED"... that is, his BEGINNING (and ALL he will DO "in his time") notjust his END!]


    To try to separate the coming of the Lord for his Church and the Day of the Lord is an exercise in futility.
    Read what I just wrote above.

    They are spoken in the same breath. Obviously, the context demands that we understand that day as the literal day in which Christ will descend from the clouds.
    "That day" of Verse 3 is talking about that which he had just written in Verse 2 (the thing THEY THOUGHT "IS PRESENT" [and being told to them by others]), and Paul is saying "that day will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come THE Departure [the Verse 1 EVENT] FIRST..."

    [Verse 15: believe US, not the false thing THEY are telling you! (false: that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT)]

    And to then say that the Day of the Lord is some frightening event
    Parts of it ARE (the "DARK" portion of it, having to do with "judgment" and "birth PANGS" and "DARKness" and all [over a time period, not merely a singular "EVENT" as you suggest], not the latter part of it having to do with the "Blessing" that follows)

    and not the day of Christ's Coming,
    The entire long DOTL TIME PERIOD *INCLUDES* that aspect as well (and also includes the 1000-yrs), but it ARRIVES earlier than that point in time, at the "DARK" portion (including "judgments" and "birth PANGS" and "DARKness" and so forth).

    is just as absurd. Paul had already identified the Day of the Lord as the coming of Christ for his church, which is hardly a frightening event.
    No, he's distinguishing them:

    "3 That day [the DOTL,v.2] will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE [v.1] FIRST..."

    ONE THING FIRST before the OTHER THING can BE PRESENT. [distinguishing TWO DIFFERENT THINGS]


    You say that "DOTL" can refer to an era, but then neglect to see how Paul is using it in this context [that they believe it "IS PRESENT" and Paul's response that it won't be if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE FIRST, AND the man of sin BE REVEALED (then it WILL be PRESENT); and also how he had already just told them (1Th5:2-3) of the manner of its ARRIVAL: like the initial "birth PANG [singular]" come UPON a pregnant woman [that is the START of the "birth PANGS [plural]" not its END RESULT, and this involves TIME! (birth PANGS--Matt24:4-8, matching the SEALS at the BEGINNING, not the END)]

    You just make it way too difficult, in an effort to justify a bizarre, modern eschatology. Nothing in church history countenances a Pretrib Rapture of the Church. This is a *modern heresy.* I know it's popular, and I know it exists within an otherwise doctrinally orthodox church. My own church denomination is Pretrib! But it is nevertheless, in my mind, a false doctrine, because it is *not* taught in the Bible. And it wasn't taught in the Early Church.

    So where did the Pretrib Doctrine come from? It came from Catholics who did not want to be labeled the Antichrist. Some of these Catholics were Amillennial, and wanted the Antichrist to have already been fulfilled in ancient Rome. Perhaps they were Preterists to some degree? But some of them decided that the Antichrist was indeed future, and could not be interpreted as an historical Antichrist. Some thought that the Church should be separate from failed Israel, and that they should escape the time of Tribulation for Israel and escape in a Pretrib Rapture. Some simply wanted to believe that Christ's Coming would come back sooner rather than later, to place special blessing upon those who anxiously expected his coming.

    Trouble is, no such "escape" is espoused by Paul. It must be read into the disappearing "Restrainer" in 2 Thes 2, or interpreted symbolically when John was raptured to heaven in Rev 4. Or, it is read symbolically into the church of Philadelphia who "escaped" tribulation in their day. But there is *no Pretrib doctrine!* It is a heresy. It adds to the book of Revelation, which does not distinguish between Christ's coming on the last day of the age from any other supposed coming of Christ!
    Speaking of the Catholic Church (wanting to obscure something, or what have you), here's a quote for you:

    "everybody [even Jerome's Latin Vulgate in the 300's] translated that word apostasia as “departure,” which is an excellent translation until you had the 1600 King James come along, and they were in a fight with the Catholics again, and the Douai version in 1583, which was the first English translation of the Bible by the Catholics, translated it “revolt.” In other words – and they took it to refer to the revolt of the Protestants against the Catholic Church. So you had the Protestants and the King James countering theirs by introducing a whole new translation, and that is “falling away,” or, in other words, they took it as an abstract departure or apostasy from the faith." [i.e. apostasy from THEIR faith (if being Protestant in the 1500's... or Catholic in the 1600's )] -- Thomas Ice [bracket mine]


    You are getting inadequate information. I suggest you study into that further.

    Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicons or dictionaries, list the word “disappearance” (and also "departure" [as in the first 7 English translations before the kjv in 1600's or so]... this is preceded by the definite article "the," thus meaning a definite event ['THE Departure [NOUN]'--versus your Matthew 24:10 VERB "skandalisthēsontai - many shall fall away" (as you have suggested in the past this be the context where it is derived from [but which comes after "the man of sin BE REVEALED" and result of his deceptions])], just as Paul prefaced this section with in Verse 1: "our gathering-together [NOUN - episynagōgēs] UNTO HIM").


    Answer this question: Are you saying that you believe the order of events (as it pertains to our rapture/departure) is what is said in Matthew 13:30 and 41,43 ..."[will be said to the angels] gather FIRST the TARES [unsaved]" (since you see "the end of the age" bringing both of these)?? I say, no. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE SEQUENCE as that of our rapture. To conflate the two [orders/sequences] is to add confusion.

    [the difference between 2Th1:10 and 2Th2:10-12--one is "the pseudei" and "a working of delusion" that will be in existence following our "departure" (in existence DURING the "DOTL" time period/DARKNESS/IN THE NIGHT)]

  12. #102

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    Rude.



    Actually, "that kind of verbosity" is likely due to the fact that he lived and spoke out from his place in the 1800's, when they still "understood" language (not like our dumbed down "tweet-ville" and "sound-bite city" we currently live in. )



    He didn't list "many" (just a couple... and I boiled them down to their essence in my words that followed). The "false conveyers" of verse 2 were not telling them those other two "suggestions" [many offer as to the meaning].

    What they were saying to the Thessalonians was so convincing BECAUSE OF the "negative" circumstances they were presently experiencing! (thus their reaction, as written in Verse 2)




    Agreed. Very plain.

    It's just that people want to "make up" their own definition of what constitutes "the Day of the Lord" divorced from its OT origination [even if, like you, they want to say there is more than one, and those old ones [having already taken place according to you] were merely the "template"--one must still include all that it entails, and it entails a period of time which includes "judgment/s" and "birth PANGS" and "DARKness" etc--not just the "happy" events ]



    "that day [the DOTL] will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come The Departure FIRST, AND the man of sin BE REVEALED"

    That's what he said.

    ["BE REVEALED"... that is, his BEGINNING (and ALL he will DO "in his time") notjust his END!]




    Read what I just wrote above.



    "That day" of Verse 3 is talking about that which he had just written in Verse 2 (the thing THEY THOUGHT "IS PRESENT" [and being told to them by others]), and Paul is saying "that day will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come THE Departure [the Verse 1 EVENT] FIRST..."

    [Verse 15: believe US, not the false thing THEY are telling you! (false: that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT)]



    Parts of it ARE (the "DARK" portion of it, having to do with "judgment" and "birth PANGS" and "DARKness" and all [over a time period, not merely a singular "EVENT" as you suggest], not the latter part of it having to do with the "Blessing" that follows)



    The entire long DOTL TIME PERIOD *INCLUDES* that aspect as well (and also includes the 1000-yrs), but it ARRIVES earlier than that point in time, at the "DARK" portion (including "judgments" and "birth PANGS" and "DARKness" and so forth).



    No, he's distinguishing them:

    "3 That day [the DOTL,v.2] will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE [v.1] FIRST..."

    ONE THING FIRST before the OTHER THING can BE PRESENT. [distinguishing TWO DIFFERENT THINGS]


    You say that "DOTL" can refer to an era, but then neglect to see how Paul is using it in this context [that they believe it "IS PRESENT" and Paul's response that it won't be if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE FIRST, AND the man of sin BE REVEALED (then it WILL be PRESENT); and also how he had already just told them (1Th5:2-3) of the manner of its ARRIVAL: like the initial "birth PANG [singular]" come UPON a pregnant woman [that is the START of the "birth PANGS [plural]" not its END RESULT, and this involves TIME! (birth PANGS--Matt24:4-8, matching the SEALS at the BEGINNING, not the END)]



    Speaking of the Catholic Church (wanting to obscure something, or what have you), here's a quote for you:

    "everybody [even Jerome's Latin Vulgate in the 300's] translated that word apostasia as “departure,” which is an excellent translation until you had the 1600 King James come along, and they were in a fight with the Catholics again, and the Douai version in 1583, which was the first English translation of the Bible by the Catholics, translated it “revolt.” In other words – and they took it to refer to the revolt of the Protestants against the Catholic Church. So you had the Protestants and the King James countering theirs by introducing a whole new translation, and that is “falling away,” or, in other words, they took it as an abstract departure or apostasy from the faith." [i.e. apostasy from THEIR faith (if being Protestant in the 1500's... or Catholic in the 1600's )] -- Thomas Ice [bracket mine]


    You are getting inadequate information. I suggest you study into that further.

    Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicons or dictionaries, list the word “disappearance” (and also "departure" [as in the first 7 English translations before the kjv in 1600's or so]... this is preceded by the definite article "the," thus meaning a definite event ['THE Departure [NOUN]'--versus your Matthew 24:10 VERB "skandalisthēsontai - many shall fall away" (as you have suggested in the past this be the context where it is derived from [but which comes after "the man of sin BE REVEALED" and result of his deceptions])], just as Paul prefaced this section with in Verse 1: "our gathering-together [NOUN - episynagōgēs] UNTO HIM").


    Answer this question: Are you saying that you believe the order of events (as it pertains to our rapture/departure) is what is said in Matthew 13:30 and 41,43 ..."[will be said to the angels] gather FIRST the TARES [unsaved]" (since you see "the end of the age" bringing both of these)?? I say, no. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE SEQUENCE as that of our rapture. To conflate the two [orders/sequences] is to add confusion.

    [the difference between 2Th1:10 and 2Th2:10-12--one is "the pseudei" and "a working of delusion" that will be in existence following our "departure" (in existence DURING the "DOTL" time period/DARKNESS/IN THE NIGHT)]
    I will look into it. I don't really have time right now. But let me dumb it down for you by way of example.

    I will not come to your house unless the mailman makes his delivery first. It is that simple. Jesus will not come back unless the Antichrist reigns first. The "day of the Lord" is completely incidental to this. The emphasis is not on the day but on the coming. The day is simply the point in time in which he comes. Paul is saying that the point in time in which Christ comes must be placed *after* the reign of Antichrist. But I'll get back with you later...

  13. #103

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I will look into it. I don't really have time right now. But let me dumb it down for you by way of example.

    I will not come to your house unless the mailman makes his delivery first. It is that simple. Jesus will not come back unless the Antichrist reigns first. The "day of the Lord" is completely incidental to this. The emphasis is not on the day but on the coming. The day is simply the point in time in which he comes. Paul is saying that the point in time in which Christ comes must be placed *after* the reign of Antichrist. But I'll get back with you later...
    I assure you, randyk, I fully understand your viewpoint. I disagree with it, but I do understand.

    Just as I'm sure you grasp (in some measure) my view that [even if you think there are "multiple" Days of the Lord] it includes the "negative [period of time] aspect" followed by the "positive [period of time] aspect". Paul is telling them why it is not so [as they wrongly believed and were being convinced by others was true] that "the Day of the Lord [the time period] IS PRESENT." One thing must happen "FIRST"... and it clearly had not.
    [Verse 2 is why he's writing to them (they were being convinced by others [involving their present 'real time experience' (chpt1)] that that time period "is present"--so, very integral to what he's saying)]


    I'm probably not going to have any more time for replying/discussing, but feel free to post further if you wish. I just likely won't be able to respond, as I'm going to be on a tight schedule upcoming...

  14. #104

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    Rude.
    No, it's just a fact. When someone keeps going around the same circle, they seem to be trying to convince themselves of something. I'm not insulting the guy's intelligence. Obviously, he's very capable. But I do think he is rationalizing.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark


    Actually, "that kind of verbosity" is likely due to the fact that he lived and spoke out from his place in the 1800's, when they still "understood" language (not like our dumbed down "tweet-ville" and "sound-bite city" we currently live in. )
    I'm not sure the 1800s was any different.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark
    He didn't list "many" (just a couple... and I boiled them down to their essence in my words that followed). The "false conveyers" of verse 2 were not telling them those other two "suggestions" [many offer as to the meaning].

    What they were saying to the Thessalonians was so convincing BECAUSE OF the "negative" circumstances they were presently experiencing! (thus their reaction, as written in Verse 2)
    I really don't know what the Thessalonians experienced. Trying to read back into their feelings and thoughts from Paul's warning is difficult, and subject to interpretation. I prefer to go back to Jesus' Olivet Discourse where he warned his disciples not to fall for any false messages regarding the Kingdom. "Do not believe false christs or false prophets." That kind of thing. Obviously, the Thessalonians weren't falling for false christs in the way Jews may have, but they certainly were vulnerable to false reports about Christ having already come back and appeared somewhere. That also Jesus rejected, and warned his disciples that they should not look in any one place for his coming. He would come as a kind of universal revelation--not secret, but out in the light. And I believe he indicated he was coming in the context of war and judgment.

    So Paul's burden was primarily to assure them that it was *impossible* that Jesus had already come back and appeared somewhere. He could not have come back if indeed the revelation of Antichrist had to take place first. And if that had to take place first, then Christ could not have come yet.

    This led into the need to explain exactly how to recognize Antichrist. And why was this important? I think it is important because John made it clear that we need to identify the antichrist spirit. Paul also spent time trying to encourage Christians to resist the Evil One and his ways. But Jesus made it essential for the Jews to recognize the difference between a true prophetic spirit and a false revolutionary spirit. Zealots were in Jesus' day trying to stir up resistance to the Romans. But Jesus insisted that due to the lack of repentance the Romans would bear God's judgment. The best they could do was repent and remain apart from those about to be judged.

    So judgment doesn't really await Christ's coming. It came in the generation of Jesus. And it comes in all generations in a variety of forms. What we as Christians need to do is remain holy, and thus protected from the judgments of God. We need to recognize the spirit of righteousness and a false spirit that would justify evil behavior and pretend it is immune from judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark
    Agreed. Very plain.

    It's just that people want to "make up" their own definition of what constitutes "the Day of the Lord" divorced from its OT origination [even if, like you, they want to say there is more than one, and those old ones [having already taken place according to you] were merely the "template"--one must still include all that it entails, and it entails a period of time which includes "judgment/s" and "birth PANGS" and "DARKness" etc--not just the "happy" events ]



    "that day [the DOTL] will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come The Departure FIRST, AND the man of sin BE REVEALED"

    That's what he said.

    ["BE REVEALED"... that is, his BEGINNING (and ALL he will DO "in his time") notjust his END!]




    Read what I just wrote above.



    "That day" of Verse 3 is talking about that which he had just written in Verse 2 (the thing THEY THOUGHT "IS PRESENT" [and being told to them by others]), and Paul is saying "that day will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come THE Departure [the Verse 1 EVENT] FIRST..."

    [Verse 15: believe US, not the false thing THEY are telling you! (false: that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT)]



    Parts of it ARE (the "DARK" portion of it, having to do with "judgment" and "birth PANGS" and "DARKness" and all [over a time period, not merely a singular "EVENT" as you suggest], not the latter part of it having to do with the "Blessing" that follows)



    The entire long DOTL TIME PERIOD *INCLUDES* that aspect as well (and also includes the 1000-yrs), but it ARRIVES earlier than that point in time, at the "DARK" portion (including "judgments" and "birth PANGS" and "DARKness" and so forth).



    No, he's distinguishing them:

    "3 That day [the DOTL,v.2] will NOT BE PRESENT if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE [v.1] FIRST..."

    ONE THING FIRST before the OTHER THING can BE PRESENT. [distinguishing TWO DIFFERENT THINGS]


    You say that "DOTL" can refer to an era, but then neglect to see how Paul is using it in this context [that they believe it "IS PRESENT" and Paul's response that it won't be if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE FIRST, AND the man of sin BE REVEALED (then it WILL be PRESENT); and also how he had already just told them (1Th5:2-3) of the manner of its ARRIVAL: like the initial "birth PANG [singular]" come UPON a pregnant woman [that is the START of the "birth PANGS [plural]" not its END RESULT, and this involves TIME! (birth PANGS--Matt24:4-8, matching the SEALS at the BEGINNING, not the END)]
    I think there are many "days of the Lord." To consolidate them in one, in the day of Christ's coming, is wrong, in my opinion. Are there extended days of the Lord? Of course. But this is not one of them. This is just a single day, a marker in time, in which Christ comes back to defeat his foes and to deliver his people. It is a very significant day. But it is neither an extended Day of the Lord, nor one in which an extended period of judgment takes place. This is a single day--perhaps a nuclear war, which takes place very quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark
    Speaking of the Catholic Church (wanting to obscure something, or what have you), here's a quote for you:

    "everybody [even Jerome's Latin Vulgate in the 300's] translated that word apostasia as “departure,” which is an excellent translation until you had the 1600 King James come along, and they were in a fight with the Catholics again, and the Douai version in 1583, which was the first English translation of the Bible by the Catholics, translated it “revolt.” In other words – and they took it to refer to the revolt of the Protestants against the Catholic Church. So you had the Protestants and the King James countering theirs by introducing a whole new translation, and that is “falling away,” or, in other words, they took it as an abstract departure or apostasy from the faith." [i.e. apostasy from THEIR faith (if being Protestant in the 1500's... or Catholic in the 1600's )] -- Thomas Ice [bracket mine]


    You are getting inadequate information. I suggest you study into that further.

    Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicons or dictionaries, list the word “disappearance” (and also "departure" [as in the first 7 English translations before the kjv in 1600's or so]... this is preceded by the definite article "the," thus meaning a definite event ['THE Departure [NOUN]'--versus your Matthew 24:10 VERB "skandalisthēsontai - many shall fall away" (as you have suggested in the past this be the context where it is derived from [but which comes after "the man of sin BE REVEALED" and result of his deceptions])], just as Paul prefaced this section with in Verse 1: "our gathering-together [NOUN - episynagōgēs] UNTO HIM").
    I don't have a problem with translating the word as "departure." It is context, however, that determines what kind of departure you have. And you have in this instance a departure from God--in fact a rebellion against God. Antichrist takes a seat in *God's temple!* That is usurpation. That is rebellion. That is a "departure."

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark
    Answer this question: Are you saying that you believe the order of events (as it pertains to our rapture/departure) is what is said in Matthew 13:30 and 41,43 ..."[will be said to the angels] gather FIRST the TARES [unsaved]" (since you see "the end of the age" bringing both of these)?? I say, no. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE SEQUENCE as that of our rapture. To conflate the two [orders/sequences] is to add confusion.
    I don't see Matthew 13 as the opposite of the Rapture. I believe when Jesus comes back he will cause a nuclear war to break out. Christians will go through this. Their rescue will not be escape from this nuclear holocaust. Rather, it will be resurrection from the dead, or if they are still alive, a rapture into heaven, to receive new glorified bodies. The war first, and after that, the Rapture of the Church.

    I must say that when the Church goes through hellish times, due to the sins of the world, and not due to their own sins, they are *not being judged.* Rather, they are experiencing the sinful world in precisely the same way Jesus experienced the sinful world--not due to his own guilt, but only to experience what sinful men experience. We are freed from judgment not by escaping fiery trials, but rather, by our resurrection from the dead, and by our obtaining eternal life.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark
    [the difference between 2Th1:10 and 2Th2:10-12--one is "the pseudei" and "a working of delusion" that will be in existence following our "departure" (in existence DURING the "DOTL" time period/DARKNESS/IN THE NIGHT)]

  15. #105

    Re: In a Post-Trib Rapture do the Jewish Remnant Participate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P View Post
    Why then do you often claim there are many days of the Lord, even in ancient history?
    Because there are indeed many days of the Lord in Scriptures. They are not all the same, however. That's why I mark the day of Christ's coming different from other Scriptural days of the Lord. In many ways, the day of Christ's coming is the ultimate day of the Lord. But I believe the day of Christ's coming is but the 1st day of many more days comprising the Day of the Lord as a Kingdom era. So bear in mind that in my eschatology I distinguish between the literal 24 hour day in which Christ returns from the Day of the Lord as the Millennial era. They are not the same thing. They are not linked as such in many of the Scriptures in which a literal 24 hour day is used as the marker at which Christ returns. We know that because that day is both judgment and salvation. Judgment does not extend into the Millennial era--at least not the judgment that is designed for Antichrist. Judgment is poured out on Antichrist in a single day. And on the same day the Church is delivered either through resurrection or through Rapture (glorified bodies given to both departed and living saints).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P
    The prophets say otherwise. Your own theories have boxed you in, again.

    Amos 5:18 Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! For what good is the day of the Lord to you? It will be darkness, and not light. 19 It will be as though a man fled from a lion, And a bear met him! Or as though he went into the house, Leaned his hand on the wall, And a serpent bit him!
    20 Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light? Is it not very dark, with no brightness in it?
    That doesn't box me in! That defines what a day of the Lord is for people who are religious and think they will receive a reward when they are actually guilty of inner sins, and will experience judgment when God sees fit to bring it.

    But let me explain what I meant by what I said. The Scriptures do not speak of the day of Christ's coming as being frightening for Christians. It is only frightening for unbelievers. The Scriptures do not portray the day of the Lord as the reign of Antichrist, which is not a terror to unbelievers. It is rather a terror to Christians. So the day of Christ's coming is a terror to unbelievers, including religious people who still live in their sins. It is not a terror to Christians.

    Portraying the Day of the Lord as inclusive of the Reign of Antichrist is done by Pretribbers to show that this is a terror to the world, to coax Christians into believing in an escape through a Pretrib Rapture. But the Antichrist is not a terror to the world. They will worship him. And for Christians who are afraid of the reign of Antichrist I suppose they think they should be afraid of any antichrist--including today's antichrists?

    AntiChristianity has been with us since the time of Christ. The Roman Caesars were antichrists. Yet the Church was largely courageous and noble, and did not fear death. Those who were afraid sometimes abandoned their faith, or lapsed. They were not noble, not courageous.

    The book of Revelation was written, I believe, to encourage us to be courageous in these antichristian times. We are not to fear antichrists. We are not to fear death. We have a guaranteed resurrection waiting for us, and a guaranteed reward. The Day of the Lord surely is a terror to the world. But it is not a terror to them because of Antichrist's reign, for they will worship him. It may be a terror for us as Christians, but we are encouraged to await the day of the Lord, because that will bring about the demise of Antichrist, and not his reign!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P
    Incorrect on all counts. Pretrib was indeed taught by at least the 300's in the Syrian church. Much of the early church writings were made by Catholics, people who hardly know any truth. If you look outside of the Catholic church you will find pretrib being taught. Even the book of Enoch 62 very plainly spells out the pretrib rapture doctrine, and it is older than the church itself!
    I'm really not very knowledgeable about the book of Enoch, and I'm not here to defend that. But there is hardly a mumble of anything resembling modern Pretrib. I can see where some people saw Christ's coming as imminent. That's why Preterists believe that Christ came in 70 AD. I don't believe that, of course. But today's Pretribbers believe that because Christ made his coming to be an imminent thing they believe that logically he should be able to come at any time--otherwise he can't have an imminent coming!

    But I don't believe that's what Jesus meant by his imminent, or near, coming. He was speaking about visiting judgment all through the age, even before his coming. He was standing at the door, ready to judge in each generation. He did so in the generation of the Jews in his day. And he will do so in other nations and other generations.

    Modern Pretrib got its start from Catholics who didn't want to be identified as Antichrist by Protestants. They either looked back to find Antichrist as already come in the Roman caesars, or they looked forward to a future Antichrist. In neither case could they as Catholics be identified as an historical Antichrist!

    By Irving's time and by Darby's time there was the typical distinction between the Church and Israel, or Replacement Theology. In order to put Israel back into prophecy, the Church had to be viewed as distinct from Israel, and thus separated from the Tribulation judgment meted out against Jews. Darby failed to recognize that the judgment meted out against men was not against the Jews, but against Christians! And it wasn't judgment meted out, but *persecution!* The saints were lauded by God in the Revelation for holding out against the Antichrist and for holding to their testimony. This is a far cry from what Darby and Pretribbers teach about those persecuted in the Tribulation. Pretribbers sometimes teach that persecuted Jews and Christians are those who "missed the Rapture" and are now being chastised for their lukewarm Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P
    Heresy?! False doctrine?! You'd be better off calling it what it really is to you, a huge lack of faith on your part. In the end, you believe very little of the scripture means what it actually says. Thankfully, you do believe Jesus is the Christ. Outside of that, its symbolism and figurative. It's a faith issue, not a text issue.
    It makes me squirm when I hear those kinds of statements. That words are just symbols, and don't have black and white meaning. That would exclude doctrine. That would exclude truth. Liberal theologians make use of such symbolism to avoid being called on the carpet for their lack of faith. Faith must have an object. We have a flesh and blood object in Jesus Christ. We have solid doctrine as an object--the Scriptures. Yes, Scriptures use figures. But our doctrines are based on black and white statements of fact. Otherwise, our faith is as fuzzy as the figures we hope to interpret. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you?

    Incidentally, I'm telling you that Pretrib is heresy not to insult you or to cause a fight. I actually believe it is a *form* of heresy. It is not a major heresy that challenges our Christianity, like Mormonism, or Pelagianism, or the like. Rather, it is a *Christian* heresy, because genuine Christians believe something that the Bible tells us *not* to believe. But that's just my belief. I have no wish to disfellowship anybody due to our differences on this. We both believe Christ is coming again. We both believe in his salvation. That's enough to unite us.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P
    Pretrib came from scripture, Paul, the book of Enoch, the early non-Catholic church. The Catholic church invented Preterism and Amil, not pretrib.

    Jesus did well to prophesy against you saying...

    Luke 17:28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

    31 “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. 36 Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.”

    37 And they answered and said to Him, “Where, Lord?”

    So He said to them, “Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”

    Read the story of Lot. Six were to be saved, only three made it out. Two died from lack of faith, one started to go and looked back. Half made it out BEFORE the wrath. The other half perished. Likewise, only half the virgins are wise. The other half get locked out. Same here in Luke 17, half are taken, half are not. Why do you want to be like Lot's two sons-in-law who perished because of their unbelief? They did not believe the angels who came to get them. So it will be on the day of rapture. Many will perish in unbelief.

    I challenge you to read Enoch 62. You have asked where Paul got the idea of meeting the Lord in the air? You just might find the answer there.
    I just read Enoch 62. Nothing in there whatsoever about a Pretrib Rapture of the Church! Where is it you think that exists? It seems pretty straight forward to me!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Oct 28th 2011, 05:52 PM
  2. Yet another pre/post trib rapture thread:
    By AndrewBaptistFL in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jun 18th 2011, 02:59 PM
  3. Discussion Post-trib 'rapture'
    By redskittle in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: Apr 1st 2011, 12:02 PM
  4. Pre-Trib or Post-Trib Rapture?
    By Punchy in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Jan 9th 2011, 09:16 PM
  5. Pre-trib, Post-trib, Mid-Trib Rapture Scripture
    By LaurieF in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: May 31st 2009, 01:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •