You jumped into a discussion midway and did not bother to read the initial post. That is why you are not making sense.
What is your BEST PROOF for a pre-trib Rapture?
- Thread starter Hevosmies
- 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.
You jumped into a discussion midway and did not bother to read the initial post. That is why you are not making sense.
You said the following and I quote: "The Church is DEFINATELY in heaven during the gt. Jesus is emphatic about it. My verses prove that hands down."
You also admitted that you found evidence of your view in 30 seconds, really? Did you actually read the evidence for yourself? You also gave a list of "Early Church Fathers" that apparently support your position.
Now, I did my homework and found this:
"Tribulation
Among those who believed in an earthly millennial reign, the fathers believed that the church would undergo the tribulation. Hippolytus (see his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 64) and Irenaeus are two good examples, the latter of which wrote:
And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption. (Against Heresies, 5.29)"
How come when I checked out what you said I found two names on your list, Hippolytus and Irenaeus and they believed the church WOULD undergo the tribulation? From reading your post you must really think your messing around with little kids that don't know what their talking about. Your in the "big leagues" now where you have to prove your position with evidence as opposed to just making "loudmouth" statements. I suggest you read Acts 17:11.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
This may help.
"For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”
""I feel I must state a word of caution here. Even though we have looked at only two early church individuals you will find many who reject what they said, or worse, claim that those of us who want to prove the pre-tribulation belief twist what the person said.
Regarding the Irenaeus quote you will hear people say that the next paragraph denounces the thought of a pre-tribulation Rapture because it mentions the beast. But those who tout this view are not completely honest. The quote I mentioned above does not follow with a paragraph but ends the first section of chapter 29. Then begins section two of the chapter which is the subject of the beast.
You will also hear people denounce the sermon of Ephraem saying that it is better known as Pseudo-Ephraem meaning that someone else wrote it around the 6th century. The only charge on that accusation is if someone wrote it in the 6thcentury then where did they copy it from?""
My point???
Postribs lean to the shaly ground of tirelessy invoking extra biblical rabbit trails.
Even when imminency and pretrib quotes are found to be made by the ancients the default is to ignore it.
I would wager you had no idea of the many church fathers that agreed with immenency.
....and postrib at the same time.
By the wayYou said the following and I quote: "The Church is DEFINATELY in heaven during the gt. Jesus is emphatic about it. My verses prove that hands down."
You also admitted that you found evidence of your view in 30 seconds, really? Did you actually read the evidence for yourself? You also gave a list of "Early Church Fathers" that apparently support your position.
Now, I did my homework and found this:
"Tribulation
Among those who believed in an earthly millennial reign, the fathers believed that the church would undergo the tribulation. Hippolytus (see his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 64) and Irenaeus are two good examples, the latter of which wrote:
And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption. (Against Heresies, 5.29)"
How come when I checked out what you said I found two names on your list, Hippolytus and Irenaeus and they believed the church WOULD undergo the tribulation? From reading your post you must really think your messing around with little kids that don't know what their talking about. Your in the "big leagues" now where you have to prove your position with evidence as opposed to just making "loudmouth" statements. I suggest you read Acts 17:11.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Yes many believed in a postrib rapture.
...and other erroneous doctrines
The early church fathers from both sides of the reformation looked to the thousand years as to represent a unknown according to the signified tongue of God, Prophecy. The Amil position.
When did the signified become literalized and now many new ideas have been introduced to the meaning of "last day" or "end of time" which began with the time of the first century reformation, starting the last days clock when the veil was rent. .It was a duplicate of the fifteenth century reformation.
There is nothing looking at those old private interpretations of those no longer here that indicated Millennium as a literal thousand years it seem like a newer innovation. The Amil works the best.
I reported the one that accuses the brethren.
Not sure where you stand .
At first i thought you hit a "like " emogie.
Then i saw you did another "surprised"
Doesn't matter.
Sorry for the confusion.
I did not report you.
No worries.
I have been called that before.
What evil is lurking in here?
The Rapture of the Church is absent from the book of Revelation. However one could say that the 144,000 are taken up to heaven therefore they are raptured (but this is not the same as the Rapture of the Church)
You could say that since the battle of Armageddon is foretold in this chapter. Revelation 14 gives us an overview of what will b revealed from chapters 15-19, as well as what happens.
1. The 144,000 redeemed Jews in Heaven -- vv 1-5
2. The angel flying with the everlasting Gospel -- vv 6-7
3. The announcement of the fall of Babylon -- v 8
4. The announcement of the doom of those who take the Mark of the Beast -- vv 9-13
5. The revelation of the destruction of the wicked and the battle of Armageddon -- vv 14-20
By your wording there ^ , it sounds like you have misunderstood what I had been saying.
I was talking about the Thessalonians (to whom Paul was writing).
I was saying (about v.2 and *what* it is speaking of) does not make any sense (to their *setting*/*circumstances*) for it to be saying what folks tend to wrongly insert into that verse (by mis-defining the phrase): "as that THE DAY OF THE LORD IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative--Perfect Tense: 'ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►).']," things like:
[(for them not to believe) anyone trying to convince them...]
--"as that JESUS HIMSELF IS PRESENT"
--"as that JESUS' KINGDOM RULE IS PRESENT"
--"as that THE RAPTURE IS PRESENT"
--"[other things ppl try to define 'the DOTL' as] IS PRESENT" (like wrongly defining it as "a singular 24-hr day" and so forth)
So I was saying that to (for us to) believe that it says any of THOSE ^ (etc) things, instead of acknowledging:
--their life circumstances/setting (1:4 "the persecutions and tribulations you are [ongoingly] ENDURING" [VERY NEGATIVE things they were EXPERIENCING);
--the LENGTH of TIME it would have taken Paul to compose such a letter (let alone possibly having to have been made aware of the circumstances prompting the need for such a letter [a corrective, of sorts]), and the length of time to have had it delivered to them;
--the fact that his previous letter to them shows that they "KNOW PERFECTLY" not only *WHAT* the DOTL IS, but that it is to ARRIVE SUDDENLY, like a thief IN THE NIGHT and like the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" of a woman with Child/in labor [so, if they were not unaware of Jesus' words about other aspects (as you and other suggest, and I agree), then they were also not unaware of Jesus' using the VERY SAME LANGUAGE [literally the same exact word, but there (said by Jesus), in the plural, here (said by Paul) in the singular and in the context (of wording) re: the INITIAL "birth PANG" that COMES UPON a woman with child/in labor (a "birth PANG" is NOT "ONE and DONE" in nature nor in Scripture, per Jesus' own words--He said there'd be more than ONE!)
--the fact that the OT precedent shows that "the Day of the Lord" is NOT "a singular 24-hr day," but is instead: "a-period-of-time-[not-24-hrs-in-length]-of-JUDGMENTs-followed-by-a-period-of-time-[also-not-24-hrs-in-length]-of-BLESSINGs" [and is NOT the definition that the "amill-teachings" (and others) give it ("the 24-hr day of Jesus' ARRIVAL"--wrong! (tho it certainly INCLUDES that it in its midsection of the 3 sections that it INCLUDES: the trib, His RETURN to the earth, AND the 1000-yr reign! ALL 3!)] (and we know that 1 Peter 1:20 tells us, "20 knowing this first, that any prophecy of Scripture is not of its own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy at any time was brought by the will of man, but men spoke from God, being carried by the Holy Spirit." --we "understand" things aright when we do not disregard what Scripture itself has to say about this phrase elsewhere--someone on this thread likes to pull out (SOME) passage regarding ONE ASPECT OF "the DOTL" and ONLY post THOSE when attempting to align things, but that is to miss 2/3 of the whole picture! [thus making it skewed])
I could put more, but I'm just saying that the things that other ppl suggest "the DOTL" means (where the text is saying, Paul is telling them not to believe anyone trying to convince them "as that the DAY OF THE LORD *IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative]*") does not take into consideration the setting that the Thessalonians were in (their ongoing NEGATIVE experiences), and the knowledge they already had "under their belt" so to speak (as to WHAT the DOTL *IS* and of the nature of its *ARRIVAL* and how that relates to what Jesus had already taught and that Paul had conveyed to them, since they "KNOW PERFECTLY" of this, per the first letter we know this).
I'm saying, they (the Thessalonians) would have had *no evidence* of ppl disappearing, IF "the rapture" had been the "definition" of that phrase (but it ISN'T!) Same for the other things ppl try to suggest it means [v.2]. And for them to have had "no evidence" of [____insert any definition___], yet for US to SAY they were being convinced of [_____] is to think they were dumb and utterly uninformed ppl (they WEREN'T!) [THAT's what I meant by "without evidence"]
P.S. and Paul concluding that section, by saying [v.15] essentially, "don't believe THEM [the v.2 conveyors of falsity], believe what WE taught you INSTEAD!"
[again, v.2 is saying, basically, don't [you Thessalonians] believe anyone trying to convince you that THE DAY OF THE LORD *IS PRESENT* [PERFECT indicative]..." (note: the DOTL is a TIME PERIOD of MUCH DURATION)]
[again, v.2 is saying, basically, don't [you Thessalonians] believe anyone trying to convince you that THE DAY OF THE LORD *IS PRESENT* [PERFECT indicative]..." (note: the DOTL is a TIME PERIOD of MUCH DURATION)]
You go into great lengths to talk about this. I'm trying to figure out the relevance to the discussion. I haven't seen all that much amil arguing here. If the readers thought the day of the Lord included 1000 years of the Lord's reign, then they probably were not worried that that had already passed, if that is your argument. Are you arguing that if they thought they were currently in the day of the Lord, that Paul's words would not fit-- that he was saying that they were worried that the whole 'day of the Lord' passed, as opposed to the idea that he is talking about the start of the day of the Lord.
There is also the issue of whether some 'day of the Lord' passages may have been fulfilled, at least partly, in previous judgments in Old Testament times.
But I don't want to derail the thread. You post on this frequently, but it seems to be a tangent, not some kind of proof of pretrib. It sounds like something you might want to startanother thread about.
And all the brackets, abbreviations (I had to read to get to your use of 'day of the Lord' in a previous post to know what you meant by 'DOTL'), excessive bolding fonts, capitals) makes your posts so hard to read, and then the posts turn out to be kind of off-topic, or tangents.
Some point to historical interpretation, not all. One of the reasons for this is that pre-tribbers believe in pre-trib without any scripture that shows a pre-trib rapture occurring separate from the second coming. They assume pre-trib and read it into a lot of passages. You point this out, they keep it up. When pointing out that 'what you believe is not in the Bible' doesn't work some post-tribbers will point to the fact that early Christians including native speakers of Greek held to non-pretrib 'literal' interpretations.
presidente, not "is already passed" (as you just put ^ in your Post #492);
the text states (Paul's wording is):
"IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative - PERFECT TENSE: 'ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►).']"
I'm saying "the definition" (of "the DOTL" v.2) has to make sense, with this ^ (in the context/setting of the Thessalonians' need for this letter/Paul's words to them).
the text states (Paul's wording is):
"IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative - PERFECT TENSE: 'ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►).']"
I'm saying "the definition" (of "the DOTL" v.2) has to make sense, with this ^ (in the context/setting of the Thessalonians' need for this letter/Paul's words to them).
Calm down. There is no need to shout.
And how is this relevant to the current topic?
I'm not shouting, the majority of what I just put is a "copy & paste" from a Greek grammar site (defining the "PERFECT TENSE"). That is their caps.
No need to take offence, but I understand.
If you read my entire Post, I was saying what *I* had meant by "their having no evidence"... not what you took me to meant by that (referring to yourself [or others in this day and age], which *I* wasn't).
That's in my explanation, in that entire post I took time to type out, to make clear.
No, it isn't my argument.
("IS PRESENT [PERFECT tense]").
What is it, that the Thessalonians were being wrongly convinced (by false conveyors, v.2 [or at least at risk of being convinced of]) "IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative]" (already arrived at some point in the past, and with the results continuing into the present)??
"what"??
(and where is the evidence of this, in this text?)
Yes, but did any of them last "a singular 24-hr day" or consist of [merely] a "split-second" length of time. No.
This is my point.
I'm pointing out that one must come to a correct understanding of just what Paul is expressing in v.2 [which most ppl misunderstand and mis-define and blur-together by uniting two wholly distinct items], before one can grasp Paul's overall point, correctly.
[v.2 "... as that THE DAY OF THE LORD *IS PRESENT* [PERFECT indicative]"---"the Day of the Lord" is an EARTHLY-LOCATED time-period of much duration]
P.S. and I've not said that it consists ONLY of the 1000-yr reign (but that it also INCLUDES it)
[I'm convinced of one thing... that people don't read thoroughly through posts these days.
]
[I'm convinced of one thing... that people don't read thoroughly through posts these days.
]Look, you got caught making "erroneous" statments, (actually lots of them" when you posted that the church fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Hippolytus were pretribulationist. You also said in your post, "You should check them out."
Well unlike you I did check them out and they believed the "opposite" of your position. You also said in your post #441, "but nothing at all about a postrib rapture." First of all there is no such thing as a "postrib rapture." There is only one "Second Coming" as scripture teaches. Just read Hebrews 9:28 just for starters.
Instead of doing your homework like your suppose to do your now "backpedaling" with this bogus argument of "For all the saints and the elect are gathered etc. Just another rabbit trail, and btw, it would be nice to post the chapter and verse number when you quote verses. Actus 17:11 would be good for you to read.
Now, maybe the following site I am going to post and to quote you, "And maybe this will help you." Of course I doubt very much you will read it because you already have a closed mind and have no interest with others may say/believe.
https://www.aboundingjoy.com/posttrib.htm
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto