The PRE-tribulation RAPTURE saves the Christians from the WRATH!!!

[Arial]

That would be like me asking you to prove that the trinity is biblical....but you can't use this list of verses that speak of the Godhead.

That is completely unrelated to the portion of my post that is quoted.

Soooooooooo, now you switch to the....if you believe in the pre-trib rapture you make Jesus a liar defense.....Seriously? Is that where you're going? I'm making Jesus into a liar.

Violation of rules 2.2 and 4.7 so it will not be addressed.

2.2. Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person. Such things as inflammatory or marginalizing language, divisiveness, misquoting, misrepresenting, trolling, and personal attacks (including belittling, insulting, falsely accusing, or making assumptions about the character, motives, or faith of other members) are strictly prohibited. It only serves to derail meaningful theological discussion. Avoid speech that incites needless conflict, fosters resentment, seeks to stir up strife among believers, or exaggerates or distorts another member's words in order to discredit them or to win an argument. When quoting or summarizing another member’s position, do so honestly, in context, and preferably with a citation to ensure that their views are represented accurately and fairly. Aim to promote unity in Christ while allowing for meaningful debate, speaking the truth in love and humility, recognizing that all wisdom and understanding comes from God (cf. Rule 2.1).


4.7. Do not flood the forum with excessive, repetitive, or unintelligible posts. Posting the same message multiple times, either within a single thread or across multiple threads, disrupts conversations and clutters the forum. Thoughtful engagement is encouraged over sheer volume of posts. As already said (4.3), ensure that contributions add value to the discussion and remain relevant to the thread. Random or nonsensical posts that do not contribute meaningfully to a theological discussion may be removed.

 

[Arial]

Apparently you don't get the point.....there are several theological themes in the bible that have been pieced together by what has been revealed in scripture.

Word salad that fails to address the points made in the post itself.

A pre-trib rapture is nothing but an opinionated, presuppostional interpretation arrived at by picking scriptures from different portions of the Bible and claiming that they fit the presuppostion, then calling it a theological theme, until you can prove first the way in which you are interpreting "tribulation" as being seven years of hell on earth; and then that the revelation of Jesus as the final book in our canon is irrelevant to those reading it because they won't be here, is a correct or even biblically viable interpretation. You present the Revelation of Jesus as a way to watch the news and all the latest tech developments so we know when we are about to escape the wrath of God. Why would we need to know that, even if it were true? Whether we are watching for these signs and putting a puzzle together, or whether we (the believer) is not doing that, matters not a white if they aren't going to be here anyway. Why would Jesus tell people to watch, and be ready for something they were never going to be a part of? It didn't help all those tens of thousands over the centuries who suffered and died and were never raptured out of anything. I am surprised you cannot see your own inconsistency and lack of logic.

The 7 year tribulation can be seen in the bible. The clock was stopped after Jesus was cut off after the decree to build the temple was given.
Then your God allowed a time of grace in which we are still in. Then the trumpet of God is blown.

That concept is caused by bringing OT passages into NT passages and to interpret the NT. That is backwards and here is why. There is no way the people who actually lived in OT times and were the recipients of the prophecy could understand it fully. They were in the dark, so to speak, to the things that were not revealed until they actually occurred. The birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and what that would do to the Old Covenant that was in place when the prophecies were given. We are not. Therefore it is what the NT says about a scripture that was cloaked in mystery until Chris't coming and the New Covenant established, that interprets the prophecy as it relates to NT times.

But if you are referring to Daniel, the decree to rebuild the temple was given to the Jews returning from Babylon. And that is what they did. You will find this in Ezra and Nehemiah. No clock was stopped. The eternal Covenant of Redemption has always been moving forward and still is, to the return of Christ and the consummation of our salvation.

 

[CrowCross]

That is completely unrelated to the portion of my post that is quoted.

Violation of rules 2.2 and 4.7 so it will not be addressed.

2.2. Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person. Such things as inflammatory or marginalizing language, divisiveness, misquoting, misrepresenting, trolling, and personal attacks (including belittling, insulting, falsely accusing, or making assumptions about the character, motives, or faith of other members) are strictly prohibited. It only serves to derail meaningful theological discussion. Avoid speech that incites needless conflict, fosters resentment, seeks to stir up strife among believers, or exaggerates or distorts another member's words in order to discredit them or to win an argument. When quoting or summarizing another member’s position, do so honestly, in context, and preferably with a citation to ensure that their views are represented accurately and fairly. Aim to promote unity in Christ while allowing for meaningful debate, speaking the truth in love and humility, recognizing that all wisdom and understanding comes from God (cf. Rule 2.1).


4.7. Do not flood the forum with excessive, repetitive, or unintelligible posts. Posting the same message multiple times, either within a single thread or across multiple threads, disrupts conversations and clutters the forum. Thoughtful engagement is encouraged over sheer volume of posts. As already said (4.3), ensure that contributions add value to the discussion and remain relevant to the thread. Random or nonsensical posts that do not contribute meaningfully to a theological discussion may be removed.

Remember it is you...an admin...that said I made Jesus a liar when I use certain verses to aid in and to help demonstrate a pre-trib rapture.

 

[CrowCross]

A pre-trib rapture is nothing but an opinionated, presuppostional interpretation arrived at by picking scriptures from different portions of the Bible and claiming that they fit the presuppostion, then calling it a theological theme

Are you saying the a-millennialist preterist "theology" don't do the same thing?

 

[Arial]

Remember it is you...an admin...that said I made Jesus a liar when I use certain verses to aid in and to help demonstrate a pre-trib rapture.

So, your solution is to double down on the misrepresentation? I said if the interpretation of the passage being discussed was a correct interpretation, then Jesus would have lied to his disciples. You interpret what he is saying to be evidence of a pre-trib rapture. That does not mean that your are saying Jesus is a liar, it means your interpretation of Jesus speaking of a pre-trib rapture is blatantly incorrect. This is what I said and the passage is John 14:2-3 In my Father's house are many rooms. It it were not so, would I have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you, I will come back and welcome you into my presence, so that you also may be where I am.
Here was my reply that you missrepresent.

How is this stating a pre-trib rapture if the context shows that Jesus is speaking to the twelve about his departure to comfort them? None of them were raptured out of the world but all or most died at the hands of persecutors. So if it was speaking of their pre-trib rapture, Jesus lied to them.

 

[Arial]

Are you saying the a-millennialist preterist "theology" don't do the same thing?

Why the red herring of an Amillennialist Preterist? Is there one of those engaging in the conversation?

In Covenant theology in general, as not all aspects can be applied to all individuals, no IT does not do the same thing. And if you were paying attention you would have noticed that in the responses that are given to you.

 

[CrowCross]

So, your solution is to double down on the misrepresentation? I said if the interpretation of the passage being discussed was a correct interpretation, then Jesus would have lied to his disciples.

Or, using your terms....Jesus LIED to His disciples when He said this generation is the generation of people around Him and not a future generation.
Jesus didn't return in 70 AD.

You interpret what he is saying to be evidence of a pre-trib rapture. That does not mean that your are saying Jesus is a liar,

Edit for blatant misrepresentation of what a poster said.

it means your interpretation of Jesus speaking of a pre-trib rapture is blatantly incorrect. This is what I said and the passage is John 14:2-3 In my Father's house are many rooms. It it were not so, would I have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you, I will come back and welcome you into my presence, so that you also may be where I am.
Here was my reply that you missrepresent.

" I will come back"......That's the rapture.

 

[Arial]

Or, using your terms....Jesus LIED to His disciples when He said this generation is the generation of people around Him and not a future generation.
Jesus didn't return in 70 AD.

I guess that is the next best thing to admitting that you are obviously wrong about your interpretation of the John 14 passage, Deflect,

However, you also ignore what I have already said in post #79 when you tried to apply Luke 21:36 to be speaking of a pre-trib rapture.

How is this implying a pre-trib rapture if Jesus is talking to the disciples and answering their questions? Verses 5-24. And in 32 he applies it to that generation. The judgement that came upon Jerusalem in 70 a.d. forever ending Jerusalem as his dwelling place and the Old Covenant passed away, as Christ has become the mediator of the New Covenant, fulfilling every promise of the old. So the strength to escape is not to escape the world in a pre-trib rapture, but for the disciples to have the strength to escape the destruction that would come on Jerusalem ---which they did as far as we know, or as far as I know without looking it up.

If he did not mean the generation of the people he was speaking to, then what generation? So we determine what generation by what things he is referring to, since more than one question is being asked. In verses 6 Jesus speaks of the temple being thrown down and they asked him when will these things be (the temple being destroyed) and what would be the sign when those things were about to take place. Jesus gives the signs in vs. 10-24. These things pertain to Jerusalem and to the temple being destroyed. That happened in their generation. Then he speaks of his return. But he did not tell them they would be raptured. He said in verse 17-19 You will be hated by all for my names' sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives.

It does not say Jesus returns in 70 a.d. and I have never said that. You jumped to a conclusion as though there is only one Amillennial view---full preterism. I don't think anyone posting in this thread is a full Preterist, so if that is all your arguing against, then you have spent countless threads and countless posts wasting your time and every one else's.

 

[CrowCross]

I guess that is the next best thing to admitting that you are obviously wrong about your interpretation of the John 14 passage, Deflect,

However, you also ignore what I have already said in post #79 when you tried to apply Luke 21:36 to be speaking of a pre-trib rapture.

Ariel asked...How is this implying a pre-trib rapture if Jesus is talking to the disciples and answering their questions?
Answer Jesus answered them by pointing to a future generation.

If he did not mean the generation of the people he was speaking to, then what generation?

The generation that would be present in the end times. This generation speaks of the generation in existence from either 1948 or 1967 depending upon when you believe Israel became a nation again as told by other prophecy found in the bible.

So we determine what generation by what things he is referring to, since more than one question is being asked. In verses 6 Jesus speaks of the temple being thrown down and they asked him when will these things be (the temple being destroyed) and what would be the sign when those things were about to take place.

The two questions are answered with two different generations. We know this because there are many prophecies that were not fulfilled at the destruction of the temple and to this date have not been fulfilled. You seem to gloss over this point.

Jesus gives the signs in vs. 10-24. These things pertain to Jerusalem and to the temple being destroyed. That happened in their generation. Then he speaks of his return. But he did not tell them they would be raptured. He said in verse 17-19 You will be hated by all for my names' sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives.

You seem to be claiming Jesus returned when the temple was destroyed.
You seem to be claiming we are currently in the 1,000 year (long period of time) reign of Christ when Satan is bound up and can't effect the human race but we know Satan is still running around the earth like a roaring lion. This presents YET another contradiction for your orthodox amillennialist chillegoristic eschatological position.

It does not say Jesus returns in 70 a.d. and I have never said that. You jumped to a conclusion as though there is only one Amillennial view---full preterism. I don't think anyone posting in this thread is a full Preterist, so if that is all your arguing against, then you have spent countless threads and countless posts wasting your time and every one else's.

Doesn't your eschatology say Jesus said this generation...meaning those alive when Jesus spoke the words...would return before some of them died?

 

[Arial]

Ariel asked...How is this implying a pre-trib rapture if Jesus is talking to the disciples and answering their questions?
Answer Jesus answered them by pointing to a future generation.

When his answer is addressed to what is future for that generation, those things apply to that generation. Other things are answering things concerning the end of the age and his second coming. Those things apply to future generations. I actually went over that, breaking it down as to what goes where for you in post #79.

How is this implying a pre-trib rapture if Jesus is talking to the disciples and answering their questions? Verses 5-24. And in 32 he applies it to that generation. The judgement that came upon Jerusalem in 70 a.d. forever ending Jerusalem as his dwelling place and the Old Covenant passed away, as Christ has become the mediator of the New Covenant, fulfilling every promise of the old. So the strength to escape is not to escape the world in a pre-trib rapture, but for the disciples to have the strength to escape the destruction that would come on Jerusalem ---which they did as far as we know, or as far as I know without looking it up.

The events of vs 5-24 are applied to that generation. Not the whole chapter. Some of it applies to his second coming. Some of it actually applies to the full time period between the two advents.

The generation that would be present in the end times. This generation speaks of the generation in existence from either 1948 or 1967 depending upon when you believe Israel became a nation again as told by other prophecy found in the bible.

God managed to have the full revelation of the Covenant of Redemption in all its parts given to us in his word, without ever consulting or considering current events. Therefore, neither do we need to consult current events to determine its meaning. What you say is speculation, not scripture.

The two questions are answered with two different generations. We know this because there are many prophecies that were not fulfilled at the destruction of the temple and to this date have not been fulfilled. You seem to gloss over this point.

Right. Two different time periods, so why are you saying none of it applied to those who were asking the question. For me to say that some of the prophecy took place in a particular generation is not saying that everything took place in that generation. When Jesus is speaking of his second advent and the end of the age, he does not put it within the confines of any generation. A generation is only mentioned in connection with certain things that he is saying. I am not glossing over anything, but you are glossing over my posts. Not reading them carefully enough, or reading things into them that are not there.

You seem to be claiming Jesus returned when the temple was destroyed.

I do not seem to be claiming that Jesus returned when the temple was destroyed. Have I ever at any time or anyplace implied or said such a thing? Have any of my posts ever indicated that I would think such a thing. How often in this thread alone have I connected his second coming with the consummation of redemption and the resurrection of the dead, the changing of those who remain alive? You have no excuse to think that I seem to be saying he has already returned in 70 a.d. Read more carefully for comprehension of the full expression of an idea in posts. Make sure you are understanding it correctly.

You seem to be claiming we are currently in the 1,000 year (long period of time) reign of Christ when Satan is bound up and can't effect the human race but we know Satan is still running around the earth like a roaring lion. This presents YET another contradiction for your orthodox amillennialist chillegoristic eschatological position.

You partly assess my belief and what I say, but then you turn it into something you only assume, because of your own eschatology, that Is not true of mine or the doctrine itself, view of amillennialism.

I do believe the thousand years is this age (some say from the fall to his return, some say the time between the two advents and I tend towards the first---the fallen world iow. Although it can also be legitimately seen as between the two advents as that is the birth pains of the consummation. And I do think Satan is bound now, but according to the statement of his being bound. The statement designates the binding as a partial binding when it says "so that he could not deceive the nations". He cannot stop the gospel going to the whole world to gather the elect into the fold, into Christ. His losing then is that restraint being removed, and what will likely follow is government persecution of the church and her people on a scale that is no longer restained. So see---the contradiction was in your misunderstanding, not the word of God.

Doesn't your eschatology say Jesus said this generation...meaning those alive when Jesus spoke the words...would return before some of them died?

No, my interpretation of those passages says the temple will be destroyed while they are alive, and destruction will come upon Jerusalem.

 

[CrowCross]

When his answer is addressed to what is future for that generation, those things apply to that generation. Other things are answering things concerning the end of the age and his second coming. Those things apply to future generations. I actually went over that, breaking it down as to what goes where for you in post #79.

"This generation" is referring to this future generation that will see the end of the age and second coming. Considering the second coming hasn't happened yet..."this generation" MUST be future.

The events of vs 5-24 are applied to that generation. Not the whole chapter. Some of it applies to his second coming. Some of it actually applies to the full time period between the two advents.

OK?????

God managed to have the full revelation of the Covenant of Redemption in all its parts given to us in his word, without ever consulting or considering current events. Therefore, neither do we need to consult current events to determine its meaning. What you say is speculation, not scripture.

Perhaps....but one has to admit that the aspects of the beast system mentioned in Rev 13 could only be possible in our time.

Right. Two different time periods, so why are you saying none of it applied to those who were asking the question.

Are you saying Jesus never spoke of the distant future? When Jesus spoke of His return it didn't happen to the generation of Christ day...so that generation MUST be some future generation.

For me to say that some of the prophecy took place in a particular generation is not saying that everything took place in that generation. When Jesus is speaking of his second advent and the end of the age, he does not put it within the confines of any generation. A generation is only mentioned in connection with certain things that he is saying. I am not glossing over anything, but you are glossing over my posts. Not reading them carefully enough, or reading things into them that are not there.

I do not seem to be claiming that Jesus returned when the temple was destroyed. Have I ever at any time or anyplace implied or said such a thing? Have any of my posts ever indicated that I would think such a thing. How often in this thread alone have I connected his second coming with the consummation of redemption and the resurrection of the dead, the changing of those who remain alive? You have no excuse to think that I seem to be saying he has already returned in 70 a.d. Read more carefully for comprehension of the full expression of an idea in posts. Make sure you are understanding it correctly.

According to your amillennialist orthodox theology....when will Jesus return?

You partly assess my belief and what I say, but then you turn it into something you only assume, because of your own eschatology, that Is not true of mine or the doctrine itself, view of amillennialism.

Just for the record...you have a skewed view of dispensations. For instance you claim from Adam to the flood wasn't a dispensation.

I do believe the thousand years is this age (some say from the fall to his return, some say the time between the two advents and I tend towards the first---the fallen world iow. Although it can also be legitimately seen as between the two advents as that is the birth pains of the consummation. And I do think Satan is bound now, but according to the statement of his being bound. The statement designates the binding as a partial binding when it says "so that he could not deceive the nations". He cannot stop the gospel going to the whole world to gather the elect into the fold, into Christ. His losing then is that restraint being removed, and what will likely follow is government persecution of the church and her people on a scale that is no longer restained. So see---the contradiction was in your misunderstanding, not the word of God.

Now you speak speculation. Please don't accuse me of speculating when you do the same.

I don't see the following as already have happened....1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain.2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while

We are not in the millennial reign as Satan isn't bound in bottomless pit. Satan, his fallen angels and demons are present in our world today.
According to what you write one could easily conclude (I don't wan't to put words in your mouth) satan currently isn't a problem for us and preachers shouldn't present sermons concerning this non-issue....and only focus on the fallen human nature as the cause of our "issues" asserting Satan no longer has any influence considering he's in a pit chained up.

No, my interpretation of those passages says the temple will be destroyed while they are alive, and destruction will come upon Jerusalem.

You still have not untied it from the return of Jesus.

I'm not opposed to there being a form of duality to the prophecy.

 

[Josheb]

All you have done is present your "orthodox" view.

That is incorrect, and a gross misrepresentation of the posts. Scripture states what it states and what Rev. 1:19 states is John was to write down what he'd seen, things that were, and things that would follow. The first clause in the verse does not state, "What you will see," as if it is asking John to write down things not yet seen. The clause explicitly states things he has seen, and the vision(s) of Revelation had not yet been given. The clause, therefore, CANNOT be a reference to what John has not yet seen. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal views, your personal views, or anyone else's personal views. The verse states what the verse states and what it states is John was to write down what he had (already) seen. Likewise, the second clause explicitly states he is to write down "the things which are," and "the things that are" happen to be explicitly distinguished from "the things which will take place after this." That is not just my "'orthodox' view". It is the facts of the text. The content of Revelation covers three categories of information: 1) events that had occurred prior to John's writing the book, 2) events that were occurring at the time of his writing the book, and events that were going to occur after he wrote the book.

If everything in the book is all entirely future, then there is no need whatsoever to make any temporal distinctions.

1. The things which you have seen,
2. The things which are,
3. The things which will take place after this.

That is what is stated without any embellishment on my part. Scripture makes the distinctions, not me.

All you have done is present your "orthodox" view.

Scripture proves otherwise.

 

[CrowCross]

That is incorrect, and a gross misrepresentation of the posts. Scripture states what it states and what Rev. 1:19 states is John was to write down what he'd seen, things that were, and things that would follow. The first clause in the verse does not state, "What you will see," as if it is asking John to write down things not yet seen. The clause explicitly states things he has seen, and the vision(s) of Revelation had not yet been given. The clause, therefore, CANNOT be a reference to what John has not yet seen. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal views, your personal views, or anyone else's personal views. The verse states what the verse states and what it states is John was to write down what he had (already) seen. Likewise, the second clause explicitly states he is to write down "the things which are," and "the things that are" happen to be explicitly distinguished from "the things which will take place after this." That is not just my "'orthodox' view". It is the facts of the text. The content of Revelation covers three categories of information: 1) events that had occurred prior to John's writing the book, 2) events that were occurring at the time of his writing the book, and events that were going to occur after he wrote the book.

If everything in the book is all entirely future, then there is no need whatsoever to make any temporal distinctions.

1. The things which you have seen,
2. The things which are,
3. The things which will take place after this.

That is what is stated without any embellishment on my part. Scripture makes the distinctions, not me.

Scripture proves otherwise.

Are you admitting some things in Revelation are future? If so, what?

I believe you are of the impression there will be no 1,000 years reign of Christ....as we are already in it???? Did I get that right?

 

[Josheb]

19Therefore write down the things you have seen, the things that are, and the things that will happen after this.

The 4 horsemen have not happened.....they are.... things that will happen.
Revelation 8 has not happened....they are...things that will happen.

That's just 2 of many things that have not happened.

So you say. The problem is you say it digressively. This op is about the rapture, not the four horsemen. You have difficulty staying on topic and I am not going to chase anyone around the thread moving from subject change to subject change while never resolving any of them. The fact remains Jesus stated the disciples would be handed over to tribulation AND immediately AFTER the great tribulation they would see the sign of his coming. The refutes the pre-tribulational interpretation of modern futurism. Revelation, likewise, explicitly states the people clothed in white robes are people who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes Christ's blood - Christians who go through the great tribulation. That precludes any interpretation that asserts a pre-tribulation rapture.

Christians get saved from wrath, but that does not mean they do not go through the rapture. Moah escaped destruction, but he went through the flood. Daniel survived destruction, but he went through the exile. John survived destruction but he was a fellow partaker in the tribulation. modern futurism fails to discriminate the distinction correctly.

All you have done is present your "orthodox" view. Nothing new. I'll stick with the pre-trib rapture mentioned all through scripture.

Better an orthodox view than an unorthodox heterodoxy that denies what is explicitly stated in scripture.

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Dispensationalism adds and subtracts from the book.

 

[Josheb]

Are you admitting some things in Revelation are future? If so, what?

I believe you are of the impression there will be no 1,000 years reign of Christ....as we are already in it???? Did I get that right?

Is there some difficulty understanding the forum's requirement to stay on topic and my stated refusal to collaborate with off-topic digressions, recurring attempts to change the subject in avoidance of the facts in evidence, and efforts to shift the onus? No one thinks Christians suffer wrath. It is from sin and wrath we are saved, and we are saved from sin and wrath by Jesus, by Calvary, by the grace of God, not by a rapture.


The only thing anyone expects you to do in this thread is prove a pre-tribulation rapture exists. Try doing that without avoiding the onus to do so and without repeatedly changing the subject.

 

[CrowCross]

So you say. The problem is you say it digressively. This op is about the rapture, not the four horsemen. You have difficulty staying on topic

What I have done if presented verses that support "The PRE-tribulation RAPTURE saves the Christians from the WRATH!!!"
Now, if I'm considered as off topic to you....then Oh well.

AND immediately AFTER the great tribulation they would see the sign of his coming.

Yes, Jesus comes after the great tribulation......on a white horse.

Christians get saved from wrath, but that does not mean they do not go through the rapture. Moah escaped destruction, but he went through the flood. Daniel survived destruction, but he went through the exile. John survived destruction but he was a fellow partaker in the tribulation. modern futurism fails to discriminate the distinction correctly.

Weak argument at best. Why do you insist on this? Noah and Lot were not caught up in the disaster. the waves didn't crash down on Noah...he escaped. Fire and brimstone didn't fall on Lot.....he escaped.
The trials of the Revelation tribulation will not occur to the christians...they escape the tribulation...the anti-christ...the horseman, Rev 8...the mark and the list goes on and on.

But, if you want to hang around for it all....maybe you can make a deal with Jesus to leave you behind. Let me know how you think you will enjoy Rev 13:7. Do you think this means the christians will be gathered up and sent to Alligator Albatross?

What about the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Here's a free additional point.....if those souls came to life and reigned with Jesus for 1,000 years...and we are currently in the 1,000 years...when did that happen? Your orthodox theology concerning the end times is like this....

 

[Josheb]

What I have done if presented verses that support "The PRE-tribulation RAPTURE saves the Christians from the WRATH!!!"
Now, if I'm considered as off topic to you....then Oh well.

Yes, Jesus comes after the great tribulation......on a white horse.

Weak argument at best. Why do you insist on this? Noah and Lot were not caught up in the disaster. the waves didn't crash down on Noah...he escaped. Fire and brimstone didn't fall on Lot.....he escaped.
The trials of the Revelation tribulation will not occur to the christians...they escape the tribulation...the anti-christ...the horseman, Rev 8...the mark and the list goes on and on.

But, if you want to hang around for it all....maybe you can make a deal with Jesus to leave you behind. Let me know how you think you will enjoy Rev 13:7. Do you think this means the christians will be gathered up and sent to Alligator Albatross?

What about the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Here's a free additional point.....if those souls came to life and reigned with Jesus for 1,000 years...and we are currently in the 1,000 years...when did that happen? Your orthodox theology concerning the end times is like this....

Ad nauseam.

What I have done...

It is what you haven't done that is the problem. The defense of this op has not been examined with what scripture explicitly states. Scripture explicitly states disciples are handed over to tribulation and it is AFTER the great tribulation that the disciples see the signs of Christ coming. Scripture explicitly states those whose robes are washed white with the blood of the Lambe came through the great tribulation. NOTHING of "what I had done..." can change those facts.

What you've done is believe the teaching of Dispensationalism and not believe the explicit word of God.

 

[CrowCross]

Is there some difficulty understanding the forum's requirement to stay on topic and my stated refusal to collaborate with off-topic digressions, recurring attempts to change the subject in avoidance of the facts in evidence, and efforts to shift the onus? No one thinks Christians suffer wrath. It is from sin and wrath we are saved, and we are saved from sin and wrath by Jesus, by Calvary, by the grace of God, not by a rapture.

I don't disagree. But the bible also speaks of a wrath in Rev 3:10....that speaks of what happens in the book of Revelation that the christians who are alive at that time will be delivered from and the ENTIRE EARTH would experience. Just like Noah and Lot was delivered...and Jesus wasn't talking about their "sin" that would send them to an eternity in hell but about the disaster that was about to happen.

The only thing anyone expects you to do in this thread is prove a pre-tribulation rapture exists. Try doing that without avoiding the onus to do so and without repeatedly changing the subject.

I have shown you several times.....Jesus didn't leave on a white horse. The times of Noah with eating, drinking and marriage doesn't appear to be the thing of the day at the end of the tribulation bur rather it looks more like a pre-tribulation event. John mentions we are not destined for wrath...which surely is pre-trib. Perhaps the mid-trib or pre-wrath rapture eschatology applies. Jesus says He will return and take us to the mansions that He's preparing.

We've been discussing these points as well as others.

 

[CrowCross]

Ad nauseam.

It is what you haven't done that is the problem. The defense of this op has not been examined with what scripture explicitly states. Scripture explicitly states disciples are handed over to tribulation and it is AFTER the great tribulation that the disciples see the signs of Christ coming. Scripture explicitly states those whose robes are washed white with the blood of the Lambe came through the great tribulation. NOTHING of "what I had done..." can change those facts.

What you've done is believe the teaching of Dispensationalism and not believe the explicit word of God.

You do know that after the rapture...that is during the tribulation of Revelation many will come to Christ? Immediately after the rapture the mount of Christians on earth will equal "0"....then increase?

 

[Arial]

"This generation" is referring to this future generation that will see the end of the age and second coming

No, when he says "this generation" he means the generation he was speaking to and in. Otherwise generation would not have a meaning . "This generation" was the generation that would see the temple destroyed, judgement passed on Israel, and the old covenant system of worship and relationship with God permanently dismantled. THEN Jesus also speaks of his return and the end of THIS age. Do I need to try and find yet another way to say it. Is it that no matter how many ways I say the same thing, you are simply going to reply no and repeat yourself? As though I did not say what I said at all, but you are simply going to "teach" me something I need to know. The only reason---the ONLY reason---that you insist on what you believe (and I don't for one minute think you do not understand what I have said and actually see the grammatical and common sense logic of it)is because you have used those scriptures as the foundation of your theory for so many years, and you will never acknowledge that it very well could be wrong.

OK?????

What is that supposed to mean?

Perhaps....but one has to admit that the aspects of the beast system mentioned in Rev 13 could only be possible in our time.

One has to admit no such thing. Like what? would be the place to present the manufacturing of your claim with some substance. Before you digress yet even further, tell me, is the beast really a beast? Does he really rise up out of the ocean? Does another beast come from him and rise up out of the earth? Etc.

Are you saying Jesus never spoke of the distant future?

No I neither said nor implied that? That is a straw man if ever there was one

According to your amillennialist orthodox theology....when will Jesus return?

Do you think you weaken my argument by labeling it Amillennialist Orthodox theology? To answer your question I will give the same one Jesus gave. No one knows. I don't try and determine when he will return.

Just for the record...you have a skewed view of dispensations. For instance you claim from Adam to the flood wasn't a dispensation.

Is that a dispensation in dispensationalism? Then how is my view of dispensations skewed. From Adam to the flood was a period of time. From the day of my birth to my 79th year is also a period of time. It is the way in which dispensationalism is using periods of time to interpret Scripture that is wrong. I am in the process of writing a thread on that so will deal with it there. So if dispensation is being used to express a period of time or and "age", then of course it is a dispensation. But it is not an interpretive tool. And it isn't from Adam to the flood in dispensationalism. It is from the fall of Adam to the flood.

Now you speak speculation. Please don't accuse me of speculating when you do the same.

Not all speculation is equal. What you speculated about can be found no place in the Bible for you were naming actual years, and getting those dates from current history. The only thing I speculated about is something that could be the case given what the Bible does tell us, and that is that something might be what occurs when Satan is released from not being able to deceive the nations. It is based on what we do have in his word. And I identified it as a possible or even likely occurrence rather than stating it as fact.

I don't see the following as already have happened....1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain.2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while

So you have said on many occasions. So what? Does what you see and don't see have anything to do with determining what is true?

You still have not untied it from the return of Jesus.

How does one unite something from something ?

We are not in the millennial reign as Satan isn't bound in bottomless pit.

How do you know where he is?

According to what you write one could easily conclude (I don't wan't to put words in your mouth) satan currently isn't a problem for us and preachers shouldn't present sermons concerning this non-issue....and only focus on the fallen human nature as the cause of our "issues" asserting Satan no longer has any influence considering he's in a pit chained up.

I don't know of any preaches who do preach that. And people can conclude whatever they want to from what I say. You certainly do and repeat it back to me bearing no resemblance to what I said. The key to not doing that is to set aside your own beliefs when reading what I am posting, instead of reading your beliefs into my words. As though if I do not believe the same way you do, then according to my beliefs, whatever I say means I am saying what you believe about it.

Let me clarify what I mean.

You believe Satan is not bound in a bottomless pit right now.
You believe that according to Scripture he will be some day.
Your evidence that he is not bound in a bottomless pit is that he is active in this world now and in the lives of all people.
You believe he will be bound for a thousand years because you also believe the millennium is a literal thousand years.

Therefore to you,

If I say the millennium is figurative of a long period of time and we are in that time now
Then I am saying Satan is bound in a bottomless pit right now.
Therefore I am saying he has no influence over people or in the world right now.

But lo and behold. I am not saying any of those things, other than the first thing that identifies the millennium in my view. What I do say and do before I say it is consider the utterly ignored passage that states what Satan is bound from doing. Not everything. Just from deceiving the nations. Now many people are still being deceived so what does that mean---"nations"? It doesn't say people, it says nations. And that at once makes me think of the many other times Scripture mentions nations in connection with the gospel being spread, to where---all nations. And I know that the purpose of the gospel going to all nations is so that the elect will hear and believe. I know Jesus mentions sending harvesters into the field to gather the wheat. Aha! This spreading of the gospel to all nations is the voice of the Shepherd calling to the sheep and gathering them to him.

What then does it mean that Satan is released from this binding but that then he can deceive the nations? And this is where I can only surmise from silence, but remembering the promise of persecution of the saints. And since that has been ongoing since his day until now, how will it be different from that. So I surmise that it will be government persecution of Christians and Christian institutions and ideas that affect all governments in all nations. And I surmise it, for my own self and in my own mind, I do not state it as fact.