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

[cv5]

Ok post #2629 deals with that. Incidentally, do you play Civilization 5?

Heavens no. I don't do any gaming or online gaming or any of that sort of thing. Frankly I'd like to do Bible studies, preaching serving the Church etc. etc. 24/7. However and unfortunately my poor worn-out body and brain simply can't handle it. I can only do three or four hours per day of Bible studies nowadays. Back in my peak years he was eight to 10 hours per day given the opportunity.

I do a little fishing and bicycling to helps round out my day and fill in those gaps. God willing I can get back in the swing of things like the old days.

 

[cv5]

Yes, not many nowadays agree with me, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. The truth seems to have been lost over time. Jesus was speaking of the *greatest punishment in Israel's history,* and the *longest punishment in Israel's history.* This "Great Tribulation" began in 70 AD and has continued in the form of the Jewish Diaspora for nearly 2000 years!

This is the "greatest tribulation" the Jews have experienced to date. The Babylonian Captivity, by contrast, lasted only 70 years. This present tribulation has lasted for many centuries!

Many assume that the "Great Tribulation" is synonymous with the Reign of Antichrist in the book of Revelation. And that's because a "great tribulation" is mentioned there in ch. 7. Again, the "great tribulation" there refers to the entire age we live in, in which all nations are being punished throughout their history for all of their sins. In the end, their punishment will end in eternal punishment, which will be the worst "tribulation" of all.

If you look at Luke 21, you will see clearly that the "Great Tribulation" mentioned in Matt 24 and Mark 13 refers to the Jewish Punishment that began with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and ends at the return of Christ.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Luke 21:20-24 are speaking specifically to the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem. Nothing more nothing less. Nothing before that event and nothing after that event.

The Great Tribulation is linked to the abomination of desolation. It is the A of B that begins the 3 1/2 year GT.........spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Your eschatology is way way out of whack my friend. Scrap the whole thing and start over is my advice.

 

[randyk]

Luke 21:20-24 are speaking specifically to the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem. Nothing more nothing less. Nothing before that event and nothing after that event.

Did you even read it? It's impossible to limit what is said there to only the 70 AD event! I really don't have time for mindless defenses of positions. Unless you're really interested, and actually read what's written, I'm not interested in discussing it further. I feel like I'm arguing all by myself, with a completely disinterested discussion partner.

The Great Tribulation is linked to the abomination of desolation. It is the A of B that begins the 3 1/2 year GT.........spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Your eschatology is way way out of whack my friend. Scrap the whole thing and start over is my advice.

Your mindless rendering of Luke 21 shows that it's *you* who lack any consideration of what's actually written.

 

[randyk]

Heavens no. I don't do any gaming or online gaming or any of that sort of thing. Frankly I'd like to do Bible studies, preaching serving the Church etc. etc. 24/7. However and unfortunately my poor worn-out body and brain simply can't handle it. I can only do three or four hours per day of Bible studies nowadays. Back in my peak years he was eight to 10 hours per day given the opportunity.

I do a little fishing and bicycling to helps round out my day and fill in those gaps. God willing I can get back in the swing of things like the old days.

I asked only because I recognized the name of a computer game I used to play, a strategy game called Civilization 4. It's a brilliant game--I just can't do too many things in my life right now, particularly with the mouse. I use the computer way too much! Take care...

 

[randyk]

Partial preterism creates Biblical contradictions. Jesus said He would return after the tribulation to gather His elect. Therefore the only remaining logical conclusion is that Jesus gave a prophecy of the future. (Matt 24:29-31)

Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 24:21 the great tribulation would be as such as has not been since the beginning of the world. The great flood of the days of Noah wiped out everyone in the world except for 8 people.

The great tribulation will be on par with the days of Noah:

Matthew 24:22
22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

The return of Christ will be a global event witnessed across the earth, not exclusively in Israel:

Matthew 24:30
30And 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.

To supplement this global appearance of Christ, He said His return will be like the days of Noah which had a worldwide flood:

Matthew 24:37
37But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

I've studied full and partial preterism and it's probably a poorer position than the pre-trib rapture.

I agree--Preterism is worse than Pretrib in some respects. It relegates most all future prophecies to the past, leaving us without tools for both the present and the future.

As I've said, I'm not Preterist, and not Partial Preterist either. I do hold to the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, however, which is what the Church Fathers also held to. This is not the Partial Preterist position. Viewing the Olivet Discourse as *emphasizing* the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is not Partial Preterism, but rather, Historicism.

We know for a fact Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed in 70 AD. So I'm actually on very solid ground. The fact the Church Fathers hold to my position also lends me great support. There is little support for belief that Luke 21.20-24 is strictly about the endtimes, except that it is ignored or viewed as some kind of dualistic fulfillment, which is rather bizarre. Some separate Matthew and Mark's versions of the Olivet Discourse from Luke's version of the same in order to apply 2 different applications of the prophecy, one to the endtimes and the other to Jesus' time.

Partial Preterists do have in common with the historicists the belief that the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled by the Romans 66-70 AD. But you should not say the historicist interpretation of the AoD is strictly owned by PPs. That would be false. PPs tend to make the entire book of Revelation as something fulfilled in history, in the time of the ancient Roman Empire. I completely disagree with that.

But many prophecies have already been fulfilled in history, including Jesus' 1st Coming. And the destruction of the temple, stone by stone, is also an historically-fulfilled prophecy. This is beyond question.

 

[cv5]

Did you even read it? It's impossible to limit what is said there to only the 70 AD event! I really don't have time for mindless defenses of positions. Unless you're really interested, and actually read what's written, I'm not interested in discussing it further. I feel like I'm arguing all by myself, with a completely disinterested discussion partner.



Your mindless rendering of Luke 21 shows that it's *you* who lack any consideration of what's actually written.

Sure I have read Luke 21 innumerabe times. And I actually understand it. Thank God for that.

Anyhoo......sorry buddy I'm not buying what you are selling. In fact I don't agree with anything you have said so far. Absolutely nothing as far as I have reviewed your posts. Furthermore there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I am absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. Time for bed talk to you later thanks and goodnight.

 

[VCO]

Can you give me *any* symbolic number that is not a "specific number?" When Jesus had his disciples gather up the leftover fish and loaves, they gathered up 12 loaves in one case and 7 loaves in another case. These were symbolic numbers, representing God's endless supply for His people. The 12 represented all Israel--not that they were divided into tribal regions anymore, but that they were a nation built upon those 12 tribes.

Numbers are generally specific, even when they are symbolic. So your complaint is nonsensical.



Do you denounce everyone who disagrees with you as a "Liberal?" I'm certainly not a Liberal.



That was the whole point I was making, that the loss of tribal distinctions renders the meaning of the 12 groups of 12,000 *symbolic.* There is no other way to interpret it, since we literally do not have any tribal distinctions anymore, nor will we ever see them again. The prophecy indicated that Israel would become a nation, and that the 2 divisions would be healed. The 12 tribes were purely the beginning of this nation, starting with 12 sons of Jacob.



The horns and beast were obviously symbolic of an endtimes empire under the Antichrist. But the number ten was not only "specific," but it was *literal.* There will be literally 10 states under the control of Antichrist in the endtimes.



Who is "we?" I believe it's *you* who take something obviously symbolic and turn it into a literal number. It certainly could be a literal number, but the 12 divisions are not possible. And so, I think the number also is symbolic. To be honest, I don't really know. I'm just saying that the tribal distinctions are impossible, if you're going to be literal. And so, they refer to *all Jews.* In this case, they refer to all Jews who comprise the remnant of Israel who believe in Jesus.



Yes, He knows that there are no tribal distinctions anymore. You think God has assigned certain tribes to every Jew today? How silly is that?



Yes. Viewing this passage as symbolic or not has nothing to do with believing in God's omnipotence. Why would God want to take people with a mixed tribal heritage, that no longer have any tribal distinction, and reassign them 12 tribes?
bb
This is not an example of divine omnipotence. This is more the product of your unwillingness to see the obviously symbolic nature of the passage. It shows, in other words, your weakness, your pride. If you can't be right, then everybody else has to be a "Liberal?"

NO, those are LITERAL NUMBERS of the Loaves that filled that baskets they used to distribute the loaves and fish AFTER JESUS CREATED MORE THAN THE Five Thousand and the 4000 Thousand. You are totally WRONG in your interpretation, in my opinion.

 

[VCO]

Can you give me *any* symbolic number that is not a "specific number?" When Jesus had his disciples gather up the leftover fish and loaves, they gathered up 12 loaves in one case and 7 loaves in another case. These were symbolic numbers, representing God's endless supply for His people. The 12 represented all Israel--not that they were divided into tribal regions anymore, but that they were a nation built upon those 12 tribes.

Numbers are generally specific, even when they are symbolic. So your complaint is nonsensical.



Do you denounce everyone who disagrees with you as a "Liberal?" I'm certainly not a Liberal.



That was the whole point I was making, that the loss of tribal distinctions renders the meaning of the 12 groups of 12,000 *symbolic.* There is no other way to interpret it, since we literally do not have any tribal distinctions anymore, nor will we ever see them again. The prophecy indicated that Israel would become a nation, and that the 2 divisions would be healed. The 12 tribes were purely the beginning of this nation, starting with 12 sons of Jacob.



The horns and beast were obviously symbolic of an endtimes empire under the Antichrist. But the number ten was not only "specific," but it was *literal.* There will be literally 10 states under the control of Antichrist in the endtimes.



Who is "we?" I believe it's *you* who take something obviously symbolic and turn it into a literal number. It certainly could be a literal number, but the 12 divisions are not possible. And so, I think the number also is symbolic. To be honest, I don't really know. I'm just saying that the tribal distinctions are impossible, if you're going to be literal. And so, they refer to *all Jews.* In this case, they refer to all Jews who comprise the remnant of Israel who believe in Jesus.



Yes, He knows that there are no tribal distinctions anymore. You think God has assigned certain tribes to every Jew today? How silly is that?



Yes. Viewing this passage as symbolic or not has nothing to do with believing in God's omnipotence. Why would God want to take people with a mixed tribal heritage, that no longer have any tribal distinction, and reassign them 12 tribes?

This is not an example of divine omnipotence. This is more the product of your unwillingness to see the obviously symbolic nature of the passage. It shows, in other words, your weakness, your pride. If you can't be right, then everybody else has to be a "Liberal?"

QUOTE:

QUESTION

​

Can/should we interpret the Bible literally?

ANSWER

Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html
:END QOUTE.

2 Timothy 2:15-16 (NCV)
15 Make every effort to give yourself to God as the kind of person he will accept. Be a worker who is not ashamed and
who uses the true teaching in the right way.
16 Stay away from foolish, useless talk, because that will lead people further away from God.

Titus 3:9-11 (NIV)
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.
11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

 

[randyk]

Sure I have read Luke 21 innumerabe times. And I actually understand it. Thank God for that.

Anyhoo......sorry buddy I'm not buying what you are selling. In fact I don't agree with anything you have said so far. Absolutely nothing as far as I have reviewed your posts. Furthermore there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I am absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. Time for bed talk to you later thanks and goodnight.

You've read Luke 21 innumerable times, and yet don't take the time to actually consider what it says? What do you do when you get to verses 20-24? Did you know that respectable Christian commentators view things just as I've given it to you. Would you give them the same disrespect you've given me? Perhaps.

For those who happen to pass by via this conversation, here is the relevant passage:

Luke 21. 20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

What I said is that this passage defines the "Great Tribulation," aka as the "Great Distress," as the historic Jewish Diaspora, beginning with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD and ending with the Return of Christ. The Abomination of Desolation, therefore, appears to have something to do with the Roman invasions 66-70 AD.

And let's look at what some of the Commentators are selling?

Pulpit Commentary: Clearly warned by Jesus that the gathering of the Roman armies in the neighborhood of Jerusalem was the unmistakable sign of the end of the Jewish polity, the Christian congregations fled to Pella beyond Jordan. The Jews never ceased to the last trusting that deliverance from on high would be vouchsafed to the holy city and temple. The Christians were warned by the words of the Founder of their faith - words spoken nigh forty years before the siege - that the time of mercy was hopelessly past.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers: As far as it goes, it favors the view that he and others saw the “abomination” in the presence of the invading armies.

McClaren's Expositions: The ‘sign’ of her ‘desolation’ was to be the advance of the enemy to her walls. Armies had been many times encamped round her, and many times been scattered; but this siege was to end in capture...The Christians obeyed, and fled, as we all know, across Jordan to Pella. The rest despised Jesus’ warning-if they knew it,-and perished.

Benson Commentary: Cestius Gallus, in the beginning of the war, invested Jerusalem... To this agrees what Eusebius tells us, (Hist., Luke 3:5,) “That the people of the church in Jerusalem, being ordered by an oracle, given to the faithful in that place, left the city before the war, and dwelt in a city of Perea, the name of which was Pella.” This oracle, of which he speaks, seems to have been our Lord’s prophecy and admonition, to which every circumstance of the history perfectly agrees.

Jamieson-Faucett Brown Bible Commentary: 20, 21. by armies—encamped armies, that is, besieged: "the abomination of desolation" (meaning the Roman ensigns, as the symbols of an idolatrous, pagan, unclean power) "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (Da 9:27) "standing where it ought not" (Mr 13:14). "Whoso readeth [that prophecy] let him understand" (Mt 24:15).

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies,.... The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions read, "with an army"; that is, with the Roman army, as it was by the army which Titus Vespasian brought against it, and besieged it with...

Okay, perhaps you've noticed, if you even take the time to read, that *all* of these notable Bible Commentators are saying what I said. So you're not "buying what they're selling" either? You see, you're not just countering me--a nobody. You're countering some pretty great Bible scholars without blinking an eye, simply because "you don't want to buy." I guess it's "cheaper" to buy out of your own storehouse of knowledge, which for you doesn't require the input of studied Christians of the past?

In the end, you're going to be pushing *yourself,* and not Christ, who called for us to "submit to one another," and to "consider each other better than yourself."

 

[randyk]

NO, those are LITERAL NUMBERS of the Loaves that filled that baskets they used to distribute the loaves and fish AFTER JESUS CREATED MORE THAN THE Five Thousand and the 4000 Thousand. You are totally WRONG in your interpretation, in my opinion.

Of course the 12 baskets and the 7 baskets were literal. The point is, they were both specific and symbolic. They did not stop being specific numbers just because they were to be taken symbolically.

In the case of the 144,000 the number was also specifically 144,000. And it is not prohibited from having a symbolic meaning purely because there is a specific number attached to it.

You're arguing in a circle, that the number 144,000 cannot be symbolic of something less literal because a literal number cannot represent a number that is not literal. Obviously, 7 hills can represent Rome, provide a literal number of 7 hills, and still symbolically represent something different from purely 7 hills. It represented an entire city! Retaining the meaning of "7" did not stop it from representing symbolically, in this case, something greater than 7.

I would say that 144,000 Israelites, comprised of 12 tribes of 12,000 each are literal numbers presenting literal symbols that represent something less literal. And I say that because the 12 tribes had ceased to exist by the time of this writing. In John's day, Israel was known as populated by "Jews," and not by "the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, etc.

So "12 tribes," though presenting a literal number of tribes from which Israel issued, symbolically portrayed a greater number of Christian Jews in Israel. They were being viewed as "equals" among the tribes, indicating that competition among the tribes had ended, and that unity is now based on a common heritage in Christ. We can see the same in Eze 47.

 

[randyk]

QUOTE:

QUESTION

​

Can/should we interpret the Bible literally?

ANSWER

Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html
:END QOUTE.

2 Timothy 2:15-16 (NCV)
15 Make every effort to give yourself to God as the kind of person he will accept. Be a worker who is not ashamed and
who uses the true teaching in the right way.
16 Stay away from foolish, useless talk, because that will lead people further away from God.

Titus 3:9-11 (NIV)
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.
11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

You know the rule. Take literal what is to be taken literally. Only if it makes sense in a strictly symbolic sense are we to take something symbolic.

If I say "the cow jumped over the moon," you can rest assured that I mean that *symbolically.* If Joseph said that in his dream sheafs bowed down to him, you can rest assured that the "sheafs" represented Joseph's brothers.

If Daniel said a 4th Beast with 10 horns arises, you can rest assured that the image conveys something symbolic, unless syou can think of a Beast with 10 horns? The 10 horns may present a literal number "10," and these 10 horns may represent a literal number of 10 kings. But the number is still being used symbolically in reference to a beast. And the thing it represents is much greater than a beast--it represent an empire.

So forget the lessons on literal or non-literal interpretation. I am not "one of those liberals."

 

[Absolutely]

Brother, I don't need to re-read it--I memorized the whole message back in the 70s. Now, I no longer have it memorized, and my memory is, in fact, failing. But I don't need to re-read it. I know it better than most people.

It does *not* have to do with the Rapture. The Rapture happens at the coming of the Son of Man from heaven, to gather his people. If you compare all versions of the Olivet Discourse, in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17;21, you will find that the gist of this Discourse deals with the generation of Jesus' Apostles, who are being warned concerning the times that they will live through. They will lose their country, because the Romans will be sent by God in judgment against a backslidden nation.

The Romans had an eagle symbol on their staffs, or standard. They worshiped it as a god. And so, Jesus referred to the hunting eagle, hovering over Jerusalem, ready to take the "corpse." Jesus was asked, by his Disciples, where this would happen. He said it would happen where the corpse would be, referring to Israel, killed by the Romans. It would happen in Jerusalem.

It would be a time when true believers in Christ would have to take leave asap. Some would leave immediately, and some at the last moment. Those remaining in Jerusalem to the last moment were stuck, and would likely die. Those captured were either killed, taken captive, or left behind to keep the fields for the Romans.

One thing that is quite clear to me, and not to many, is that Christ was not willing to focus on eschatology, since it was a distraction away from the present requirements of God. We are not to indulge unduly in excessive prognostications about the future, getting wrapped up in speculations about when and where, and what symbol means what. We are not to be about "times and seasons."

Rather, Jesus used the message of his coming Kingdom to focus on his own day, and on the situation his future apostles would have to face. And so, his Coming is also used as if a foreshadowing of the end of the age. As Israel would be judged, so will the world be judged. And as the Son of Man is coming at the end of the age to judge the pagan Gentiles, so he is coming in the days of the Apostles to judge backslidden Israel. In this way the coming of Christ is viewed in parallel.

Some believe this is Preterism. But I'm not a Preterist. I view the Discourse as Jesus wanted it to be viewed, as an historical prophecy dealing with the time at hand--not with questionable future dates and events.

When Jesus used noah to frame the rapture, HE SAID " BEFORE THE FLOOD"
Before the flood is a time bracket.

Before the flood...Noah....one taken/left...watch and wait and be ready.
Re read it.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

prettib rapture before the flood.

you need lot and noah removed AFTER judgement.

HELLO!!!!

 

[Absolutely]

Here is a major reason I view things differently than many other futurists, particularly those of the Dispensational camp. I'm not a Preterist, but I do accept the view of the Church Fathers that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled largely in history--all except for the 2nd Coming. Jesus used the question asked him about his 2nd Coming not just to substantiate his 2nd Coming, but also to show that it had present relevance in our lives--not just in the future. We will be judged in the here and now, and not just at the judgment seat.

So just as God portrayed His coming in judgment during various historical judgments, so Jesus portrayed his Coming as pre-consummate judgments in history, including the 70 AD judgment. They are not to be confused, of course, with eschatological comings, but they are nonetheless described as a "coming."

Rev 2.16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 3. 3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

These verses refer to occasions in ancient history when Jesus visited judgment upon those in the 7 Asian churches who were not obedient. Jesus surprised them like a thief, and came to them in sudden judgment.

This is not to say that God is not patient, enduring, and merciful in the present age. He is, and His grace is abundant, awaiting the process leading to final judgment.

But to deny that God is still in the "judgment" business is terribly unbalanced and false. God judged Israel in 70 AD, and He has been judging nations since the time they came into existence. He is patient, but there are limits to His patience. We should never feel secure, knowing that Christ is coming later. He comes to us every day, seeing how we are, and wanting to prepare us for His heavenly Kingdom. "Come, Lord Jesus," should be our cry every day.

When you read the Olivet Discourse, recognize that Jesus was looking at the events of 70 AD as a kind of preliminary "coming" of Messiah, before the final day of judgment. It will help you synchronize what he was saying about his own generation, and what he was saying about the end of the age.

Church fathers had a lot of error

Not infalliable.

Bible is where the steak and potatoes are.

Church father following is following man.

 

[Absolutely]

I agree--Preterism is worse than Pretrib in some respects. It relegates most all future prophecies to the past, leaving us without tools for both the present and the future.

As I've said, I'm not Preterist, and not Partial Preterist either. I do hold to the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, however, which is what the Church Fathers also held to. This is not the Partial Preterist position. Viewing the Olivet Discourse as *emphasizing* the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is not Partial Preterism, but rather, Historicism.

We know for a fact Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed in 70 AD. So I'm actually on very solid ground. The fact the Church Fathers hold to my position also lends me great support. There is little support for belief that Luke 21.20-24 is strictly about the endtimes, except that it is ignored or viewed as some kind of dualistic fulfillment, which is rather bizarre. Some separate Matthew and Mark's versions of the Olivet Discourse from Luke's version of the same in order to apply 2 different applications of the prophecy, one to the endtimes and the other to Jesus' time.

Partial Preterists do have in common with the historicists the belief that the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled by the Romans 66-70 AD. But you should not say the historicist interpretation of the AoD is strictly owned by PPs. That would be false. PPs tend to make the entire book of Revelation as something fulfilled in history, in the time of the ancient Roman Empire. I completely disagree with that.

But many prophecies have already been fulfilled in history, including Jesus' 1st Coming. And the destruction of the temple, stone by stone, is also an historically-fulfilled prophecy. This is beyond question.

the pretrib verses are there for a reason.

Solid bible
Solid pretrib rapture.

 

[Runningman]

When Jesus used noah to frame the rapture, HE SAID " BEFORE THE FLOOD"
Before the flood is a time bracket.

Before the flood...Noah....one taken/left...watch and wait and be ready.
Re read it.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

prettib rapture before the flood.

you need lot and noah removed AFTER judgement.

HELLO!!!!

Not before the flood:
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[Runningman]

I agree--Preterism is worse than Pretrib in some respects. It relegates most all future prophecies to the past, leaving us without tools for both the present and the future.

As I've said, I'm not Preterist, and not Partial Preterist either. I do hold to the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, however, which is what the Church Fathers also held to. This is not the Partial Preterist position. Viewing the Olivet Discourse as *emphasizing* the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is not Partial Preterism, but rather, Historicism.

We know for a fact Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed in 70 AD. So I'm actually on very solid ground. The fact the Church Fathers hold to my position also lends me great support. There is little support for belief that Luke 21.20-24 is strictly about the endtimes, except that it is ignored or viewed as some kind of dualistic fulfillment, which is rather bizarre. Some separate Matthew and Mark's versions of the Olivet Discourse from Luke's version of the same in order to apply 2 different applications of the prophecy, one to the endtimes and the other to Jesus' time.

Partial Preterists do have in common with the historicists the belief that the Abomination of Desolation was fulfilled by the Romans 66-70 AD. But you should not say the historicist interpretation of the AoD is strictly owned by PPs. That would be false. PPs tend to make the entire book of Revelation as something fulfilled in history, in the time of the ancient Roman Empire. I completely disagree with that.

But many prophecies have already been fulfilled in history, including Jesus' 1st Coming. And the destruction of the temple, stone by stone, is also an historically-fulfilled prophecy. This is beyond question.

I agree with you as far as that the temple in Jerusalem is destroyed. That doesn't satisfy the scope of Jesus' words though. The tribulation that Jesus said would be unmatched in intensity since the beginning of the world never happened. History also proves that. Therefore, you have a consistency problem with your historicist interpretation.

The AoD is therefore conclusively a description of a future thing.

Since Jesus is never wrong under any circumstances then obviously He was referring to a future event.

 

[Runningman]

I agree with you as far as that the temple in Jerusalem is destroyed. That doesn't satisfy the scope of Jesus' words though. The tribulation that Jesus said would be unmatched in intensity since the beginning of the world never happened. History also proves that. Therefore, you have a consistency problem with your historicist interpretation.

The AoD is therefore conclusively a description of a future thing.

Since Jesus is never wrong under any circumstances then obviously He was referring to a future event.

@randyk To add to this... This is why verses about the abomination of desolation (AoD) in the temple must be referring to a prophecy about a future third temple constructed in Israel.

I know you have read 2 Thessalonians 2. So you know that the Man Of Sin will be in the temple when Jesus returns and annihilates him. That hasn't happened yet. Or do you say this has already happened?

 

[Absolutely]

Quote. """When you read 2 Thes 2 I'm sure you read into the teaching you've already been given on it. I'm sure that when you read Revelation, and read a Pretrib Rapture into John's being caught up to heaven that you got indirectly from Darby's teaching. It certainly is *not* in the Bible itself!"""

And when i read the word i read it with the knowledge that Jesus is the theme cover to cover.
Man is pursued by God cover to cover.
Redemption
Rebellion brings judgement
Obedience brings reward.

God delivered lot, noah, and the baby jesus BEFORE JUDGEMENT.

POSTRIBBERS remove that truth.

Say it can not happen.

Say God will never remove before Judgement....even calling it evil.

I would say , instead of , " your prior exposure skews your bible view" that i need a picture of Gods heart.

God sees the rapture for what it is...the gathering of the bride.

Mat 25 is that gathering.
That gathering is ...worthy vs unworthy.
Jesus said " pray to be counted worthy of the rapture"

That is my view.
You are so busy shooting as many messangers as you can, you failed to understand the rapture and the purpose of Jacobs trouble.

Ironic that your indictment of a skewed starting place fits all post trib / mil. Adherents.

They failed to get heavens view.

Darby invoking does zero to the debate.
Has nothing at all to do with a thing.

In fact it is a sign a person has a weak position.
Shooting the messanger is a tactic in a debate.
It takes the debate from facts and substance into trying to make an opponent backpeddle OUT OF FACTS AND SUBSTANCE.

DARBY
DARBY
DARBY
.....complete nothing burger.

 

[Absolutely]

Naw, man... people were *distinguishing* between the point-in-time of "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" and Christ's Second Coming to the earth, well before Darby in the late 1800s. The following is just one puny example... but there are certainly more...

Consider:


https://www.pre-trib.org/articles/r...llowing-titles-millennium-last-novelties/read

"Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the following Titles; Millennium, Last-Novelties" - Morgan Edwards (1700s)


Morgan Edwards first published these in 1744, and then published it again in 1788...

...the below quoted texts are excerpted from pages 7, 21, 24, 25 (note: the site says the spelling of Edwards has been modernized)... not exactly how we describe "pre-trib" today, but certainly he is *distinguishing* the point-in-time of "our episynagoges[/I] unto Him" and His Second Coming to the earth / His 'MANIFESTATION' / 'OPENLY MANIFEST' (as we "pre-tribbers" also see *distinguished* in Scripture):


[pg 7]

"II. The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years.

"I say, somewhat more; because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ's "appearing in the air" (1 Thes. iv, 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many "mansions in the father's house of God" (John xiv: 2), and to disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for "now the time is come that judgment must begin," and that will be at the house of God" (1 Pet. iv. 17). . ."


[pg 21]

"5. Another event previous to the Millennium will be the appearing of the son of man in the clouds, coming to raise the dead saints and change the living, and to catch them up to himself, and then withdrawing with them, and observed before, This event will come to pass when Antichrist be arrived at Jerusalem in his conquest of the world; and about three years and a half before his killing the witnesses, and assumption of godhead. . . . "


[pg 24]

"8.The last event, and the event that will usher in the millennium, will be, the coming of Christ from paradise to earth, with all the saints he had taken up thither (about three years and a half before. . . ."


[pg 25]

"Millions and millions of saints will have been on earth from the days of the first Adam, to the coming of the second Adam. All these will Christ bring with him. The place where they will alight is the "mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east." Zech. Xiv, 4."


[end quoting; underline mine]




[caveat: his views differ slightly with mine, as you know... ]

Yes
All the " church fathers were postrib" baloney was debunked years ago.

Who really cared untill postrib adherants started invoking those dead men into a non bible argument.

They also could not agree on the trinity.

 

[cv5]

You've read Luke 21 innumerable times, and yet don't take the time to actually consider what it says? What do you do when you get to verses 20-24? Did you know that respectable Christian commentators view things just as I've given it to you. Would you give them the same disrespect you've given me? Perhaps.

For those who happen to pass by via this conversation, here is the relevant passage:

Luke 21. 20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

What I said is that this passage defines the "Great Tribulation," aka as the "Great Distress," as the historic Jewish Diaspora, beginning with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD and ending with the Return of Christ. The Abomination of Desolation, therefore, appears to have something to do with the Roman invasions 66-70 AD.

And let's look at what some of the Commentators are selling?

Pulpit Commentary: Clearly warned by Jesus that the gathering of the Roman armies in the neighborhood of Jerusalem was the unmistakable sign of the end of the Jewish polity, the Christian congregations fled to Pella beyond Jordan. The Jews never ceased to the last trusting that deliverance from on high would be vouchsafed to the holy city and temple. The Christians were warned by the words of the Founder of their faith - words spoken nigh forty years before the siege - that the time of mercy was hopelessly past.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers: As far as it goes, it favors the view that he and others saw the “abomination” in the presence of the invading armies.

McClaren's Expositions: The ‘sign’ of her ‘desolation’ was to be the advance of the enemy to her walls. Armies had been many times encamped round her, and many times been scattered; but this siege was to end in capture...The Christians obeyed, and fled, as we all know, across Jordan to Pella. The rest despised Jesus’ warning-if they knew it,-and perished.

Benson Commentary: Cestius Gallus, in the beginning of the war, invested Jerusalem... To this agrees what Eusebius tells us, (Hist., Luke 3:5,) “That the people of the church in Jerusalem, being ordered by an oracle, given to the faithful in that place, left the city before the war, and dwelt in a city of Perea, the name of which was Pella.” This oracle, of which he speaks, seems to have been our Lord’s prophecy and admonition, to which every circumstance of the history perfectly agrees.

Jamieson-Faucett Brown Bible Commentary: 20, 21. by armies—encamped armies, that is, besieged: "the abomination of desolation" (meaning the Roman ensigns, as the symbols of an idolatrous, pagan, unclean power) "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (Da 9:27) "standing where it ought not" (Mr 13:14). "Whoso readeth [that prophecy] let him understand" (Mt 24:15).

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies,.... The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions read, "with an army"; that is, with the Roman army, as it was by the army which Titus Vespasian brought against it, and besieged it with...

Okay, perhaps you've noticed, if you even take the time to read, that *all* of these notable Bible Commentators are saying what I said. So you're not "buying what they're selling" either? You see, you're not just countering me--a nobody. You're countering some pretty great Bible scholars without blinking an eye, simply because "you don't want to buy." I guess it's "cheaper" to buy out of your own storehouse of knowledge, which for you doesn't require the input of studied Christians of the past?

In the end, you're going to be pushing *yourself,* and not Christ, who called for us to "submit to one another," and to "consider each other better than yourself."

Commentators aside, I'm not going to submit to false doctrine. Another common fallacy stipulates that all views are equally correct. Which of course is absurd. And yes, I am disputing these commentators "without blinking an eye".