Conclusion From Beware the Pseudo-Rapture Doctrine 4

I'm betting those who did well at dodge ball will have a marked advantage over those who did not. Turns out, the gym teacher was best preparing Christians for the future. Who knew?

It's listed immediately before it. Right before the second coming passage, we read that the bride is made ready and that the wedding has come, then the second coming, the beast and false prophet cast into the lake of fire, and the first resurrection.

Compare this to I Thessalonians 4 where the resurrection of the dead in Christ occurs at the coming of the Lord.


Something to keep in mind that if things happen at the same time, one still has to be written before the other. If they were written on top of each other, we wouldn't be able to read it.

'Bunch of signs' were not your words, but you objected to the idea that the man of sin being revealed was the same as his sitting in the temple of God. If 'bunch' is too many (there is also Matthew 24, etc., btw) you still kind of missed my point.

Why would Paul be telling them about a couple of signs-- or however you want to put it-- the way he does if they won't be around to see it.

? "Rightly Dividing" God's Word Of Truth And thus "Approval Unto God"
are unnecessary jargon??? Sure glad I don't study God's Word that way! Whew!!

I understand we are "To Give An Account" of EVERY idle word we speak???

So many folks, wiht different views, claim the Holy Spirit has guided them to 'rightly divide' His Word.

Translators translate the passage to say that the marriage has come or is come. Notice this is right before the scene of the King of kings on a white horse, there at the end of the book of Revelation.

Something to keep in mind is if events happen at the same time or are different depictions of the something, they do have to be in some kind of order. You can't put both verses on top of each other or they wouldn't fit.

I believe we should get our eschatology FROM THE BIBLE. That's as opposed to the pretrib approach which requires positing certain ideas that are not in the Bible-- like the idea that Jesus returns twice or that a rapture takes place before the tribulation-- and then trying to interpret verses around that view.

Notice the marriage is not listed in chapters 3, 4 or 5. It is mentioned right here before the end.

The Bible teaches that dead in Christ rise at the coming of the Lord. It teaches that the lawless one is destroyed at the coming of the Lord. Look here in Revelation 19-20. The beast is destroyed, and the first resurrection. We know the rapture happens right after the resurrection from Paul's writings. It isn't listed here in Revelation 20.

Let's compare that to pre-trib. Pretrib says there is an extra return of Christ and resurrection and rapture 7 years before.... based on what?.... 'because we say so.'

Also, you seem a little rigid with the metaphors and parables. In one parable, God's people are virgins who are to attend a wedding. In another, an individual is a guest a guest at the wedding. We are also described as the bride.

\

Obviously they can, since other people interpret scripture without having to have a pretrib rapture, and did before Darby was born and promoted this theory.

There isn't any really big 'problem' with interpretation that needs a pre-trib rapture.

The wedding is described before Christ's return is described. If two events happen at the same time, one has to be written before the other. The marriage supper isn't mentioned many chapters before in chapter 3 or 4. If you believe in a resurrection and rapture before the first resurrection, then why would it have to be pretribulational? Why not a return of Christ and resurrection a day before the return of Christ?

The passage does not say the marriage takes place in heaven.

You are imagining the bride is in heaven. The bride is arrayed in fine linen, then Jesus comes back. The anouncement of the wedding is made, then the return of Christ and the dead are resurrected in chapter a few verses later. Can't you get the message here in the passage? I Thessalonians 4 sets the rapture AFTER the resurrection of the dead in Christ, not before it. The first resurrection shows up after the passage about the Lord appearing on a white horse.

Yes. It does not say "through wrath from him."

Yes, I know that post-tribbers don't like it when evidence that contradicts their theories is brought to the table. They ask for scriptural evidence, but then have conniptions when they get it. The Book of Revelation is very relevant to the discussion.

John sees the Rapture. John sees the Bride in Heaven. John sees the Marriage in Heaven. John sees the Bride returning to Earth. That doesn't fit into the little post-trib baggie very well, does it.

Why hold to a theory that is so obviously dysfunctional?

Post-trib theory must turn a blind eye to lots of Scriptures.

Post-trib says; "Anything that doesn't agree with me is irrelevant."
Pretty fancy footwork. (It's a requirement for post-trib.)

I may be getting my posters confused, but can you show me which verse you think refers to the rapture?

Where do you see that? A sound like a great multitude announces that the wedding of the Lamb has come, followed by an angel pronouncing a blessing on those invited to the marriage supper, then about the King of Kings on a white horse, the beast and false prophet thrown into the lack of fire, and the first resurrection.

And Paul puts the rapture AFTER the resurrection of the dead in Christ. And John puts the first resurrection in chapter 20.

You aren't giving us evidence that the wedding is in heaven or evidence for an additional return of Christ or an additional resurrection of the saints. Instead, you are just giving us how you interpret a passage through your pre-trib filter--- reading the idea that the wedding must be in heaven because pre-trib says so, and that the wedding is before the second coming, because it must be so to fit with pre-trib. These are not persuasive arguments for those who do not believe in pretrib.

And the arguments and assumptions you are making fit as well with midtrib, or three quarters trib, or two second comings a day or two apart. None of the your objections are real problems since we can interpret the passage in a reasonable way without taking the huge leap of adding an additional return of Christ, or an additional resurrection.

Adding a resurrection BEFORE the FIRST resurrection is rather nonsensical.

Well, it doesn't say that he sees the bride returning to earth in chapters 19 and 20, so there isn't a challenge to postrib.

Paul puts the rapture after the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and John puts the first resurrection right before the millennium.

That is a good question. And why work so hard to make the Bible fit with pretrib? Why the loyalty to pretrib? Because you were taught that in church or in some book you read? That's not reason.

If the Bible actually showed a rapture occurring before the tribulation, let's say early in the book of Revelation, or if it were in an epistle of Paul, what you are doing might make sense. But instead, Paul writes of the coming of Christ as if it is one event, and lists a number of things that happen at his coming, and a number of them occur right at the end of Revelation 19 and early Revelation 20.

Yes, but we are discussing the Bride, and the Bride is the complete Church, not just the dead saints of old.

These comments reveal a very sketchy grasp of the Resurrection/Rapture.

The saints who have passed on (their souls and spirits) are presently in Heaven. But they are waiting for their resurrected, immortal, glorified bodies. At the resurrection, that is exactly what they will receive.

But what about the saints who are living on earth at that very moment? Those are the ones who will be raptured -- perfected, glorified and "caught up together" with the resurrected saints who will be returning to Heaven. AND THERE WILL BE NO FIERY DARTS COMING AT EITHER GROUP since this is not the Second Coming of Christ!

Yes.
Although their souls are in Heaven, their bodies are still in the grave.
“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:”
- 1 Thess 4:16

It always amazes me that there is so much hatred towards the Pre-Trib view of the Rapture. You don't see the same hatred towards Amillennialism or Postmillennialism. Why is this?

The light of the truth exposes the darkness of lies and deception. Therefore the truth is hated. Why was Jesus of Nazareth hated, and why were His apostles hated? They spoke God's truth.

Those views don't have a lot of outspoken proponents on this forum.

But some people do get a bit frustration toward obviously ridiculous interpretations. Maybe I haven't caught up with the thread. But I haven't noticed hatred being expressed toward pre-trib individuals so far.

Calling out deceptive teaching isn't hatred. Pre-tribulation teachers have dominated the popular narrative for decades.
There may be a measure of frustration because the other views have been aggressively sidelined.

Perhaps prophecy doesn't fit into a neatly labelled eschatological box. Post/mid -tribulation beliefs don't require an amillennial
or postmillennial framework. I don't subscribe to pre-tribulationism, amillennialism or postmillennialism.

I love you, brother. The most important thing is that we are ready either way.