A place for rapture questions
- Thread starter Wall
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Just a response to your question about the absence of post tribbers on site. There are people on site who hold opposite views to the pre trib rapture. I am one of them, but as you say most of those who shout loudest are pre tribbers. This view is held by some Christian groups around the world but its true to say the majority are found in the US. There are historic reasons for this. I am ashamed to say that this view is one of the few cultic doctrines that started in the UK during the 1830s and was promoted by John Darby a theologian and the founder of a breakaway cult known as the Separated Brethren. According to Charles Spurgeon he was a thoroughly unpleasant individual. Darby brought his views to the US and they were then spread by Cyrus Schofield through his notes and by him convincing Moody to accept the teaching and everything connected with it. Most Christians world wide dont accept the pre trib rapture or the dipensationalist system that goes with it.
Matthew 25 (the wedding FEAST parable) does not say "THEY [the 5 virgins PLURAL] "enter the BRIDAL CHAMBER," you are interjecting that idea. This was not the time nor "a place of intimacy," there are FIVE VIRGINS (and these are NOT who He is MARRYING; At that point He will be an ALREADY-WED Bridegroom [the distinction between "the Bride/Wife [SINGULAR]" pertaining to the AORIST "Marriage" itself in Rev19:7, and the "INVITED GUESTS [PLURAL]" "having been invited" (i.e. DURING the trib) in 19:9 at the now-to-occur "wedding FEAST/SUPPER" upon His "RETURN" to the earth, where Matthew 22:10-14 picks up the (next scene in the) CHRONOLOGY, ditto for Matthew 25:10 "wedding FEAST," and ditto for Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding..." THEN the meal (i.e. the earthly MK)].
Note that the same word (for the PUBLIC event [NOT the "INTIMATE" one involving only the couple]) is used when Jesus and friends attended "the wedding feast of Cana," and where there was ALSO the presence of the "G755 - architriklinō " ('master of the FEAST' / 'headwaiter'), and the word "G355 - anakeimenōn " ('those reclining [plural],' i.e. PLURAL "GUESTS" just as in the Matt22 "FEAST" setting), and that it was the responsibility of the bridegroom to provide the wine at his own "wedding FEAST" (thus Jesus' initial response to His mother in verse Jn2:4b).
Note that the same word (for the PUBLIC event [NOT the "INTIMATE" one involving only the couple]) is used when Jesus and friends attended "the wedding feast of Cana," and where there was ALSO the presence of the "G755 - architriklinō " ('master of the FEAST' / 'headwaiter'), and the word "G355 - anakeimenōn " ('those reclining [plural],' i.e. PLURAL "GUESTS" just as in the Matt22 "FEAST" setting), and that it was the responsibility of the bridegroom to provide the wine at his own "wedding FEAST" (thus Jesus' initial response to His mother in verse Jn2:4b).
Notice how Matthew 25:10 uses the "WITH [G3326 - meta - 'accompanying']" word ("and they [PLURAL] went in WITH [G3326] Him to the wedding FEAST" [this is the earthly MK time period])…
whereas [by contrast] in our Rapture passages, it uses the "WITH [G4862 - syn - denoting 'UNION']" word.
The "intimacy / UNION" idea is completely ABSENT from the Matthew 25 "wedding FEAST" parable.
Plus, the parables almost always pertain to Israel in some way (re: their future).
whereas [by contrast] in our Rapture passages, it uses the "WITH [G4862 - syn - denoting 'UNION']" word.
The "intimacy / UNION" idea is completely ABSENT from the Matthew 25 "wedding FEAST" parable.
Plus, the parables almost always pertain to Israel in some way (re: their future).
...and about that last line I put, Daniel 12:1-4,10 (the whole CONTEXT of the chpt, actually) is about ISRAEL in the FUTURE (DURING the trib years), and note that this chpt contrasts "the WISE [of them] shall understand"… whereas "none of the wicked shall understand" (v.10). And then verse 12 states "BLESSED is he that waiteth, and cometh to the 1335 days." [this MK-entrance verse with its "BLESSED" parallels all of the other MK passages re: "BLESSED"--Matt24:46-51,44; Matt25:31-34; [Mk11:10]; Lk12:36-43; Rev16:15-16; Rev19:9 (invited guests-PLURAL); maybe more...]
[compare Dan12:1-4 with Hos5:15-6:3 regarding Israel's FUTURE; these and other passages LIKEN it to a "resurrection" (Rom11:15; Ezek37:12-14,20-23; etc)]
[compare Dan12:1-4 with Hos5:15-6:3 regarding Israel's FUTURE; these and other passages LIKEN it to a "resurrection" (Rom11:15; Ezek37:12-14,20-23; etc)]
More proof for pre-trib rapture:
We are told to obey those in authority, governments and the men should provide for their wives. In the time of Jacob's trouble to fulfill these commands in the epistles of Paul you would have to SUBMIT to the antichrist and take the mark of the beast
Thats more proof there is something DIFFERENT going on there in the book of revelation.
I also noticed that in the epistles there is NO JEW or GENTILE, it doesnt matter there are not much distinctions made. But in the book of Revelation the distinction returns where the 144 000 from the tribes of Israel are mentioned.
Btw a completely unrelated thing: Notice that the tribes that are listed in revelation DO NOT HAve one tribe, the tribe of DAN. Now why is Dan missing? Could it be the antichrist is from that tribe? If you study the OT you will find out that often times the tribe of Dan is associated with NEGATIVE THINGS.
This was something I used to discuss in my judaism days. (Dan being associated with negative things, not the antichrist part lol)
We are told to obey those in authority, governments and the men should provide for their wives. In the time of Jacob's trouble to fulfill these commands in the epistles of Paul you would have to SUBMIT to the antichrist and take the mark of the beast
Thats more proof there is something DIFFERENT going on there in the book of revelation.
I also noticed that in the epistles there is NO JEW or GENTILE, it doesnt matter there are not much distinctions made. But in the book of Revelation the distinction returns where the 144 000 from the tribes of Israel are mentioned.
Btw a completely unrelated thing: Notice that the tribes that are listed in revelation DO NOT HAve one tribe, the tribe of DAN. Now why is Dan missing? Could it be the antichrist is from that tribe? If you study the OT you will find out that often times the tribe of Dan is associated with NEGATIVE THINGS.
This was something I used to discuss in my judaism days. (Dan being associated with negative things, not the antichrist part lol)
More proof to support a blatant lie?
First, shut up until you find a verse that says there will be a rapture before the tribulation.
Paul said to obey authority when Nero ruled Judea. Nero is about as big an enemy of Christians as there ever was, yet we were still to obey authority. Yes, we are to obey Antichrist authorities (but not to the point of rejecting Christ). If you go to the land of the Antichrist, Israel, you are to obey their Antichrist government, but not necessarily with the eagerness you would.
First, shut up until you find a verse that says there will be a rapture before the tribulation.
Paul said to obey authority when Nero ruled Judea. Nero is about as big an enemy of Christians as there ever was, yet we were still to obey authority. Yes, we are to obey Antichrist authorities (but not to the point of rejecting Christ). If you go to the land of the Antichrist, Israel, you are to obey their Antichrist government, but not necessarily with the eagerness you would.
As a pre-tribber, I believe our Rapture does not take place at His "RETURN" to the earth ("RETURN" = Lk12:36-37,38,39,40,42-44 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding..." THEN the meal [i.e. the earthly MK]; and Lk19:12,15,17,19 and the parallels to these). At His "RETURN" He will be an "already-wed Bridegroom" returning FOR "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER [on the earth; the earthly MK]" (pertaining to the "guests [plural]" etc).
The "one shall be taken, the other left" passages are not addressing our Rapture, as that is not its CONTEXT (but is referring to the time surrounding His Second Coming to the earth [i.e. who will enter the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom upon His "return" there]).
I'm not sure what the above video covers, but it looked like it requires "payment" to view. Not interested, thanks.
The "one shall be taken, the other left" passages are not addressing our Rapture, as that is not its CONTEXT (but is referring to the time surrounding His Second Coming to the earth [i.e. who will enter the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom upon His "return" there]).
I'm not sure what the above video covers, but it looked like it requires "payment" to view. Not interested, thanks.
I noticed your additional comment here, and it made me think of another point somebody made (I can't presently recall where I'd heard this, it's been quite awhile…),
...they had said that the unusual order of the listing of tribes in Revelation 7 (not listed in that particular order anywhere in the OT) is listed in this order because (as they suggest) this particular order spells out a sentence (using the meaning of their names [similar to how some point out the same kind of thing regarding the names in Genesis 5]); but here it spells out the purpose of the ministry of the 144,000 [during the future tribulation period/70th Week]. Could be, I guess.
...they had said that the unusual order of the listing of tribes in Revelation 7 (not listed in that particular order anywhere in the OT) is listed in this order because (as they suggest) this particular order spells out a sentence (using the meaning of their names [similar to how some point out the same kind of thing regarding the names in Genesis 5]); but here it spells out the purpose of the ministry of the 144,000 [during the future tribulation period/70th Week]. Could be, I guess.
-
1
- Show all
I noticed your additional comment here, and it made me think of another point somebody made (I can't presently recall where I'd heard this, it's been quite awhile…),
...they had said that the unusual order of the listing of tribes in Revelation 7 (not listed in that particular order anywhere in the OT) is listed in this order because (as they suggest) this particular order spells out a sentence (using the meaning of their names [similar to how some point out the same kind of thing regarding the names in Genesis 5]); but here it spells out the purpose of the ministry of the 144,000 [during the future tribulation period/70th Week]. Could be, I guess.
...they had said that the unusual order of the listing of tribes in Revelation 7 (not listed in that particular order anywhere in the OT) is listed in this order because (as they suggest) this particular order spells out a sentence (using the meaning of their names [similar to how some point out the same kind of thing regarding the names in Genesis 5]); but here it spells out the purpose of the ministry of the 144,000 [during the future tribulation period/70th Week]. Could be, I guess.