"""What do you refer to by 'business'? Be specific. A lot is going on in heaven in the book of Revelation. If you do not present evidence, you do not make a case""
Jesus makes the case.
Dialogue at the last supper
Says we will drink wine with him in heaven.
Rev 19 says the wife becomes the bride IN HEAVEN.
Pre-trib rests on reading ideas into passages. Again, quote the passages from Revelation 19 that talks about their being a marriage in heaven or the bride being in heaven. The announcement is likely made in heaven. Right after that is what many of us see as a second coming passage. I think that is an interpretation pre-trib and post-trib would have in common about the following passage.
What reason is there to interpret Revelation 19 as referring to a marriage performed in heaven, unless one is pretrib and just ASSUMES it occurs in heaven. Again, that is the problem with the pre-trib approach-- taking passages that do not teach pre-trib, reading pre-trib into them, and having no actual evidence from scripture for pre-trib in the first place. Pre-trib has a lot of verses it can fit into it's theory, but there is no scripture that teaches pre-trib. If there is, you haven't made a case for it. The problem with that whole thing is there are scriptures that do not fit pre-trib, that contradict it.
I understand the emotional ties you have to having a whole eschatological system and if the underpinnings of it are shown not to be solid, you want to defend it and prop it up. I can understand the emotional motivation behind wanting to believe that system works. But if you cannot show in scripture where there is actual evidence for the pre-trib rapture, why not just let it go? Don't you want to gain understanding? Holding on this this theory can keep you from gaining understanding.
Also, how do you explain Ii Thessalonians 1 with the church being here when Jesus returns to both execute vengence on them that know not God and to be glorified in the saints in a pre-trib scenario? It just doesn't fit?
MANSIONS.....IN HEAVEN.
innumerable number....in heaven.
At the end of the book, John sees the city descending out of heaven. Doesn't your version of eschatology have that in it? You've got too fulfillments if you do-- one with a bodily rapture to heaven and another with the New Jerusalem descending. Since a pre-trib rapture doesn't fit other scriptures, why not let that one go.
One glaring glarring mistake the "non heaven" doctrine brings is Jesus as the God man in heaven drawing his flock into THAT SAME DIMENSION.
The fact that you would say "what business in heaven" is telling.
I was referring to your vague terminology. A lot of stuff is going on in heaven in Revelation. You refer to entire chapters you think support your case. They don't. So I have to guess what is in your imagination. We are waiting to be clothed with that which is from heaven. Jesus extends the rule and reign of heaven onto the earth. For whatever reason, principalities and powers were given some degree of rule and reign over the earth. But Christ, the Son from heaven, is the heir of the nations, also, and is extending the rule of heaven hear as well.
To top it off ...it is bizarre to think Jesus comes with riderless horses to get us in the sky and do a silly uturn BACK TO EARTH.
Jesus also returns with angels, and the dead in Christ will rise first and we which are alive and remain will meet Him in the air.
You should not call Biblical concepts 'silly.' Look up how 'parousia' was used. It is translated 'coming' and sometimes referred to as Christ's 'Second Coming' in discussions of eschatology. But it was used for official visits. The dignitary would come to town.
The people of the city would come out to meet him and return with him into the city as he arrived. So the scenario fits with the use of words.
You would have Christ make a U-turn coming from heaven and go back with us. How does that fit with the concept of the use of 'parousia.?'
The men the apostles saw in Acts 1 at the ascension said that Jesus would return as He ascended. When He ascended, we do not read that He went half way up, came back down, then went up again.
The real issue is not whether it is 'silly' for either Christ or us to make a U-turn, but what do the scriptures say. The scriptures do not teach us to expect multiple returns of Christ, a rapture before the tribulation, etc. You cannot show a rapture in a sequence of events laid out in any passage that occurs before the tribulation. Instead, you assume pre-trib and read it into different passages. You apply allegorical interpretations to other passages, and then there are the tenuous arguments that 'not appointed unto wrath' means that we Christians cannot be here when God pours out the wrath on the wicked-- but for the saints who live after the rapture that is somehow supposed to be okay.
The glorious future of Gods family erased...for what????
We should believe and hope in God's glorious future for His church as described in the Bible, not prophecy charts people come up with out of their imaginations, not assumptions about what verses mean, trying to fit verses into a preconceived theory that doesn't fit the whole of the New Testament.
Why don't you address the problem passages for your view that I have pointed out in this post and multiple other times?
And why the emotional connection to pre-trib. If you cannot show any actual evidence, and instead have to assume it into passages like you did in the post I am replying to, why be so invested in it? Why not have loyalty to Biblical truth rather than an eschatological system you have invested time and energy in?
