Myth of the Pre-Tribulational Rapture

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

Why? And interrupt you guys telling each other how right you are?

So you are saying we are right? If not, then you wouldn’t mind joining us.

The argument in my thread is clear. Why not deal with that instead of the red-herring you let loose in this thread.

Peace

 

[The_Cub]

Maggie,

Re: your citation of Matt 24…please read the following. It is addressed in there…it refers to the future.

call2holiness.org/RefugesonWings/RefugesonWings.htm

God bless you and your family,

cub

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

Based on the context, Maggie, it’s literally impossible to apply this to 70 A.D. IN CONTEXT Jesus is answering the Disciple’s question concerning His coming again and the “end of the age” (vs. 3): “False Messiahs;” “wars and rumors of wars;” “nation rise up against nation;” “kingdom against kingdom;” “famines and earthquakes;” which are merely “birth pangs” (vss. 4-8). Jesus then states:

"…for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall (vs. 21].

Now verse 29ff puts this whole scene into its proper context and proves it CANNOT be referring to 70 A.D.

MAT 24:29-31 *"**But immediately ***after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other."

Christ (the “Son of Man”) did not appear in the sky in 70 A.D., nor did He return to this earth with power and great glory. Nor did not send forth His angels and gather together His elect.

Amillennialists (full and partial Preterists) desperately try to fit this whole prophetic scene into the events that took place in 70 A.D., but such an effort, when honestly examined within the whole context, is without merit and totally bankrupt.

Matthew continues in chapter 25:
MAT 25:31 **"**But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, THEN He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."

Not until Jesus returns to this earth will he sit on HIS glorious throne (see Rev. 3:21). Now in Heaven He shares His Father’s throne and operates as the true believer’s High Priest and Advocate before the father (Heb. 1:3; 7:25; 1 Jn. 2:1). He is not now reigning as “King” in Heaven. Now take note: Jesus does not return to Rome, but to Jerusalem. It is there that He ascends the Davidic throne, and from there He sets up the promised, literal, political, Messianic, Davidic Kingdom, which the ancient Jewish prophets predicted hundreds of years ago. NONE of them spiritualize this Kingdom, and obviously Jesus does not either.

Sorry Maggie, try as you will, you cannot change what God has written (Jer. 1:12). It is true Matt. 24 and 25 must take place in Jerusalem, and a Temple must be built there. But alas, the Jews are back in their ancient homeland, speaking their ancient language, in 1967 they took control of the old city of Jerusalem, and the desire and anticipation of rebuilding the Temple on the ancient Temple Mount lives amongst them. Christ is coming back to set up His literal, Millennial Kingdom, and He will bring with Him the true Church He Raptured years before His 2nd Advent.

Rapture, right? So there is going to be two Second Comings? One where Jesus comes back (2nd Thes.) to grap his Church and another when the comes again and stays?..Ok…?:ehh:

So, you are saying that Jesus is going to set up His Millenial Kingdom after His Third Coming, which is after His semi-second coming is 2 Thes.? Got it.

Peace

 

[The_Cub]

Maggie,

The citation of Mat 24 that you quoted refers to the future. It is discussed here:

call2holiness.org/RefugesonWings/RefugesonWings.htm

God bless,

cub

 

[ProdigalSun]

Well all I want to know about this silly subject is for you Ozzie to show me where it says anything about the “RAPTURE” not the second coming. We know that will happen just not when, nor should we bother “Guessing” when or how!

You have no proof of the rapture as it is spoken of in so many churches today. There is no “Sound” scriptural support only conjecture.

God Bless!
h

 

[Ozzie]

dennisknapp:

So you are saying we are right? If not, then you wouldn’t mind joining us.
The argument in my thread is clear. Why not deal with that instead of the red-herring you let loose in this thread.

No, YOU’RE saying you’re right. All of you have gathered together on that thread and are telling each other how right you are. Far be it for me to interrupt your “we’re right” party. I am more than content to let you continue to believe it, since it seems to make you so very happy. Anyway, we’ve dicussed it all before, haven’t we? You believe Scripture must be proved by “history,” i.e., the words of mere men, while I contend that history, i.e., the words of mere men, must be tested/proved by Scripture, i.e., the written, immutable Word of God. You begin with men and test God’s Word, whereas I begin with God and test the words of men. We come from two different and opposing points of view, my friend, which must and always be opposed to one another. Debating them will never breach this necessary wall of opposition. In the end we’ll find out who really is right, won’t we?

I present no “red-hering” on this thread. But I can undestand your criticism. According to your view the literal, written Word of God must always be considered a “red-hering” next to the words of mere men.

 

[John_Joseph]

Ozzie:

Based on the context, Maggie, it’s literally impossible to apply this to 70 A.D. IN CONTEXT Jesus is answering the Disciple’s question concerning His coming again and the “end of the age”

Sorry, I’m with Maggie on this one.

(vs. 3): “False Messiahs;”

There were quite a few false messiahs leading up to 70AD. Look into St. Gerome’s commentary on the Olivet Discourse. Josephus as well.

“wars and rumors of wars”;“nation rise up against nation”;“kingdom against kingdom”

Civil war in Rome, Rebellions in Britain and Judea all preceded 70AD

Ozzie:

“famines and earthquakes;” which are merely “birth pangs” (vss. 4-8). Jesus then states:

What about the famine in Jerusalem? Eusebius himself said, “Under Claudius the world was visited by a famine.” The cities of Colossae and Pompei were destroyed by earthquakes.

"…for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall (vs. 21]
.

Jesus is speaking of the Tribulation that the infant Church suffered under Nero from 64 to 67 AD. Don’t lose sight of the fact that Christianity came perilously close to being wiped out in these three years. Tribulation indeed. Be thankful Jesus warned his disciples in advance.

I’ll get to the rest later, I’m at work and I have to actually do something work related. Go figure!

 

[Mickey]

Ozzie:

No, YOU’RE saying you’re right. All of you have gathered together on that thread and are telling each other how right you are. Far be it for me to interrupt your “we’re right” party. I am more than content to let you continue to believe it, since it seems to make you so very happy. Anyway, we’ve dicussed it all before, haven’t we? You believe Scripture must be proved by “history,” i.e., the words of mere men, while I contend that history, i.e., the words of mere men, must be tested/proved by Scripture, i.e., the written, immutable Word of God. You begin with men and test God’s Word, whereas I begin with God and test the words of men. We come from two different and opposing points of view, my friend, which must and always be opposed to one another. Debating them will never breach this necessary wall of opposition. In the end we’ll find out who really is right, won’t we?

I present no “red-hering” on this thread. But I can undestand your criticism. According to your view the literal, written Word of God must always be considered a “red-hering” next to the words of mere men.

How laughable Ozzie. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif You know as well as anyone else on this forum, that the real question here is: where do you get your interpretations? We have Sacred Tradition including the church fathers and you have reformist theology. (which you like to call the Holy Spirit). So please don’t resort to name calling. If you would like to discuss issues in a rational manner, then welcome. If not, then:

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_101.gif

%between%

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

No, YOU’RE saying you’re right. All of you have gathered together on that thread and are telling each other how right you are. Far be it for me to interrupt your “we’re right” party. I am more than content to let you continue to believe it, since it seems to make you so very happy. Anyway, we’ve dicussed it all before, haven’t we? You believe Scripture must be proved by “history,” i.e., the words of mere men, while I contend that history, i.e., the words of mere men, must be tested/proved by Scripture, i.e., the written, immutable Word of God. You begin with men and test God’s Word, whereas I begin with God and test the words of men. We come from two different and opposing points of view, my friend, which must and always be opposed to one another. Debating them will never breach this necessary wall of opposition. In the end we’ll find out who really is right, won’t we?

I present no “red-hering” on this thread. But I can undestand your criticism. According to your view the literal, written Word of God must always be considered a “red-hering” next to the words of mere men.

How is what I am doing on my thread appealing to mere men? The argument starts with your position, does it not?

"Bible" Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

So, let’s see how this logic plays out, shall we.

1. Early Christians were more like the “Bible” Christians of today, then the Roman Catholic Church.
2. We have historical records of these early Christians by way of pagans, Jews and the early Christians themselves.
3. In the historical records are revealed what early Christians thought, believed and practiced.
4. In the historical records it reveals what the early Christians thought, believed and practiced are in line with Roman Catholic Teaching.
5. Therefore, premise 1 is false and "biblical Christianity is a myth.

It is 75% good theology and 100% bad history (and the theology part was inherited from Catholicism).

This is a logical syllogism. I am presenting an argument in a formal way. All you would need to do is prove premise 4 false and you prove premise 1 correct.

Peace

 

[Benadam]

Ozzie:

Based on the context, Maggie, it’s literally impossible to apply this to 70 A.D. IN CONTEXT Jesus is answering the Disciple’s question concerning His coming again and the “end of the age” (vs. 3): “False Messiahs;” “wars and rumors of wars;” “nation rise up against nation;” “kingdom against kingdom;” “famines and earthquakes;” which are merely “birth pangs” (vss. 4-8). Jesus then states:

.

The Church is taught by history in events that typify the end and are echos of the beginning. This is the nature of prophecy, was, is and is to come. The Events in 70 AD concerning the Temple were it’s judgement day. They typify the end of time as well.

 

[Ozzie]

ProdigalSun:

Well all I want to know about this silly subject is for you Ozzie to show me where it says anything about the “RAPTURE” not the second coming.

1THES. 4:14-18 “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.”

1COR. 15:51-52 "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed."

PHIL. 3:20-21 *“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body (not dead, decomposed body) of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.” *

Paul is not referring the resurrection of the dead in the above verse, but a transformation, a conformity of our humble bodies with the body of His glory. Paul is presenting here what should be, and should have always been, the imminent, blessed hope of true believers: the coming of the Lord for them before they die. This of course is reserved for only one generation of true believers to experience. Just as generations of Jews hoped in the coming of Messiah, but only one generation would actually experienced it; even so, only one generation of true believers of the Church will experience this living transformation. The rest, those who have died in Christ, will be bodily resurrected with glorified bodies at that time, and together we will meet the Lord IN THE AIR, “and thus we shall always be with the Lord.” Even when He returns TO EARTH at His 2nd Advent.

The Hebrew prophet Zechariah wrote to the Jews concerning Christ’s return:

ZECH. 14:5 "And you will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!

And the N.T. writer Jude:

JUDE 1:14 "*And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came **with *many thousands of His holy ones."

We know that it will happen just not when, nor should we bother “Guessing” when or how!

Yes, according to Scripture we KNOW that it WILL happen. And based on the verses above we do know HOW it will happen. But you’re absolutely right, we don’t know WHEN it will happen. The Rapture of the true Church is imminent, it could happen any time. There are no prophetic events that must occur just prior to His coming for His Church in the air. That, however, would not be the case if the Bible taught that the Church must go through the coming Tribulation period. For there are definite events that must occur at that time, hence, we would know for certain that the time is VERY near. But that is not the case. In EVERY occurrence in Scripture which describes the time of the Tribulation (the wrath) to come, the Church is not mentioned. For instance, Matthew chapter 24 is about national Israel, not the Church (it speaks of the Sabbath, the Temple, Jerusalem, etc.). And God’s Word specifically states that we (the true Church) are not destined for the wrath which is yet to come(Col. 3:6 cf. 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9; Rev. 3:10).

 

[Ozzie]

John Joseph:

I’ll get to the rest later, I’m at work and I have to actually do something work related. Go figure!

Ok, but when you get home and do your research, let me know in what month in 70 AD the Jews in Jerusalem actually saw the Lord return and gather His elect. So, evidently, based on your interpretation and events, we no longer have to look forward to Christ’s 2 nd Advent, right?

 

[Ozzie]

“Bible” Christians claim that their Church is MORE like the early Church then say the Roman Catholic Church, correct? (And by early Church I mean 33 to 315 A.D.)

Those are your words, not mine. If I argued from that point of view I would be like you, leaning on the words of men, not God.

You see, you start with a faulty premise.

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

Those are your words, not mine. If I argued from that point of view I would be like you, leaning on the words of men, not God.

You see, you start with a faulty premise.

So, the early Christians were not “bible” Christians?

So, “biblical” Christianity is an innovation of the 16th century and therefore “traditions of men.” Thanks.

Peace

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Originally posted by Ozzie

I never said the early Church was Dispensational. But it was predominately Premillennial and considered that view orthodox. And why wouldn’t they be? Jesus was Jewish, the Apostles were Jewish, all the writers of Scripture were Jewish, hence, they believed in the Jewish hope of the Davidic/Messianic, literal, earthly Kingdom. All the O.T. prophets spoke of it. They understood it to be a spiritual Kingdom, but NONE of them “spiritualized” that Kingdom as Augustine and others did centuries later.

You concede that your doctrine - i.e. premillenial dispensationalism - is not the doctrine of any of the early Church Fathers. And you also apparently concede that there is *no historical support * for the dispensationalist belief in the “parenthetical” nature of the Church. The fact that some (certainly not a majority, and certainly not the Church’s Teaching Authority) of the ECFs entertained a historical premillenialist view does not equate to the same thing as the wide acceptance of a doctrine that taught of an earthly reign by Christ in Jerusalem. That was never taught as “orthodox.” You are mistaken. You’re simply reading into selected early texts what you whish they said. Given the great differences between historical and dispensational premillenialism, your arguments from histroy ring hollow.

The Apostles asked Jesus just before His ascension, *“Is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel” *(Acts 1:6)? Jesus did not say they were in error or did not understand the Scriptures (because in that truth they did indeed), but He told them that it was at this time they (the Apostles) were to be His witnesses in the world. In other words, the Davidic Kingdom would not be established at this time. The King was about to ascend to His Father’s throne, but one day He will return and sit on His own throne reigning from Jerusalem (see Rev. 3:21; Matt. 25:31ff; Heb. 1:3).

Again, nothing in the passages you quote is contrary to Church teaching on the end times. It is only your interpretation of those passages that is contrary to Church teaching. So, this all boils down to which interpretation are you going to believe, your own interpretation, or the interpretation of a Church that has existed from the time it was founded by Christ.

It is Rome that errors [sic] (not Ryrie) by spiritualizing the kingdom. Rome along with many Protestant churches as well.

The Church does not “spiritualize” the kingdom. The Church is the seed, the beginning of the Kingdom of God. And the Church is not just a spiritualized abstraction. The Church exists on a physical level as well.

That’s a silly conclusion. That’s like concluding the ECF were divinely inspired writers and themselves were infallible. In fact, not all the ECF agreed on all things, be realistic, please!!! Nor did all the early writers speak on eschatological themes.

It’s not “silly” to suggest that you cannot pick and choose from the ECFs to support your own “silly” doctrine. My point is that if you are going to argue from history that your view of dispensational premillenialism was taught by the early Church, then you cannot ignore the host of distinctly Catholic doctrines that were also taught by that early Church.

 

[Little_Mary]

dennisknapp:

So, the early Christians were not “bible” Christians?

So, “biblical” Christianity is an innovation of the 16th century and therefore “traditions of men.” Thanks.

Peace

:clapping:

You might also say that Luther was the original “cafeteria Catholic” :yup:

 

[Little_Mary]

Ozzie:

font=Arial]Paul is not referring the resurrection of the dead in the above verse, but a transformation, a conformity of our humble bodies with the body of His glory. Paul is presenting here what should be, and should have always been, the imminent, blessed hope of true believers: the coming of the Lord for them before they die. This of course is reserved for only one generation of true believers to experience. Just as generations of Jews hoped in the coming of Messiah, but only one generation would actually experienced it; even so, only one generation of true believers of the Church will experience this living transformation. The rest, those who have died in Christ, will be bodily resurrected with glorified bodies at that time, and together we will meet the Lord IN THE AIR, “and thus we shall always be with the Lord.” Even when He returns TO EARTH at His 2nd Advent.

The Hebrew prophet Zechariah wrote to the Jews concerning Christ’s return:

ZECH. 14:5 "And you will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!

And the N.T. writer Jude:

JUDE 1:14 "*And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came **with ***many thousands of His holy ones."Yes, according to Scripture we KNOW that it WILL happen. And based on the verses above we do know HOW it will happen. But you’re absolutely right, we don’t know WHEN it will happen. The Rapture of the true Church is imminent, it could happen any time. There are no prophetic events that must occur just prior to His coming for His Church in the air. That, however, would not be the case if the Bible taught that the Church must go through the coming Tribulation period. For there are definite events that must occur at that time, hence, we would know for certain that the time is VERY near. But that is not the case. In EVERY occurrence in Scripture which describes the time of the Tribulation (the wrath) to come, the Church is not mentioned. For instance, Matthew chapter 24 is about national Israel, not the Church (it speaks of the Sabbath, the Temple, Jerusalem, etc.). And God’s Word specifically states that we (the true Church) are not destined for the wrath which is yet to come(Col. 3:6 cf. 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9; Rev. 3:10).

You are pulling out of here what you choose to see and editing when it is advantagous to your point. And when did you talk to Paul anyway??

There will be a second and final coming. Not a Coming 1.5.

1Thes 4:14-18 - hmmm nope, don’t see it
1 COR 15:51-52 - not here either
this one actually says the LAST trumpet. Did you miss that?

Phil 3:20-21 - still looking
Zech 14:5 - not yet
Jude 1:14 - :yawn: still can’t find it

Merely listing bible verses just to list bible verses does not a case make. None of the above say anything about Jesus coming down from heaven to get people then doing a 180 and motoring back up to heaven.

Weak, weak, weak.

 

[MaggieOH]

Ozzie:

Are you under the false impression that everybody before the 17th century was infallible? I don’t try to prove the Premillennial view by Justin. I prove it BY God’s written Word. Same with the Pretrib. Rapture view. Would it matter if the whole world laughed? Nope!

sure you do, but you also read the commentaries of others and form your viewpoint from what they say. To state otherwise is deceptive.

Maggie

 

[Little_Mary]

sure you do, but you also read the commentaries of others and form your viewpoint from what they say. To state otherwise is deceptive.

Maggie

Well put. Short and to the point.

 

[MaggieOH]

Ozzie:

Based on the context, Maggie, it’s literally impossible to apply this to 70 A.D. IN CONTEXT Jesus is answering the Disciple’s question concerning His coming again and the “end of the age” (vs. 3): “False Messiahs;” “wars and rumors of wars;” “nation rise up against nation;” “kingdom against kingdom;” “famines and earthquakes;” which are merely “birth pangs” (vss. 4-8). Jesus then states:

"…for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall (vs. 21].

Ozzie it is an error to deny the historical setting of the Gospels. There is a lot of out of context quoting going on here. I have deleted the majority of what you wrote because of the limits that we have on posts.

First of all, there was an historical end of the age at that particular time. In fact the end of the age began with the birth of Jesus Christ. That is what was happening was the end of the Old Covenant and the continuing need for animal sacrifices.
The prophecies of Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah and others all point to the coming of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. They do not point to our own time, neither do they point to some time in the distant future.

In order to respond to the points that you made:

false Messiahs: yes at that time there were others who claimed to be the Christ and they were captured and killed. These false Messiahs believed as most believe today that the Messiah who is to come will be a great leader who will lead the people into battle against the oppressors (the Romans). These false Messiahs led the people into revolt and this culminated in the crushing of the Jews and the sacking of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

“wars and rumours of wars”: there has not been an age when there has not been wars and rumours of wars. Our time is no different than the period in which France and England fought their wars, or when Mohammed struck terror throughout the European nations with the sword - convert or else philosophy.
The sacking of Jerusalem comes under the heading of “wars and rumours of wars”.

nation rise up against nation: this has been happening for centuries

Now, for the words of Jesus, I would say that with the sacking of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple there truly was a “Great Tribulation”, and there have been many such “Great Tribulations” since the sacking of Jerusalem. So again there is nothing that points to our own time in particular.

When you take Scripture out of its context it is easy to concoct all of these notions. However, in the end most of these false doctrines die when people begin to realise that what they have been told is not true.

Maggie