Matthew 24:40 Is the rapture secret?

[randyk]

I know postrib position /post wrath .

It is one dimensional and based off of a theorized " one coming"
Pretrib stands alone.
I can defend my position and never mention another position.
In your doctrine "anti pretib rapture rhetoric" is that doctrine's foundation.

The dead church fathers are also a main foundation.

Seeing this disadvantage of methods is telling.

Show me a link to any postribber presenting their theory without those extra biblical rabbit trails.

The pretrib rapture fits.
Postrib Rapture doctrine omits and reframes MASSIVELY.

I'm not your enemy because i'm Postrib and you'e Pretrib. Many of my closest friends are Pretrib, and I've gone to Pretrib churches for most of my life. So I have to tread carefully among my friends, just to hold in good conscience to what I believe the Scriptures teach.

As I see it, the strongest argument for Pretrib, aside from all of the "symbolic proofs," is the Imminency Doctrine, teaching that Christ "can come at any moment.* I don't believe that, but if it's true, and there are Scriptures in evidence of that, then Christ cannot be Postrib.

 

[randyk]

Rev 19 is the return in power and glory TO EARTH.
in the virgin parable Jesus meets up away from the brides dwelling and continues to heaven.

In the rapture pretrib it is the same.
In Rev 14:14 it is the same and it is DURING the trib.

The "one taken" of mat 24 has no return to it.
In fact it pictures Noah gathered pretrib.
Lot ...the same.

In your model it would be plausible for Noah to be raptured post flood.
Lot would need to stay in Sodom.
Then lot would need a rapture post fire.

I understand your arguments but do not accept "symbolic" arguments. Parables are, by nature, inexact replications of the truths they represent. All of the background imagery in the parable is designed to make the story coherent--not to be an exact replication of the truhts it means to show.

For example, in the parable of the man buying a field with a pearl hidden in it, the land he buys, and the purchase itself, is an inexact representation of our obtaining the gift of Christ. But the "purchase" does not represent the idea we can "buy" Salvation. These are inexact representations, and it would be wrong to over-literalize the story in an effort to create greater detail for the simple truths that are being conveyed.

So the 10 Virgins parable, and the symbolic representation of Christ's 2nd Coming, are inexact representations, meant to show common truths, and not emphasize what is merely "window dressing." You are trying to say the "window dressing" has doctrinal significance, and I just can't buy that. The Holy Spirit spells out doctrines, and does not "hint" at it.

Nor do I accept an over-literalization of the Apocalypse. By its very nature it is symbolic. As such, trying to attach a chronology to a number of visions is an exercise in futility. Connecting historical events is certainly a good thing. But connecting a series of visions as if they were the actual histories, and not symbolic representations of them, is not possible, in my view.

 

[Psalm1]

I'm not your enemy because i'm Postrib and you'e Pretrib. Many of my closest friends are Pretrib, and I've gone to Pretrib churches for most of my life. So I have to tread carefully among my friends, just to hold in good conscience to what I believe the Scriptures teach.

As I see it, the strongest argument for Pretrib, aside from all of the "symbolic proofs," is the Imminency Doctrine, teaching that Christ "can come at any moment.* I don't believe that, but if it's true, and there are Scriptures in evidence of that, then Christ cannot be Postrib.

We are brothers as you point out

I do recognize your thoughtfulness and adherence to scripture as opposed to most I see going personal.

 

[Psalm1]

I understand your arguments but do not accept "symbolic" arguments. Parables are, by nature, inexact replications of the truths they represent. All of the background imagery in the parable is designed to make the story coherent--not to be an exact replication of the truhts it means to show.

For example, in the parable of the man buying a field with a pearl hidden in it, the land he buys, and the purchase itself, is an inexact representation of our obtaining the gift of Christ. But the "purchase" does not represent the idea we can "buy" Salvation. These are inexact representations, and it would be wrong to over-literalize the story in an effort to create greater detail for the simple truths that are being conveyed.

So the 10 Virgins parable, and the symbolic representation of Christ's 2nd Coming, are inexact representations, meant to show common truths, and not emphasize what is merely "window dressing." You are trying to say the "window dressing" has doctrinal significance, and I just can't buy that. The Holy Spirit spells out doctrines, and does not "hint" at it.

Nor do I accept an over-literalization of the Apocalypse. By its very nature it is symbolic. As such, trying to attach a chronology to a number of visions is an exercise in futility. Connecting historical events is certainly a good thing. But connecting a series of visions as if they were the actual histories, and not symbolic representations of them, is not possible, in my view.

The parables all have components.
Some are directly deciphered by Jesus.

If the components are omitted or reframed then the meaning is lost.

The rapture is the gathering of the bride/church.
Romans 11 speaks of another covenant people gathered.
That is Rev 14:14.
That dynamic is reinforced, in that the 2 gatherings of Rev 14 ,are firstfruit Jews arriving in heaven first.
(That is the first part of "main inevitable harvest".)
That can not possibly be the church.
In the church ( bride gathering) , Jesus is the firstfruits. The church is main harvest. ( following firstfruits)
In rev 14 the 144k Jews are firstfruits. So the main harvest must follow.
It does in verse 14.
Main harvest Jews.
(Of Romans 11.)

The pretrib rapture doctrine does not hinge on any one or two verses.

The 10 virgins parable is one component of many. ( the most vivid of all)
Each verse of the rapture doctrine, adds to, and authenticates it.
No smoking gun, but a weave of solid verses.

Most people I address are dependant on smoking guns to disprove doctrine.

 

[Psalm1]

You're the one who has made it a mess.

There is no gathering for the wicked. There is no Rapture for the wicked. Those in the flood were never gathered together, they were destroyed by the waters. Some would have been swept away, some would have drowned trapped in their hiding places but there is no gathering together in one place. They were taken by the flood just as unbelievers will be taken by Christ's return never to be seen again (at least not until the Final Judgement).

Jesus likens His Coming to a thief in the night but it is not believers who have to worry about having their possessions taken, it is the unbeliever who will be overcome and robbed of their lives. The believer is already the possession of Christ and is told to be alert (ie.make sure of their security by looking at our faith, is one deluding oneself?) You consistently ignore context and then try to make verses say what they're not saying and then accuse others of believing stuff that never even entered their head.

Matt.24:43-44
But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have been alert and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him

To the best of my knowledge only the Church is ever referred to as being "caught up" (Raptured). No other group of believers are told this. Not Israel, not pre-flood or post-flood believers, nor Millennium believers, only the Church. As far as I can see, all other believers will be raised to life and given their new bodies while remaining on Earth. The Church's citizenship is in heaven, that's where they will dwell and all other believers will dwell on the new Earth. Why even have a New Earth if all believers are to dwell in Heaven?

Nope.
Jesus says they are gathered suddenly.
So, yes those thstcthink the wicked are gathered in the Noah analogy caretaking the obvious prerrib rapture and reframing it to "the wicked are raptured".

Like I said...what a mess.
The wicked ( supposedly Half earth's population,) is supposedly removed before the trib, and half the earth is supposedly righteous and stays for the flood/trib.

In NO WAY is it REMOTELY possible for half of earth's population to be righteous/ wicked.

Then the next quandary of " Jesus confused by telling the wicked to be ready"

Like I said, when you change one verse , get ready to change 50 more.

 

[sawdust]

Jesus says they are gathered suddenly.

Where? It says they are taken, nothing about being gathered together.

Once again you prove you don't listen.

The wicked are not gathered before the tribulation. They are removed at the end on the Day Christ returns to Earth.

It is not saying the earth will be half and half, it is figurative. NO WAY will there only be two people out in every field gathering grain.

He is not telling the wicked to be ready. He is telling Israel to be ready so they are not deceived much like Peter does in 2Peter 3:8-9. He doesn't want them to be taken away, He wants them to remain so they enter the Millennium rule on Earth.

Try going back and reading what I wrote WITHOUT you imposing your thinking on mine. I don't care if you disagree on timing, but at the very least, have the courtesy to actually understand what I am saying before you criticize.

I don't have to change any verses. You need to learn to listen to what people say and not what you try to make them say.