What is your BEST PROOF for a pre-trib Rapture?

[Melach]

Not the rapture.
Just a gathering after the 144k firstfruits gathering.
A gathering by Jesus in the gt.

That gathering makes or breaks 1 thes 4 (the dead rise first"

how does it make or breaks 1 thes 4? explain it. im very interested you always say it but now first time i see you say it precisely what you mean about revelation 14 gathering

 

[Absolutely]

Ultimately we must be careful not to simply accept or reject views of the Bible on the basis of what other men have said.

Yep.
Men will most ALWAYS tell you wrong.

I like chuck misslers basis in teaching "don't believe me,check it out for yourself"

More serious Bible students often come to a posttribulational view of the return of Christ

Nope. they are persuaded that way.
In fact a simple bible study would have to change their view if they are honest.

 

[Absolutely]

Ephraim said: Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” 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.

Jesus said:
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

compare words of Jesus to Ephraim's the opposite lolz
Jesus said after tribulation Ephraim say before.

from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Angels gathering.....not Jesus
From heaven.....not earth.

 

[Guojing]

Quoted your post sir.

You saying you had no point?

Before you want to jump into the middle of a discussion, you should always view how it started.

It began with a discussion of Abel and Cain offerings and their motivation for doing so.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I don't know why you choose not to open the link but I assure you there's nothing to fear. The article is very "lengthy" so I decided to post notable people who are postribulationist, There are many more is you click on the additional link. Also, the article goes into great detail with evidence of a postrib second coming. Finally, I would not normally do this but for you I will oblige.

Thanks.

Notable Christian Posttribbers
The pretribulational viewpoint has been so prevalent in evangelical circles of late, that many have gotten the idea that the pretribulational view must be the "orthodox" view. The argument that, "Surely all these preachers and Bible students can’t be wrong, can they?" can be very powerful with someone who feels that he doesn’t have the time or skill to study the issue for himself.

Works both ways, I suppose... I mean, my list could be just as long or l onger (of "scholars") but what would that prove? I'd prefer to look at what the Scriptures have to say on it (sure, "scholars" are important, but if some are saying complete opposite things, they cannot both be correct. Both could be wrong, but both cannot be right. So we "search the scriptures, to see if these things be so" )

Therefore, it may help some to realize that many notable Christian leaders and scholars have been posttribulationalists. Here are a few (there are, of course, many others):

Jay Adams, Randy Alcorn, Henry Alford, Matthew Arnold, J. Sidlow Baxter, David Brainerd, F. F. Bruce, John Bunyan, John Calvin, B. H. Carroll, William Cowper, John Gill, Robert Gundry, Hank Hanegraaff, Carl F. H. Henry, William Hendriksen, Matthew Henry, Herschell Hobbs, Adoniram Judson, John Knox, George Eldon Ladd, Hugh Latimer, C. S. Lewis, J. B. Lightfoot, Harold Lindsell, C. S. Lovett, Martin Luther, Walter Martin, Dave McPherson, Jack McAlister, Alexander McLaren, Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, John Warwick Montgomery, Doug Moo, G. Campbell Morgan, H. C. G. Moule, George Mueller, Andrew Murray, Sir Isaac Newton, John Newton, Harold J. Ockenga, J. Edwin Orr, Ian Paisley, John Piper, Bernard Ramm, Paul Rees, A. T. Robertson, Marv Rosenthal, Francis Schaffer, Oswald J. Smith, Charles Spurgeon, John R. W. Stott, A. H. Strong, Merrell Tenny, J. H. Thayer, B. B. Warfield, Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, John Wesley, George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, Ulrich Zwingli.​

​

[see my comments on a few of these, if I can fit it at the bottom of this Post]

Of course, to our knowledge, none of the pastors and Bible students who lived before about 1830 were pretribulational. The first references we have to the idea of a pretribulational coming are from around the year 1830. Due to the influence of Augustine, earlier Bible students were often amillennial, believing the thousand-year reign to be symbolic. However, they also usually believed the church would have to go through a time of great tribulation. And due to the difficult times in which they lived, many believed they were already in the great tribulation.

Whenever someone says something like this ^ , I bring out the John 21:20-23, esp v.23 passage, where Peter himself had misunderstood the words of the risen Christ (face to face, even), and "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him [Peter], 'He shall not die'; but, 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

The first man known to have advanced a pretribulational view of the return of Christ was a man by the name of Edward Irving, who was later removed from the Presbyterian church because of heretical beliefs about the nature of Christ.

Already commented on him... that he was an "Historicist," not a "pre-tribber"

Ultimately we must be careful not to simply accept or reject views of the Bible on the basis of what other men have said. Only Scripture (Sola Scriptura) is the basis of our beliefs.

Agreed. Nevertheless, we must bring up the "scholars" and "early church fathers" and "church history" to see if these things be so. lol

I have included this section for the benefit of those who think the posttribulational position is "weird" or who think that it is rejected by serious Bible students. In fact, my experience has been exactly the opposite. More serious Bible students often come to a posttribulational view of the return of Christ."

First of all, the word "RETURN" (biblically speaking) DOES *only* refer to His Second Coming to the earth (end of trib). Many ppl use this word flippantly, to speak of the time of our Rapture (which scripture itself does NOT).

As for the rest of your post, in total...

Re: bluto's Post quoting "the list" (in part), I've pulled out just A FEW and posted comment about them... but if you don't have the time to read this entire post, be SURE to look at the entry under the name "Marv Rosenthal" and take a listen to the 9-min vid by Dr David Hocking (and the note I placed there along with the link)"

[quoting PARTS of bluto's Post's LIST, with my comment following each]

"Therefore, it may help some to realize that many notable Christian leaders and scholars have been posttribulationalists. Here are a few (there are, of course, many others):

[...]
John Calvin - who believed in double predestination [that God created some for the sole purpose of reprobation]...Two Calvin quotes: "Scripture clearly proves that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction." – (John Calvin: Institutes oof the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 7, Sec. 2210) [...and...] "Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction." (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Sec. 2231); (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship)

[...]
Robert Gundry - [quote found-->] "One of the few ever booted out of the Evangelical Theological Society because of his use of a liberal Reformed approach to the New Testament called "redaction criticism." A very smart person who has attempted to intellectualize the Scriptures and Bible prophecy, but is not consistent. For example, once being dispensational and pre-tribulational, he turned against the pre-tribulation rapture view, then developed a new confusing type of post-tribulationism called "dispensational post-tribulationism." " [end quote]

[...]
Hank Hanegraaff - who's been persuaded to change TO the Preterist viewpoint (because post-trib viewpoint wasn't "far enough" OFF! LOL );
[quote found-->] "scholars take issue with his anti-Israel position, and have problems with his eschatology, some calling it "strange theology." For example, he does not believe in a coming tribulation period, and he states that the Revelation judgments of the seven seals, seven trumpets and seven vials were all symbolic "warnings" that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D." [end quote]; (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship); and I did mention (long posts back) about the guy who owns a Bible website, who "studied" himself "from pre-trib/premill to amill to preterist... to now hard atheist"... and he's a "smart" [intelligent] guy (but wrong, sadly!)

[...]
Matthew Henry - a historicist postmillennial [post-mill means Jesus' 2nd Advent is AFTER the MK] (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship);

[...]
George Eldon Ladd - [*see excerpt quoted below (at bottom of post), on this one]

[...]
Martin Luther - [isn't he the one who said the Book of Rev should not be a part of the Bible??] (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship);

[...]
Dave McPherson - [very lame scholarship here, and besides that, I found a quote (below), only for the sake of _____ who had, earlier in this thread, said something to the effect that, "majority view" is a sure sign of lame-ness ]
[quote found-->] "he is said to be publicly endorsed by numerous Christian leaders including premill, amill, postmill, preterist, historicist, futurist, midtrib, prewrath, posttrib, charismatic, dominionist, reformed, orthodox, and independents. That's a widely traveled road." [end quote] lol;

[...]
John Piper - who changes "the negative" to the wrong clause, in Rom9:6, in his book "The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23," therefore having it say something completely different from what the text actually conveys (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship);

[continued in next post... too long here]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[continued from previous post]

[...]
Marv Rosenthal - [isn't he the "pre-wrath guy" who, when Dr David Hocking showed him about the manuscript evidence (re: Rev5:9-10; with v.9 saying "US") had to acknowledge "agreement" [that David Hocking was right and Scripture does say that, per the manuscript evidence Hocking pointed out], but then Rosenthal proceeded to publish his already-written "pre-wrath book" anyway, despite being made aware of these facts: [see that @ this vid:

(approx 9-min vid total)--note also that he mentions something Geo E. Ladd (another one on your list of scholars) had said about this passage/esp verse 9]--EDIT: I think the part about Marv Rosenthal must be in a later section of this same sermon, not shown in this particular 9-min CLIP); [i.e. not wat I call "good" scholarship]

[...]
____________

[Re: Geo E Ladd... quoting article from "Bible Truth Publishers" by Paul Wilson]

"It would take a lengthy tome to answer Dr. Ladd's book, but it is certainly answerable. It displays much of the confusion that goes with the denial of dispensationalism; at times it misrepresents the true position of those who zealously hold the pretribulation rapture of the saints of this age; for instance, it says that dispensationalists define His pretribulation coming "in terms of escape from suffering [in the tribulation] rather than union with Christ." This is not true for the great body of those who watch for their Lord.
[...]
"He sees no distinction between "the gospel of the kingdom" and "the gospel of the grace of God." Neither will he allow that it is the Jews who are to flee from Jerusalem when an idol (spoken of in Dan. 12, which Dr. Ladd confuses with the antichrist—pp. 72, 73) is set up in the holy place of their new temple; for he makes this fleeing to apply to Christians. Dr. Ladd says: "The people of God are seen in the Tribulation. They are to be put to flight by the Abomination of Desolation (Matt. 24:20). The Tribulation will bring martyrdom to the elect.... Who are the elect? Are they the Church, or Israel? Dispensationalism solves this problem by the application of its major premise," meaning Israel, of course. But will Dr. Ladd please explain, if his thesis is correct and it means the Church, why it is that Christians are to pray that their flight be not on the Sabbath day? His stand would please the Seventh-day Adventists, who would make Jews out of us. Did he never discover that in Luke 21, when the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70 was prophesied, the believers were not inhibited by Jewish rules of a Sabbath day? But when the Church has been translated to heaven, and the Jews become once more the center of God's ways, they will be bound by the Sabbath; therefore the Lord said (anticipating the Jewish remnant who will be in Jerusalem at that time), "Pray ye that your flight be not... on the sabbath day." v. 20.
[...]
"Furthermore, the Lord's directions concerning the placement of this abomination of desolation in the temple instructed "them which be in Judea" to "flee to the mountains." To make this passage instruction for all the Church during the tribulation would of necessity place all the Church in Judea. Such an idea would be nonsense. Only confusion results from mixing instructions for the Church with those for a future Jewish remnant.

--Paul Wilson (Bible Truth Publishers), Dispensationalism, Pt 1

[end quoting; brackets mine; parentheses original; more to the article found under that title (by Paul Wilson), at Bible Truth Publishers]

 

[presidente]

I know BOTH doctrines and process all the verses.
You do not.

The only way you can say we have no verses is to misrepresent what we post or ignore it.

Typically pre-tribbers take passages that in no way support pre-trib and read a pre-trib scenario into it.

No,we just don't need rev 14 to say something other than what it does. Show me how in the world this,(rev 14 gathering), is the same as millions ON WHITE HORSES(the second coming) .
Rev 14
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

I don't get what your point is supposed to be as far as pre-trib goes. If you have a point to make, please do so without the leading questions.

 

[Melach]

from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Angels gathering.....not Jesus
From heaven.....not earth.

thats a failure

Mar 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

there is the word earth too lolz. same context. you just tried too desperate to make it say something the natural reading dont say.

 

[TooFastTurtle]

I want to touch on the "two comings" that post-tribbers often ridicule pre-trib believers for.

This is not as insane as it may sound considering that even the first coming had phases in it, Jesus was born in the flesh then came back from the grave with a glorified body. Jesus also went up to heaven more than once:


John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Luke 24:50-51
And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Acts 1:9
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

We are saying that the coming for the Church is Jesus descending into the atmosphere, calling us out and taking us to the Father's house (fulfilling John 14:1-3) and the coming mentioned in Revelation 1:7 is a coming visible to all, a coming where Jesus actually touches the mount of olives and initiates the coming millennial kingdom.

 

[Absolutely]

thats a failure

Mar 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

there is the word earth too lolz. same context. you just tried too desperate to make it say something the natural reading dont say.

So we have "2 heavens" and "1 earth" but you say it is in no way a gathering in heaven.

Ok,got it

 

[Absolutely]

I want to touch on the "two comings" that post-tribbers often ridicule pre-trib believers for.

This is not as insane as it may sound considering that even the first coming had phases in it, Jesus was born in the flesh then came back from the grave with a glorified body. Jesus also went up to heaven more than once:


John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Luke 24:50-51
And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Acts 1:9
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

We are saying that the coming for the Church is Jesus descending into the atmosphere, calling us out and taking us to the Father's house (fulfilling John 14:1-3) and the coming mentioned in Revelation 1:7 is a coming visible to all, a coming where Jesus actually touches the mount of olives and initiates the coming millennial kingdom.

In the 10 virgin parable,the bride went a certain distance out to meet the groom.
He IN NO WAY, went to or into her property.

He still CAME and got her.

(You will never hear a postrib unpack our verses. They skip them every time.)

 

[Absolutely]

Typically pre-tribbers take passages that in no way support pre-trib and read a pre-trib scenario into it.



I don't get what your point is supposed to be as far as pre-trib goes. If you have a point to make, please do so without the leading questions.

1 thes 4 says "THE DEAD RISE FIRST"
Under your assesment they rise AFTER the living are gathered twice in rev 14.
Really?

you say the second coming is "one coming" when rev 14 has Jesus coming and harvesting DURING THE GT

 

[Absolutely]

Thanks.

Works both ways, I suppose... I mean, my list could be just as long or l onger (of "scholars") but what would that prove? I'd prefer to look at what the Scriptures have to say on it (sure, "scholars" are important, but if some are saying complete opposite things, they cannot both be correct. Both could be wrong, but both cannot be right. So we "search the scriptures, to see if these things be so" )

​

[see my comments on a few of these, if I can fit it at the bottom of this Post]

Whenever someone says something like this ^ , I bring out the John 21:20-23, esp v.23 passage, where Peter himself had misunderstood the words of the risen Christ (face to face, even), and "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him [Peter], 'He shall not die'; but, 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

Already commented on him... that he was an "Historicist," not a "pre-tribber"

Agreed. Nevertheless, we must bring up the "scholars" and "early church fathers" and "church history" to see if these things be so. lol

First of all, the word "RETURN" (biblically speaking) DOES *only* refer to His Second Coming to the earth (end of trib). Many ppl use this word flippantly, to speak of the time of our Rapture (which scripture itself does NOT).

As for the rest of your post, in total...

Re: bluto's Post quoting "the list" (in part), I've pulled out just A FEW and posted comment about them... but if you don't have the time to read this entire post, be SURE to look at the entry under the name "Marv Rosenthal" and take a listen to the 9-min vid by Dr David Hocking (and the note I placed there along with the link)"

[quoting PARTS of bluto's Post's LIST, with my comment following each]

"Therefore, it may help some to realize that many notable Christian leaders and scholars have been posttribulationalists. Here are a few (there are, of course, many others):

[...]
John Calvin - who believed in double predestination [that God created some for the sole purpose of reprobation]...Two Calvin quotes: "Scripture clearly proves that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction." – (John Calvin: Institutes oof the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 7, Sec. 2210) [...and...] "Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction." (John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Sec. 2231); (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship)

[...]
Robert Gundry - [quote found-->] "One of the few ever booted out of the Evangelical Theological Society because of his use of a liberal Reformed approach to the New Testament called "redaction criticism." A very smart person who has attempted to intellectualize the Scriptures and Bible prophecy, but is not consistent. For example, once being dispensational and pre-tribulational, he turned against the pre-tribulation rapture view, then developed a new confusing type of post-tribulationism called "dispensational post-tribulationism." " [end quote]

[...]
Hank Hanegraaff - who's been persuaded to change TO the Preterist viewpoint (because post-trib viewpoint wasn't "far enough" OFF! LOL );
[quote found-->] "scholars take issue with his anti-Israel position, and have problems with his eschatology, some calling it "strange theology." For example, he does not believe in a coming tribulation period, and he states that the Revelation judgments of the seven seals, seven trumpets and seven vials were all symbolic "warnings" that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D." [end quote]; (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship); and I did mention (long posts back) about the guy who owns a Bible website, who "studied" himself "from pre-trib/premill to amill to preterist... to now hard atheist"... and he's a "smart" [intelligent] guy (but wrong, sadly!)

[...]
Matthew Henry - a historicist postmillennial [post-mill means Jesus' 2nd Advent is AFTER the MK] (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship);

[...]
George Eldon Ladd - [*see excerpt quoted below (at bottom of post), on this one]

[...]
Martin Luther - [isn't he the one who said the Book of Rev should not be a part of the Bible??] (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship);

[...]
Dave McPherson - [very lame scholarship here, and besides that, I found a quote (below), only for the sake of _____ who had, earlier in this thread, said something to the effect that, "majority view" is a sure sign of lame-ness ]
[quote found-->] "he is said to be publicly endorsed by numerous Christian leaders including premill, amill, postmill, preterist, historicist, futurist, midtrib, prewrath, posttrib, charismatic, dominionist, reformed, orthodox, and independents. That's a widely traveled road." [end quote] lol;

[...]
John Piper - who changes "the negative" to the wrong clause, in Rom9:6, in his book "The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23," therefore having it say something completely different from what the text actually conveys (i.e. not what I call "good" scholarship);

[continued in next post... too long here]

Hank hannegraff

A very confused individual

 

[Absolutely]

Before you want to jump into the middle of a discussion, you should always view how it started.

It began with a discussion of Abel and Cain offerings and their motivation for doing so.

I will take your commands under advisement.

Your parked on a nothing burger

 

[presidente]

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.

Since this isn't a university classroom we will not write you up for plagiarism then.

I would be wary of Greek grammar sites that use too many caps.

 

[Absolutely]

how does it make or breaks 1 thes 4? explain it. im very interested you always say it but now first time i see you say it precisely what you mean about revelation 14 gathering

I have never heard anyone else discuss it.
It is one of those hidden components.

It changes the debate.
....but most are COMPLETELY blinded to it.

I never heard of it.
Then one day i read it and WHAM i saw it.

 

[presidente]

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]

Jesus, in Matthew teaches a time of great trivulation followed by the second coming and the gathering of the elect. If you think some or all of this time is 'the day of the Lord' I do not see why you bring this up in a discussion where you support pretrib or midtrib. The gathering happens after the tribulation.

 

[TooFastTurtle]

In the 10 virgin parable,the bride went a certain distance out to meet the groom.
He IN NO WAY, went to or into her property.

He still CAME and got her.

(You will never hear a postrib unpack our verses. They skip them every time.)

If you allow, I would also add one more pack of verses as you so well called them, I know this is from the Old Testament and more of a typology...

Now: The feast of trumpets is based on the moon, so no man really could tell when it comes, the trumpets sound and no matter where you are, whether its on the field or in bed, you have to go once the trumpet sounds. (Just like the Rapture, cannot time it accurately)

That to me is a perfect picture of the pre-trib Rapture (Feast of Trumpets), followed by the tribulation, then the Second Coming (Day of Atonement)

I found a picture highlighting how it matches the timeline:

 

[TooFastTurtle]

1 thes 4 says "THE DEAD RISE FIRST"
Under your assesment they rise AFTER the living are gathered twice in rev 14.
Really?

you say the second coming is "one coming" when rev 14 has Jesus coming and harvesting DURING THE GT

This would mean that the Rapture should of happened before Revelation 14. It does not matter if you believe Revelation 14 is the Second Coming or middle of the tribulation period, your point remains: The dead in Christ must rise first.

 

[bluto]

In the 10 virgin parable,the bride went a certain distance out to meet the groom.
He IN NO WAY, went to or into her property.

He still CAME and got her.

(You will never hear a postrib unpack our verses. They skip them every time.)

Here you go again, bragging about things you have no knowledge about which means your "clueless." What kind of "asinine" statement is this when you say, "(You will never hear a postrib unpack our verses. They skip them every time.)"

I am not skipping them and furthermore you don't even know the meaning of the parable of the ten virgins. Explain to all of us here the purpose of the ten virgins and why are five of them foolish? You said in your very first sentence, the virgins went out to meet the groom. So what was the point of the parable of the five foolish virgins? I'm hoping at least this time you do your homework and figure things out first before you "blurt" these asinine statements without any context.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto