50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

[Truth7t7]

The gathering of the church is a promise from the Lord found in John 14:1-3, I Corinthians 15:50-53 and I Thessalonians 4:13-18

Your claim above is (False)

The main scripture used by supporters of the Pre-Trib Rapture is 1 Thess 4:15-17 below, this is nothing more than the (Second Coming) (Last Day) resurrection, not a Pre-Trib rapture.

1. Is a resurrection of the believer seen in 1 Thess 4:15-17 below, 100% yes!

2. Does this resurrection take place on the (Last Day) as Jesus Christ taught below in John 6:39-40, 100% yes!

3. Is the (Last Day) the time of final judgement as Jesus Christ taught in John 12:48 below, 100% yes!

Many deny the truth of Gods words below, that are simple, clear, and very easy to understand.

(THE SECOND COMING, LAST DAY RESURRECTION)

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17KJV
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

(THE LAST DAY RESURRECTION)

John 6:39-40KJV
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

(THE LAST DAY JUDGEMENT)

John 12:48KJV
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

...in his slew of words? No disrespect meant (truly), but just about every post you make is a slew of words. You literally skewer everything, and is extremely difficult to make sense of without a degree in deciphering.

What do you mean by "skewer"? By the way, I meant nothing disparaging when I used the phrase "slew of words".

I simply wanted to know why he made no mention of the "man of sin's" ARRIVAL, in his post regarding the sequence of events... how they are said to play out. IOW, I perceived his point as incomplete, since he made no mention of it.

 

[Truth7t7]

What do you mean by "skewer"? By the way, I meant nothing disparaging when I used the phrase "slew of words".

I simply wanted to know why he made no mention of the "man of sin's" ARRIVAL, in his post regarding the sequence of events... how they are said to play out. IOW, I perceived his point as incomplete, since he made no mention of it.

There ya go, "a readable post" after being informed by 49, Gary, and myself of the (Chaos)

Why do you always revert back to the (Chaos)?

As Gary stated, he skips reading your (Chaos) so do I, why revert back, when you have been informed several times we dont read it?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Matthew 24:7-8 / Mark 13:8 / Luke 21:10-11 represent "the beginnings of sorrows" - not including from the earlier verses. Only these. Please see:

http://mywebsite.us/BibleStudy/Olivet_Discourse.html

So you're saying that you do not believe that:

--"the beginning of birth pangs" are EQUIVALENT the SEALS of Revelation 6; and

--Rev1:1 [/ 1:19c / 4:1], the "future" aspects of the Book are said to be "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (in contrast to "the things WHICH ARE," which are NOT said to be "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"); You say INSTEAD that some aspects of that section are events which are drawn out, unfolding over the course of many years from the first century up to the present day+ ;

--the passages I've pointed out in past posts that correlate: the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" (i.e. SEAL #1) correlating with Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - A CERTAIN ONE ['a certain one' bringing deception]" (kicking off the "DOTL" time-period, i.e. ITS ARRIVAL) corresponding with the "whose COMING [/advent / arrival / presence / parousia]" (2Th2:9a) of the man of sin ("IN HIS TIME"), corresponding with "the prince THAT SHALL COME" (Dan9:26b[27a]) "for ONE WEEK [7-yrs]" (i.e. SEAL #1, at the START of the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time-period, which is the "future" aspects of the Book of Rev [4:1+ "I will SHEW thee things which must be hereafter"]); Paul, in 2Th2 is covering ALL SEVEN YEARS, not merely 3.5 yrs (same for all the parallel passages / sections / contexts, which also cover all seven years... not merely the 3.5 yrs that some suppose)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

There ya go, "a readable post" after being informed by 49, Gary, and myself of the (Chaos)

Why do you always revert back to the (Chaos)?

As Gary stated, he skips reading your (Chaos) so do I, why revert back, when you have been informed several times we dont read it?

What are you saying? In that post I used: CAPS, italics, underline, "quotation marks"... things you've complained in the past about my using... How confusing.



[ I'll try not to be struck blind by your all bold post ]

 

[GaryA]

What are you saying? In that post I used: CAPS, italics, underline, "quotation marks"... things you've complained in the past about my using... How confusing.

What he is saying - that I myself often find to be true - is that you use so many/much of these things in a single post to the extent that it "clutters" the post - and then, folks don't want to bother with reading it.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I think I might be tempted to start calling you 'Columbo'...

Flattery will get you nowhere

 

[GaryA]

[ I'll try not to be struck blind by your all bold post ]

Funny!

 

[GaryA]

What he is saying - that I myself often find to be true - is that you use so many/much of these things in a single post to the extent that it "clutters" the post - and then, folks don't want to bother with reading it.

I can appreciate what you are trying to do - and that, you are doing it to try to help others better understand the "fine points" / details of what you are attempting to convey; however, sometimes - it really seems extreme. Perhaps, if you could "tone it down" by writing shorter posts containing less information - discussing the topic in "smaller chunks"...?

 

[GaryA]

What he is saying - that I myself often find to be true - is that you use so many/much of these things in a single post to the extent that it "clutters" the post - and then, folks don't want to bother with reading it.

Sometimes, your longer posts seem to become "walls of text" - a wall that looks like it has been vandalized...

"Just sayin'..."

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

What he is saying - that I myself often find to be true - is that you use so many/much of these things in a single post to the extent that it "clutters" the post - and then, folks don't want to bother with reading it.

I've found that, in my many years of posting online, when I do not include "explanations" within the posts, ppl tend to inject their own automatic "meanings and definitions" into what I've said, when the purpose of my post might be to "wrench out the incorrect ideas, and replace with the correct ideas [via 'explanation']," which isn't exactly EASY for me (me: a horribly SLOW 'hunt-and-peck' typist) to do... otherwise, what's the point of "discussion boards"?

I see where others simply make a plain sentence: "it's not that, but it's this," and others come back with, "you're not AT ALL using Scripture to EXPLAIN your REASONS for believing what you believe is so... so I'm not going to believe you 'just because' you say so!"

No one is obligated to read any of my posts. I just find it a waste of time to, for example, just say: "the wedding feast IS the Millennial Kingdom". Full Stop. (...while everyone brushes quickly past such a post as being "uninformed opinion with no scriptural basis," because, you know, THEY know for a FACT that it's "UP IN Heaven / eternity" instead... so no need to even EXAMINE THE SCRIPTURES to see if these things be so... "NEXT POST!")

 

[Truth7t7]

So you're saying that you do not believe that:

--"the beginning of birth pangs" are EQUIVALENT the SEALS of Revelation 6; and

--Rev1:1 [/ 1:19c / 4:1], the "future" aspects of the Book are said to be "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (in contrast to "the things WHICH ARE," which are NOT said to be "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"); You say INSTEAD that some aspects of that section are events which are drawn out, unfolding over the course of many years from the first century up to the present day+ ;

--the passages I've pointed out in past posts that correlate: the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" (i.e. SEAL #1) correlating with Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - A CERTAIN ONE ['a certain one' bringing deception]" (kicking off the "DOTL" time-period, i.e. ITS ARRIVAL) corresponding with the "whose COMING [/advent / arrival / presence / parousia]" (2Th2:9a) of the man of sin ("IN HIS TIME"), corresponding with "the prince THAT SHALL COME" (Dan9:26b[27a]) "for ONE WEEK [7-yrs]" (i.e. SEAL #1, at the START of the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time-period, which is the "future" aspects of the Book of Rev [4:1+ "I will SHEW thee things which must be hereafter"]); Paul, in 2Th2 is covering ALL SEVEN YEARS, not merely 3.5 yrs (same for all the parallel passages / sections / contexts, which also cover all seven years... not merely the 3.5 yrs that some suppose)

Chaos skip!

 

[Truth7t7]

I've found that, in my many years of posting online, when I do not include "explanations" within the posts, ppl tend to inject their own automatic "meanings and definitions" into what I've said, when the purpose of my post might be to "wrench out the incorrect ideas, and replace with the correct ideas [via 'explanation']," which isn't exactly EASY for me (me: a horribly SLOW 'hunt-and-peck' typist) to do... otherwise, what's the point of "discussion boards"?

I see where others simply make a plain sentence: "it's not that, but it's this," and others come back with, "you're not AT ALL using Scripture to EXPLAIN your REASONS for believing what you believe is so... so I'm not going to believe you 'just because' you say so!"

No one is obligated to read any of my posts. I just find it a waste of time to, for example, just say: "the wedding feast IS the Millennial Kingdom". Full Stop. (...while everyone brushes quickly past such a post as being "uninformed opinion with no scriptural basis," because, you know, THEY know for a FACT that it's "UP IN Heaven / eternity" instead... so no need to even EXAMINE THE SCRIPTURES to see if these things be so... "NEXT POST!")

It's my opinion you know exactly what your doing, and its intentional

You go from posting Chaos in #204 above, to normal in this post #211, only 25 minutes apart, (Intentional) Chaos.

 

[GaryA]

I've found that, in my many years of posting online, when I do not include "explanations" within the posts, ppl tend to inject their own automatic "meanings and definitions" into what I've said, when the purpose of my post might be to "wrench out the incorrect ideas, and replace with the correct ideas [via 'explanation']," which isn't exactly EASY for me (me: a horribly SLOW 'hunt-and-peck' typist) to do... otherwise, what's the point of "discussion boards"?

I see where others simply make a plain sentence: "it's not that, but it's this," and others come back with, "you're not AT ALL using Scripture to EXPLAIN your REASONS for believing what you believe is so... so I'm not going to believe you 'just because' you say so!"

No one is obligated to read any of my posts. I just find it a waste of time to, for example, just say: "the wedding feast IS the Millennial Kingdom". Full Stop. (...while everyone brushes quickly past such a post as being "uninformed opinion with no scriptural basis," because, you know, THEY know for a FACT that it's "UP IN Heaven / eternity" instead... so no need to even EXAMINE THE SCRIPTURES to see if these things be so... "NEXT POST!")

My intent is not to 'criticize' - I understand perfectly.

All I am trying to say is - perhaps you might can find a better 'balance' somehow...?

 

[Truth7t7]

What are you saying? In that post I used: CAPS, italics, underline, "quotation marks"... things you've complained in the past about my using... How confusing.



[ I'll try not to be struck blind by your all bold post ]

You know what's up, it's my opinion your (Chaos) is intentional,and I will continue to skip the Chaos, I dont read it.

 

[Truth7t7]

My intent is not to 'criticize' - I understand perfectly.

All I am trying to say is - perhaps you might can find a better 'balance' somehow...?

I've watched the poster for months, and he/she knows exactly what they are doing, looking at chaos in #204 and normal in #211 and it's been the same for months

I will continue to skip the chaos,and yes I believe it's intentional

 

[GaryA]

You know what's up, it's my opinion your (Chaos) is intentional,and I will continue to skip the Chaos, I dont read it.

I've watched the poster for months, and he/she knows exactly what they are doing, looking at chaos in #204 and normal in #211 and it's been the same for months

I will continue to skip the chaos,and yes I believe it's intentional

Well then - you do that. You have that right. But, there is no need to cause a 'stink' over it...

Sometimes, I "ignore" you (in general, not the software feature) when you "get an attitude"...

Nobody is perfect.

Sometimes you gotta just 'forgive and forget'...

 

[Truth7t7]

Well then - you do that. You have that right. But, there is no need to cause a 'stink' over it...

Sometimes, I "ignore" you (in general, not the software feature) when you "get an attitude"...

Nobody is perfect.

Sometimes you gotta just 'forgive and forget'...

Your getting to sensitive on a very simple observation, and yes we strongly disagree on our eschatology

However, Post #204 is chaos, and post #211 is normal?

It dosent take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on, and yes it's my opinion its intentional, simple.

I will chose to skip the chaos, and my decision isn't alone

 

[Truth7t7]

What are you saying? In that post I used: CAPS, italics, underline, "quotation marks"... things you've complained in the past about my using... How confusing.



[ I'll try not to be struck blind by your all bold post ]

Your free to post as you will, "Several" posters including myself have mentioned your (Chaos) I dont stand alone.

Post #204 is Chaos, 25 minutes later Post #211 is Normal, who you kidding, not me

 

[GaryA]

Your getting to sensitive on a very simple observation, and yes we strongly disagree on our eschatology

No, I am not. And, eschatology has nothing to do with it.

@TheDivineWatermark and I disagree on our eschatology.

However, Post #204 is chaos, and post #211 is normal?

In post #204, he is trying to explain something from his POV using scripture. In post #211, he is not - he is "just talking" - and yet - if you will notice - he still does some of it!

It dosent take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on, and yes it's my opinion its intentional, simple.

Of course it is intentional - he is trying to help folks understand him better by providing 'detail' in his explanation. And, I believe his intent is good.

I will chose to skip the chaos, and my decision isn't alone

Please do. And, I will also if I so choose. Who knows? Maybe he will find that 'balance' I referred to earlier.