• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 Thes 1:9For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
Did you know that the believer is already delivered from the wrath to come? That is what Jesus did on the cross. They don't have to leave the earth to be delivered from his wrath. So you have already started off on shaky ground.
 
I'm not going to respond to the Noah argument with you anymore...
I know. It is, however, my prerogative to remind everyone of the still outstanding and still unresolved error in the attempt to use Matthew 24:37-38 to justify a separated rapture interpretation.
Basically, you lost that argument. For some reason you want to pick open your wound.
ROTFLMBO! 🙂😊😀😃😄😆😅😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

The facts in evidence prove otherwise. Several others have observed affirmed and observed those facts themselves, and born witness directly to you about that. You do not have to post any more on the matter, but I have liberty to do so as much as I like. I might even link to Post #8 in other related threads as evidence of error and still-unresolved self-contradiction commonly occurring within Dispensational Premillennialism. The liberty to ignore is always present.
 
I'm trying to respond but your scattered words and thoughts make no sense.

Yet again....another non argument. Is this what the rapture debate has reduced you to?

With all due respect....more word salad.
These are meaningless protests. The words are nt "scattered," the thoughts do make sense, my opinion on what the debate has been reduced to is nowhere stated and it's irrelevant, and there is no word salad.
Of course the portion addressed to the 7 churches contained events of their day...LOL....Big deal???
It is a big deal! If the letters addressed events occurring in the first century, then their content is not about what occurs in the 21st century. It is, therefore, completely irrational to assert Rev. 3:10 as proof of a pre-trib rapture in our future (unless it s going to be asserted there is more than one rapture, one in the first century and another sometime future to us).

That a thought that makes no sense, a non-argument of word salad.
Did you make the claim for me that I said everything in Revelation was future?
This op asserts Rev. 3:10 as evidence of a future rapture that occurs separately from the second coming of Christ. If the rapture is not in the future (sometime after today) then why post the op? Why try to persuade anyone here the rapture occurred separately from the second coming if the rapture is in our past?

If the content of the seven letters is about events that occurred in the first century then Rev. 3:10 is about the first century. The event it describes has come and gone!
How does that defend or not defend the rapture, tribulation, second coming, 1000 year reign or eternity?
If the contents of the letter to Philadelphia is about events that happened in the first century, then verse 3:10 is not about the future. That is NOT preterism. It is simply the logical conclusion to the letter being about first century events.

Some of Revelation is about events that had occurred prior to John writing Revelation.
Some of Revelation was about events happening at the time John wrote Revelation.

Neither of those conditions would be in our future.

Therefore, if the seven letters are all about events occurring prior to John writing Revelation, then Rev. 3:10 is not about our future. Similarly, if the events described in the letter to the Philadelphians is about events occurring at the time of John's writing Revelation, then, again, Rev. 3:10 is not about our future.

Rev. 3:10 can be used as a measure of something in the future only if the letters are not about the first century.

I am simply reviewing the logical necessities of Revelation 1:19 (and I am doing so without making any claims about any person).

If Rev. 3:10 occurs in a letter written about the first century events, then it is inappropriate to redefine it as something pertinent to the 21st century and you and I should both shun modern-day preachers who abuse the verse that way. Every Christian should do so!
Of course the portion addressed to the 7 churches contained events of their day...LOL....Big deal???
It is a big deal.

It precludes the use of Rev. 3:10 as evidence of a future rapture 😮. It requires us both to disregard ALL teachers who misuse that verse. You are now on record stating the letter to the church in Philadelphia addressed events of their day, not ours.




The seven churches faced tribulation. They were being tested. Despite each city's congregations having different problems, ALL seven of them were given the same message: repent, persevere, and overcome. In addition to going through tribulation and in addition to being tested for the purpose of purification (or sanctification), they would be repenting, persevering, and overcoming in the midst of God's judgment of the ungodly. Every single one of those churches was told to get themselves in order before Christ came. There's no mention of them being physically removed off the planet. The only time removal is mentioned it pertains to having their lampstand (a figurative reference to their status as ecclesia) removed 🤨.
 
Just once might be enough. It's a pretty big deal if it's true. Especially in those places where it is specifically dealing with the second advent of Christ and and also the resurrection of the saints. The apostles were always pretty clear in what they taught, so why hide that behind a cloak of silence?

Now, why don't you deal with what I actually said in my post? Have you noticed that when people respond to your posts they tackle what you have said head on instead of ignoring it and posting an irrelevancy?
It would be like me asking you...everytime Jesus is shown to be God....the trinity must also be mentioned.
 
It is a big deal! If the letters addressed events occurring in the first century, then their content is not about what occurs in the 21st century. It is, therefore, completely irrational to assert Rev. 3:10 as proof of a pre-trib rapture in our future (unless it s going to be asserted there is more than one rapture, one in the first century and another sometime future to us).
Your whole concept is shot down when it is VERY easy to point out there are events in Revelation that haven't happened yet. Period.
 
Did you know that the believer is already delivered from the wrath to come? That is what Jesus did on the cross. They don't have to leave the earth to be delivered from his wrath. So you have already started off on shaky ground.
Yes, once a person becomes a believer they are deliveed from the wrath of God mentioned in the book of Revelation.

If alive when the tribulation happens they will not have to be forced to take the mark...why? They would have already died or have been raptured when Christ returns in the sky. When Jesus returns in the clouds the white horse is still in the stable.
 
It would be like me asking you...everytime Jesus is shown to be God....the trinity must also be mentioned.
It is not the same at all. I have already gone over that with you. Why do you bring it up again? Jesus is a person. You are talking about an event. An event that would be crucial for the believers the apostles are writing to, to be aware of and understand. The Trintiy is never mentioned by the word "Trinity" because it is something that is revealed to the believers---it(see Jesus saying this to Peter). It isn't simply head knowledge.

Besides, Christians went through severe tribulation even in the days of the apostles and even more so after they were gone. Why were not all the believers that were starved, tortured, burnt at the stake, beheaded, thrown in prison, through all the centuries since the ascension raptured out? Why only the ones seven years prior to his second advent (according to you). Dispensationalism has concocted this seven year tribulation period and called it the judgement.
 
It is not the same at all. I have already gone over that with you. Why do you bring it up again?
You were not convincing.
Jesus is a person. You are talking about an event. An event that would be crucial for the believers the apostles are writing to, to be aware of and understand. The Trintiy is never mentioned by the word "Trinity" because it is something that is revealed to the believers---it(see Jesus saying this to Peter). It isn't simply head knowledge.
The words "pre-tribulation rapture" isn't mentioned because it is something that is revealed to the believers.
Besides, Christians went through severe tribulation even in the days of the apostles and even more so after they were gone. Why were not all the believers that were starved, tortured, burnt at the stake, beheaded, thrown in prison, through all the centuries since the ascension raptured out? Why only the ones seven years prior to his second advent (according to you). Dispensationalism has concocted this seven year tribulation period and called it the judgement.
Yes, Christians have been through severe tribulation....then and in some places now. But, what is coming as the book of Revelations unfolds is like what the world has never seen and will never see again.

Some people like to turn Revelation into a book of symbols that John captured in some sort of code written for the early church...
YES, there is some symbolism in it, but, there are also some literal events. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between the symbolism and what is literal.
The problem is those that take Revelation as pure symbolism can't explain the symbols.
For instance the mark of the beast was once told to me is symbolic...the mark on the hand represents ones works and the mark on the forehead represents ones thoughts...But, here we are in 2025 and have the technology to actually give people a mark which will allow them to buy and sell.
With AI and quantum computers we now have the ability to create a "beast" and give it the ability to speak...think...control, etc.
With modern technology...TV's, smartphones, social media every eye will have the ability to literally see the return of Christ Jesus.
There are those working towards a one world goverment, centralized world wide digital currency and a one world religion....something else that could not have occurred until todays times.
Astronomers have found an asteroid that will come incredably close to earth on April 13, 2029....Apophis ( which means darkness and chaos)....closer than the distance of geosynchronous satellites. 20,000 miles out. This could be the literal fulfillment of Rev 8 when the big rock(s) is thrown into the sea and wipes out 1/3 of a lot of stuff.
Israel is working on rebuilding the 3rd temple...they currently have the red heifers.
Israel is currently a nation again. 1948....which was prophecied
The nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38 and 39 are pretty much aligned.
There is a Daniel style peace treaty on the table.
Men can now travel to and fro and knowledge has increased dramatically since 1900. Something the bible has predicted.
Wars and rumors of war are at an all time high.
Earthquakes and volcanos are increasing.
There's much more.

There is no need to symbolize every word of Revelation in 2025 and going forward....the time Revelation was written for is here or at least very close.

Look up! The appearing of Jesus Christ in the clouds is near.
 
I don't disagree....Jesus is the one who comes back for us at the rapture.

Then again Jesus is also God.

Will you please define: 1.) Judgement 2.) Tribulation and 3.) Wrath

Please and thank you.

I need to know how your defining the terms.What are the proper definitions of each word?
 
Last edited:
Look up! The appearing of Jesus Christ in the clouds

So why did they say: (beginning in Acts 1:11)

and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.

So the disciples stopped looking up, and went to work.

"Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away."

Praying and prophesying together and adding to the number of apostles.

You seem very stuck in this signs of the modern day around you thing, instead of Christ's redemptive plan of salvation, and our purpose as believers.

Our purpose is not to be diviners of the unknown, we aren't fortune teller's. We submit ourselves to the Scripture, it doesn't submit itself to us.
 
Last edited:
Will you please define: 1.) Judgement 2.) Tribulation and 3.) Wrath

Please and thank you.

I need to know how your defining the terms.What are the proper definitions of each word?
The wrath is the judgement during the tribulation mentioned in revelation.
 
The wrath is the judgement during the tribulation mentioned in revelation.

This is not a definition of the words . It's a simple ask. How are you defining the words?
 
How do you define the words?

i believe you already know my definition.

You have never given your definitions, and I am asking you to please provide them for me.

Again.
 
Last edited:
Your whole concept is shot down when it is VERY easy to point out there are events in Revelation that haven't happened yet.
Three problems with that response:

  1. I explicitly stated only the first two parts of Rev. 1:19 are in the past.
  2. Claiming something hasn't happened is a post hoc argument.
  3. You went on record stating the letter to the church in Philadelphia addressed events of their day, not ours.

We're not discussing anything in Revelation except Revelation 3:10. That is the one verse cited in the op to support the pre-tribulation rapture position. It is self-contradicting to say 1) Revelation 3:10 is about events happening in the days of the Philadelphian church in the first century AND 2) Revelation 3:10 supports a future rapture. If Revelation 3:1 is about the first century events, then it CANNOT be about any 21st century event. You cannot have it both ways. Either the first century relevance has to be abandoned or the 21st century relevance has to be abandoned. In other words, the problem is not a difference of interpretation or opinion between you and me - it is a problem of internal contradiction, a problem in which two of your own viewpoints contradict with one another. That has absolutely nothing to do with my viewpoints or what scripture may or may not state. A cannot be not-A. The Law of non-contradiction prohibits it. You've got a gigantic contradiction at the foundation of the op and time is being wasted on nonsense about my concepts being shot down when the contradiction should be corrected.

Start with the log in your own argument before seeking to address any perceived speck in mine.
 
Your whole concept is shot down when it is VERY easy to point out there are events in Revelation that haven't happened yet. Period.
Perhaps there is a lack of understanding of the problems inherent in post hoc arguments.

Post hoc (or "after the fact") arguments seek to undermine or refute a position based on what has or has supposedly happened or not happened after something has occurred. For example, someone might say "God did not judge Israel when Babylon invaded because God never went to Israel........ It never happened." What that "it did not happen" part means is it did not happen the way the protester thinks it was supposed to happen, not that God never judged Israel through the use of Babylon. The Jews of Jesus' day did not believe Jesus was the Messiah because he did not overthrow the Romans and re-establish the monarchy and restore the priesthood to orthodoxy. The problem was not that Jesus was not the Messiah. The problem was their expectations pertaining to how and when the Messiah would be King and High Priest were wildly incorrect. The Messiah did, in fact come. He simply did not come in the way Jews think he was supposed to have come. To this day a Jew might say the exact same thing you often post: It never happened! It is a very irrational and foolish response. It is irrational. Measuring the veracity of anyone case based on a biased perception of what did or did not happen is a logical fallacy.

You should stop employing that device and engage the premise with which you disagree. Engage it with substance not rhetoric and fallacy.

The correct way to understand scripture's temporal markers is this: If scripture states something happened during X time period, then whether or not we understand exactly how the event happened the event did happen when scripture stated it happened or would happen. If, for example, scripture states X is a fulfillment of prophecy then that is the fact of scripture. The prophecy scripture itself cited happened when the scripture itself stated it happened and unless the scripture also states there will be a second, third, or fourth re-occurrence of the same prophecy then that prophecy has been fulfilled and there's no reason or warrant to think it will happen again. This is critically important because the New Testament frequently redefines, or more accurately correctly defines the New Testament. This is an exegetical principle Dispensational Premillennialism often rejects because f its unique and misguided ecclesiology (God has two completely different, separate, and unrelated people). Scripture is very clear about this mistake on many occasions. Every time Jesus states, "You have heard it said......., but I say......." and he then provides the correct understanding, that is an example of the Old Testament Jewish understanding being incorrect and the New Testament redefining - correctly defining - the OT. When the Holy Spirit defines the promise of an endless throne in Acts 2 that is an example of God correcting old, mistaken ideas about the throne of David. When Paul explicitly states the ends of the ages have come upon the first century Corinthians that is a fact, not a point of eschatology up for dispute and debate. The ends came, not the beginning. "It never happened!" is foolishness in response to what scripture tells us. In this case the letters to the seven churches were addressing events happening in the first century, not the 21st century.

This is post hoc fallacy is why a Dispensationalist might protest the prophecy of another temple being built has already been fulfilled. "It never happened!" Well, according to the New Testament it did happen. Jesus and his body is the temple God built, a temple not built with human hands, a temple in which God Himself indwells. It is in the NT that we find a very shocking proclamation: God does not dwell in houses built by human hands. Dispensational Premillennialists still look forward to another temple being built even though 1) there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible explicitly stating another temple will be built and 2) Jesus is the temple God promised to build (see John 2:21 and 1 Cor. 3:16).

It is not that the prophecy was not fulfilled. It is not that another temple was not built. The problem is that the Dispensational view of the temple has not occurred.

Revelation 3:10 has happened and we know it has happened because the letter in which that verse occurs was written about events the Philadelphian church was experiencing in the first century, not the 21st century.

And you are on record stating the letter to the church in Philadelphia addressed events of their day, not ours.

You cannot, therefore, say it addressed events of their day AND claim the events of their day did not happen.

If the letter addressed events of their day, then it is not addressing events in our day (except possibly in an allegorical sense). YOU cannot have it both ways. No one can. It is irrational to do so. The only alternative available to you is to either discard the earlier statement about the letters to the seven churches addressing events of their day or discard the viewpoint Revelation 3:10 is about some future rapture.


I will wait while you decide which premise you choose to abandon and discuss your choice with when that has been decided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top