Pre-Trib Rapture and Premillennialism are False Doctrines

[TheDivineWatermark]

You still haven't answered my question about Job 14: 12. You have people resurrected while there is still a heavens when Scripture says there will not be a heavens when people are resurrected.

Consider what William Kelly put, regarding that, here (with which I agree):

[quoting]

"This chapter [Job 14] brings in man raised from the grave. I would not say from the dead. Resurrection from the dead means some raised and others left. Resurrection from the grave will be true after all the saints are raised, and there remain only the wicked to be raised. That will be the resurrection from the grave, but not from the dead (for "from the dead" allows that others remain), there will be none left at that time. There are two resurrections. What is called in the common creeds of Christendom the "general resurrection" is a figment; it has no foundation in scripture. It is entirely opposed to the plainest words of God. Now you have in this world the righteous and the wicked all confused together. The tares are growing with the wheat. But that is only till the judgment come; that is only till the Lord come. And when the Lord comes there will be the separation of the righteous called not only from the dead (other dead being left in their graves), but to heaven where He is now. They are going to be like Himself - "the resurrection of the just." But there remains the great mass of mankind; and that is what Job describes in this chapter. I shall have little more to show, if God will, next Wednesday, about "the resurrection of the just"; but here is the resurrection of the unjust. And therefore you observe how beautifully the language suits. "Man that is born of a woman" - not a word about anyone that is born of God. Those that are born of God will be the righteous. But "man that is born of a woman" (and all are) "is of few days" - it looks at man since the fall - "and full of trouble." "

--William Kelly, commentary on Job 14

[end quoting]



As for 2 Thessalonians, I believe 2:2's [subject of] "the Day of the Lord" [time period] is the same time period as 1:10b's "IN THAT DAY" [time period], just as these two phrases are used side by side in the OT prophecies regarding the same identical time period.

Additionally, I can't think of any phrase where "years" is used, in Scripture" (stating so many years), that does not mean those amount of literal "years". (Cattle on representative hills is an entirely different kind of context. )

 

[iamsoandso]

I spent almost two years of intense study trying to "defeat" full preterism - in the end I lost.
I left behind the left behinds. View attachment 189951

While FP can't explain every line of scripture it certainly makes more sense than the other eschatologies.

lol, that's what I meant about it all sounding good as long as someone says it really fast,,,but something happens when you lay in bed at night and think it all over...

 

[Nehemiah6]

Pre-Trib Rapture and Premillennialism are False Doctrines

Only those who are delirious would post such nonsense.

 

[delirious]

That's because it is and that is where I got if from, the Bible.



First of all your reference to "secret rapture" is meant to discredit it. I know these tricks. I Thess.4:13-17 describes in detail the gathering of the church. It is an event that is described as taking place in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. The word "Atomos" translated "a moment" is defined as a length of time to short to divide.

In opposition, at the end of the seven years, after the 7th bowl has been poured out, ending God's wrath, the Lord will visually and physically return to the earth to end the age. When He gathers the church He does not return to the earth and does not end the age. Until you understand that there is a difference between these two events, you will always be in error regarding end-time events. As is it is, by your belief, you have the living church going through the entire wrath of God, which Jesus already suffered on every believers behalf - Rom.5:9, I Thess.1:10, 5:9 and Rev.3:10.



NO, I do not! You are the one who keeps insisting that I am saying that, yet I have never said that. So please stop claiming that is what I am saying. You're getting hung up on phases.



First of all, I did not say that there were "two phases" but several phases to the first resurrection. Allow me to show you your error:

"But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God entered the two witnesses, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. And the witnesses heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud as their enemies watched them."

The last seven years of the seventy sevens decreed upon Israel and Jerusalem, according to Dan.9:27, divided into two 3 1/2 year periods with the setting up of the abomination marking the middle of the seven. The two witnesses are said to prophecy for 1260 (3 1/2 years) days, which begins from the beginning of the seven years until the setting up of the abomination in the middle of the seven years, where they are killed after the beast comes out of the Abyss. Therefore, their resurrection takes place in the middle of the seven years and also belongs to the first resurrection. Therefore, if they are resurrected in the middle of the seven years and the great tribulation saints are resurrected 3 1/2 years later when Jesus returns to end the age, how can all of the phases of the first resurrection take place at the same time? It's impossible! Not only that, but Jesus initiated the first resurrection and it is still in operation with the church being next.



"so man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no more, he will not be awakened or roused from his sleep."

So, you are going stand on the scripture above while ignoring all of the other scriptures which show resurrections taking place before this heaven and earth disappear? Tell me, what do you do with the six references to "a thousands" in Revelation 20:1-7? What are you doing to get rid of it? Because that is what you are doing. Have you ever considered that not all of the prophets, Job included, were privy to all end time events? As I already proved, the two witnesses and the great tribulation saints are resurrected prior to this current heaven and earth passing away. Instead of adopting a side of false teaching, why don't you compare and cross-reference all of the scriptures in order to come to a right conclusion.

You are saying that 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-17 is the rapture of the church only and the wicked are not raised at that time. That is a dispensational teaching. You are choosing to read that passage as only the saints being raised. The passage doesn't say that anywhere.

It is not me who is in error my friend. There is no "two-second comings" which would actually be a second and third coming. You are denying simple math and logic to preserve your system.

Job 14: 12 shows your system to be false so you say that Scripture doesn't count. Is that responsible? To deny Scripture? Maybe you should reconsider your system. The first resurrection only happens to believers. I agree with you there but it is not physical resurrection. It is a spiritual resurrection. That is why it says in Rev 20: 4 that John only sees their souls. They are reigning in heaven with Jesus right now!

There is only one physical resurrection. That is the second resurrection which happens at the Great White Throne judgement. Both the just and the unjust will be raised on that day. The last day. Just like John 6:39, 6: 44 and John 12: 48.

That's why Job 14: 12 can say that people don't resurrect "until the heavens are no more". Because Rev 20: 11 tells us that the earth and heaven flee away and there is no place for them at the Great White Throne judgment.

 

[Locutus]

lol, that's what I meant about it all sounding good as long as someone says it really fast,,,but something happens when you lay in bed at night and think it all over...

Yeah but Bro Soandso - I did lay in bed, on the couch, checked the ceiling, rolled out and Full P won the debate so what I can say or what I can do?

Besides. I speak at a regular pace, regular pawses and fire hydrant breaks for the folks to catch up.

 

[delirious]

Consider what William Kelly put, regarding that, here (with which I agree):

[quoting]

"This chapter [Job 14] brings in man raised from the grave. I would not say from the dead. Resurrection from the dead means some raised and others left. Resurrection from the grave will be true after all the saints are raised, and there remain only the wicked to be raised. That will be the resurrection from the grave, but not from the dead (for "from the dead" allows that others remain), there will be none left at that time. There are two resurrections. What is called in the common creeds of Christendom the "general resurrection" is a figment; it has no foundation in scripture. It is entirely opposed to the plainest words of God. Now you have in this world the righteous and the wicked all confused together. The tares are growing with the wheat. But that is only till the judgment come; that is only till the Lord come. And when the Lord comes there will be the separation of the righteous called not only from the dead (other dead being left in their graves), but to heaven where He is now. They are going to be like Himself - "the resurrection of the just." But there remains the great mass of mankind; and that is what Job describes in this chapter. I shall have little more to show, if God will, next Wednesday, about "the resurrection of the just"; but here is the resurrection of the unjust. And therefore you observe how beautifully the language suits. "Man that is born of a woman" - not a word about anyone that is born of God. Those that are born of God will be the righteous. But "man that is born of a woman" (and all are) "is of few days" - it looks at man since the fall - "and full of trouble." "

--William Kelly, commentary on Job 14

[end quoting]



As for 2 Thessalonians, I believe 2:2's [subject of] "the Day of the Lord" [time period] is the same time period as 1:10b's "IN THAT DAY" [time period], just as these two phrases are used side by side in the OT prophecies regarding the same identical time period.

Additionally, I can't think of any phrase where "years" is used, in Scripture" (stating so many years), that does not mean those amount of literal "years". (Cattle on representative hills is an entirely different kind of context. )

That quote from William Kelly is pure non-sense. The context of Job 14 is clearly talking about man being resurrected. The plants and trees can be cut down but they can rebud and grow but man lies in death until the resurrection which is AFTER the heavens are no more. That is what Job 14: 1-12 says.

William Kelly also denies what the Scripture says by reading into Job 14: 12 that it is only the unsaved it is talking about. The verse says mankind in general. That's why it says man. Man is comprised of both the just and unjust. They are all raised on the last day which is the Great White Throne judgment. After the heavens are no more because it flees away at that judgment.

There is no justification for you to say that the "Day of the Lord" is a "time period". It is called a day for a reason. In fact, it is the last day when both just and unjust are raised to be judged. When the earth and heavens melt with fervent heat and their works are burned up. The Great White Throne judgment.

You also ignored Psalm 90: 4 which says, "For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past and like a watch in the night." It clearly cannot be literal because 1,000 years is compared to a 24 hour day and a 3 hour watch in the night. It can only be interpreted symbolically.

 

[iamsoandso]

View attachment 189953

Yeah but Bro Soandso - I did lay in bed, on the couch, checked the ceiling, rolled out and Full P won the debate so what I can say or what I can do?

Besides. I speak at a regular pace, regular pawses and fire hydrant breaks for the folks to catch up.

And the whole time the Jews in the siege minted their own money instead of buying and selling with the mark and revolted against Rome instead of worshiping him in place of God? The words "Jewish revolt" will never translate into Them buying and selling with Romes money and worshiping Caesar as God irregardless of what you think you see on your ceiling thanks to Josephus...

 

[Locutus]

And the whole time the Jews in the siege minted their own money instead of buying and selling with the mark and revolted against Rome instead of worshiping him in place of God? The words "Jewish revolt" will never translate into Them buying and selling with Romes money and worshiping Caesar as God irregardless of what you think you see on your ceiling thanks to Josephus...

Markus, markus, we been through this before - you zeroing in on a few pixels of Mona Lisa's lips and claiming that's not a woman.

Yer need to get with the overall picture and not worry about the pixels.

 

[iamsoandso]

Markus, markus, we been through this before - you zeroing in on a few pixels of Mona Lisa's lips and claiming that's not a woman.

Yer need to get with the overall picture and not worry about the pixels.

View attachment 189954

Ok lets change it lets look at Romans 13:1-7 Paul an Apostle said to the Christians that Rome is ordained by God and to see them as such. Then goes on to tell them to render them their dues(Romans 13:7) so is he agreeing with you and it's ok for them to take the mark and use Romes money?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

There is no justification for you to say that the "Day of the Lord" is a "time period". It is called a day for a reason.

In the OT prophecies regarding it [where both of these phrases are used within the same context], "the Day of the Lord" and "IN THAT DAY" [the contexts] prove that it is indeed a period of time of some duration. For example, "the Day of the Lord," and "IN THAT DAY" [repeatedly used], in Zechariah 14, where also it states "in summer and in winter shall it be." (v.9; see also vv.13,20 among others)

So when we view the context of 2 Thessalonians 1 and 2, it shows again these TWO PHRASES [used together] referring to that future time period (as opposed to meaning a singular 24-hr day).

Paul was writing this letter because he is basically telling them not to believe anyone telling them that "the day of the Lord IS PRESENT"... which was a reasonable thing for them to believe [though incorrect] based on their present and ONGOING tribulations and persecutions they were experiencing, over some length of time (2Th1:4). He is telling them WHY this is NOT so, and to believe THEM [Paul, and their teachers] INSTEAD of the false ones convincing them of this untruth (v.15). [that "the day of the Lord IS PRESENT" - v.2]

 

[Locutus]

Ok lets change it lets look at Romans 13:1-7 Paul an Apostle said to the Christians that Rome is ordained by God and to see them as such. Then goes on to tell them to render them their dues(Romans 13:7) so is he agreeing with you and it's ok for them to take the mark and use Romes money?

Well, this don't help Bro So, you can't use Paul "against" John's Revelation - while Paul was a contemporary with John the purposes for writing are not the same.

True, they both predicted the nearness of "the end":

1 Cor 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

1 Cor 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Regardless of how you view the mark and buying and selling according to John's vision Hebrews declares he will not tarry Harry.

The futurist theologies have Him tarrying for nearly 2k years and counting.

Peter said the end of all things was near when according to the theological Harry's it was not, and the Harry's have the judge standing at the door for nearly 2 thousand years - that's no way to treat the judge is it?.

1 Pet 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

James 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

 

[iamsoandso]

Well, this don't help Bro So, you can't use Paul "against" John's Revelation - while Paul was a contemporary with John the purposes for writing are not the same.

True, they both predicted the nearness of "the end":

1 Cor 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

1 Cor 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Regardless of how you view the mark and buying and selling according to John's vision Hebrews declares he will not tarry Harry.

The futurist theologies have Him tarrying for nearly 2k years and counting.

Peter said the end of all things was near when according to the theological Harry's it was not, and the Harry's have the judge standing at the door for nearly 2 thousand years - that's no way to treat the judge is it?.

1 Pet 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

James 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

lol, Joel 1:15,,, it's alway been soon..

 

[Locutus]

lol, Joel 1:15,,, it's alway been soon..

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

So yer saying Joel was wrong and the day did not come?

Which day of the Lord are you going to throw into doubt next:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=day+of+the+lord&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

 

[iamsoandso]

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

So yer saying Joel was wrong and the day did not come?

Which day of the Lord are you going to throw into doubt next:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=day+of+the+lord&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

Just Joel 2:1 it's nigh at hand...

 

[Locutus]

Just Joel 2:1 it's nigh at hand...

And what is your issues with this Bro?

I'll give you Adam Clarke's view:

Introduction

The prophet sounds the alarm of a dreadful calamity, the description of which is most terribly worked up, Joel 2:1-11. Exhortation to repentance, fasting, and prayer, that the Divine judgments may be averted, Joel 2:12-17. God will in due time take vengeance on all the enemies of pure and undefiled religion, Joel 2:18-20.

Great prosperity of the Jews subsequent to their return from the Babylonish captivity, Joel 2:21-27. Joel then makes an elegant transition to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, Joel 2:28-30; for so these verses are explained by one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. See Acts 2:16-21. Prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, which was shortly to follow the opening of the Gospel dispensation, Acts 2:31. Promises of safety to the faithful and penitent; promises afterwards remarkably fulfilled to the Christians in their escape to Pella from the desolating sword of the Roman army, Acts 2:32.


Verse 1
Blow ye the trumpet in Zion - This verse also shows that the temple was still standing. All assemblies of the people were collected by the sound of the trumpet.

The day of the Lord cometh - This phrase generally means a day of judgment or punishment.

 

[iamsoandso]

And what is your issues with this Bro?

I'll give you Adam Clarke's view:

Introduction

The prophet sounds the alarm of a dreadful calamity, the description of which is most terribly worked up, Joel 2:1-11. Exhortation to repentance, fasting, and prayer, that the Divine judgments may be averted, Joel 2:12-17. God will in due time take vengeance on all the enemies of pure and undefiled religion, Joel 2:18-20.

Great prosperity of the Jews subsequent to their return from the Babylonish captivity, Joel 2:21-27. Joel then makes an elegant transition to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, Joel 2:28-30; for so these verses are explained by one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. See Acts 2:16-21. Prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, which was shortly to follow the opening of the Gospel dispensation, Acts 2:31. Promises of safety to the faithful and penitent; promises afterwards remarkably fulfilled to the Christians in their escape to Pella from the desolating sword of the Roman army, Acts 2:32.


Verse 1
blow ye the trumpet in Zion - This verse also shows that the temple was still standing. All assemblies of the people were collected by the sound of the trumpet.

The day of the Lord cometh - This phrase generally means a day of judgment or punishment.

Great,,,

wonder how we wandered so far from Romans 13:1-7 ?,,,

 

[delirious]

In the OT prophecies regarding it [where both of these phrases are used within the same context], "the Day of the Lord" and "IN THAT DAY" [the contexts] prove that it is indeed a period of time of some duration. For example, "the Day of the Lord," and "IN THAT DAY" [repeatedly used], in Zechariah 14, where also it states "in summer and in winter shall it be." (v.9; see also vv.13,20 among others)

So when we view the context of 2 Thessalonians 1 and 2, it shows again these TWO PHRASES [used together] referring to that future time period (as opposed to meaning a singular 24-hr day).

Paul was writing this letter because he is basically telling them not to believe anyone telling them that "the day of the Lord IS PRESENT"... which was a reasonable thing for them to believe [though incorrect] based on their present and ONGOING tribulations and persecutions they were experiencing, over some length of time (2Th1:4). He is telling them WHY this is NOT so, and to believe THEM [Paul, and their teachers] INSTEAD of the false ones convincing them of this untruth (v.15). [that "the day of the Lord IS PRESENT" - v.2]

Those verses don't PROVE anything at all. The Thessalonians clearly didn't know what the Day of the Lord meant from the context of the letter. Paul tells them in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1 that the "Day of the Lord" is Christ's second coming. That happens on a specific day which is the last day which many verses in Scripture make clear (John 6:39, 6: 44, 6:54, 11:24). Paul also confirms it is a specific Day in 2 Thessalonians 1: 10. Those verses are 3 verses apart in 2 Thess 1 & 2. So I can make the exact same argument you are making which actually proves a singular day and not a time period!

I can read Zech 14 just fine and view the whole chapter as one day with no issues whatsoever. Some scholars think this "Day of the Lord" is referencing the crucifixion. That's why living waters (the gospel message) go out to the world. That's why it happens in both summer and winter and the Lord is king over all the earth. Because Christ's kingdom has been on this earth since then and he is ruling and reigning currently from the right hand of the Father. The passage is very difficult and opinions differ among scholars. Should we base our "time period" off a passage like that? The whole chapter reads just fine as a singular day.

There are tons of verses in the Old Testament that refer to the "Day of the Lord" as a specific day of judgment. Sometimes on Babylon or Israel in the Old Testament but always with the sense that it was looking for that final "great day" of eschatological fulfillment. It's also a day of blessing for God's people who have trusted in Him. It does not refer to it as a time period. It refers to it as a Day. You can choose to read it that way if you want.

Zechariah 14 is a highly apocalyptic passage which the premillennialist does not understand and takes way too literally. The passage is clearly symbolic. What does all the symbolism mean? Good question. Scholars are divided on this because of the difficulty of the chapter. Apocalyptic literature is not to be taken primarily literally and Scripture provides many examples of this.

I would also like to reiterate my point about William Henry. You can't say Job 14: 12 is only referring to the unsaved. The context of the passage makes it clear it is talking about the resurrection of mankind. That's why the verse says "Man lies down..."

Who is mankind made up of? Only the unsaved? Just the saved? No, man is made up of both the just and the unjust. That verse is a slam dunk for the resurrection of the dead only being possible at the Great White Throne judgment.

My post at the beginning of this thread showed from Scripture that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth which makes premillennialism false. So what logical conclusion does that leave us with? The resurrection happens at the last day, which is the Great White Throne judgment and is the only eschatological timeline that fits. Rev 20: 11, "The heavens and earth flee away" Job 14: 12, "Man lies down and does not rise again until the heavens are no more".

 

[iamsoandso]

good night folks,sweet dreams...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Those verses don't PROVE anything at all. The Thessalonians clearly didn't know what the Day of the Lord meant from the context of the letter.

No.

In his earlier letter to them, he acknowledges that they "know perfectly that the Day of the Lord SO COMETH [ARRIVES] as a thief IN THE NIGHT..." and then mentions the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" which will be followed by MANY MORE "birth PANGS [PLURAL]" that Jesus spoke of in His Olivet Discourse (that's how "birth PANGS" work!). [They are the equivalent of the SEALS of Rev6 at the START of that future time period.]

The INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" at its ARRIVAL ("in the night" [of the entire long "Day"]) is the same as what Matthew 24:4 / Mark 13:5 stated, "G1500 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'"... the "whose COMING/ADVENT/ARRIVAL/PRESENCE/parousia" [2Th2:9a] of "the man of sin" IN HIS TIME (the "who, who, who" of 2Th2 is the "he, he, he" of Dan9:27[26], his "BEGINNING," his "MIDDLE," and his "END"--all 7 years in both of these contexts).

Paul tells them in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1 that the "Day of the Lord" is Christ's second coming.

No he doesn't. That is a very common misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the point Paul is conveying in 2Th2.

He is conveying two basic things: "No, the Day of the Lord is NOT present [as the false conveyors are convincing you of], and the RELATION [TIME-WISE] of our Rapture TO THAT OF the earthly-located time period [as you DO CORRECTLY understand and know of it] known as the Day of the Lord." It wasn't present, and they were to believe PAUL [and associates] rather than the false teachers aiming to convince than that it was indeed present (which was a very reasonable thing for them to believe, though wholly incorrect).

They were under no such delusion that Jesus Himself was present, nor that a singular 24-hr day [of due events] had taken place. Paul would not even have had time to respond in a letter to such a brief predicament (to HEAR of it, to WRITE THEM regarding it, to SEND it, and for them to have gathered to HEAR the letter regarding such a thing--that "24-hr day" would have been long gone, by then, and the truth would have dawned on them well-before then, without his need of writing them such a corrective! )

 

[Locutus]

good night folks,sweet dreams...

Nitey nite Bro, don't fall off the fence in yer sleep.