The "watch rapture view"

[Zao is life]

You guys are LIARS. I am not a preterist. Unlike preterists, I don't have the imaginary "old covenant age" ending in 70 AD. I have said many times that the old covenant ended and the new covenant was ushered in when Jesus died on the cross and the veil of the temple being torn in two signified that.

In your imagination you have Jesus calling Jerusalem the holy city when telling His disciples that when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem, then those who are in Judea should flee - because you have that statement in Luke 21:20 connected to Jesus telling His disciples that when they see an abomination of desolation standing in the "holy" place (of a "holy" temple in Jerusalem), they should flee.

But Jesus did not say "When you see armies gathered around the holy city". He called it Jerusalem, and said nothing about the temple in it.

If Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are connected, then you cannot have Jesus calling the temple in Jerusalem "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15 if you do not also have Him calling Jerusalem "the holy city" in Luke 21:20, because it was the temple in Jerusalem that made that city holy in accordance with the Old Covenant.

But long before it was destroyed, Paul likened Jerusalem to Hagar and said it was in bondage with her children.

You are obsessed with what was holy under the OC in your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-22. @TribulationSigns explains it to you here

 

[Zao is life]

Look in the mirror, hypocrite. You are describing yourself. I tried to get along with you and you proved you have no interest in that, so I give up on that. You prefer the insults, so don't try to kid anyone as if you think otherwise.

Is that the same excuse you use for your insults and rudeness to almost everyone else who disagrees with your eschatology? Or do you have a different excuse for the others? LOL. Do you individualize your excuses for your rudeness, insults, insinuations and misrepresentations of the things all those who disagree with you believe, or do you have boxes of different sorts of excuses which you use for different groups?

So, I see that you disagree with your Premil buddy about Revelation 14:14. It's clearly referring to Christ, but he can't even see that.

No, I agree with him. Unlike you I see the validity in what he is saying, which is why I posted the difference in meaning between the different types of crown used in the Revelation, and why I said that IF Revelation 14:14 is referring to Jesus, it means that He is the only one in the Revelation seen to be wearing both types of crown. You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ahem.... let's take a look at one or two verses of what you quoted:

Matthew 24:21-22

• "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
• And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

The word, "then" [tote] or at that time, connects this verse 21 to the preceding verses, which in turn connect to preceding verses of 20-10 and 10 connects it to 5-9. There is no gap, it's ONE PERIOD. Look how the word "then" [tote] or at that time makes all these verses flow seamlessly together as at that time. For example:

Matthew 24:16

• "Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: "

Matthew 24:15

• "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )"

Matthew 24:10

• "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another."

Matthew 24:9

• "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

Clearly, we see an unbroken connection of passages from verse 21 to 9 declaring that "at this time" all these things will happen. To attempt to look at this narrative as diverse eras from verse to verse is to dabble in Eschatological dementia!

God assures us that this [thlipsis] of Matthew 24:21 is speaking about the same time that the things listed in the previous verses were, by saying, then, or "at this time." No novice Greek can make these scriptures "not" say something that they do say.

This is tribulation that is the worst that the world has ever seen, or will see because Satan has gathered his army from the four quarters of the earth. And that if God didn't intervene to shorten the days, there would not be anyone left on earth to be saved. In other words, there would be no election. Look at the verses carefully to note it's not saying there wouldn't be anyone left on earth. God says that if not, there wouldn't be anyone left on earth "to be saved." Remember, God has said that he that shall endure to the end shall be saved. Thus, the days have to be shortened for the sake of the elect IN THE END. Not the sake for the Jews in 70AD over some falling stones so they can flee to the KOA campgrounds in the mountains as long as it was not during the cold winter months or on sabbath days. Absurd!! That wasnt what Christ talked about.

So if these days of these false prophets, deception, and great tribulation were not shortened, then no one would be saved. The Apostasy would so devastate (desolate) the Church that there wouldn't be any election left to be saved if it were allowed to continue. But for sake of the Elect, God assures us those days shall be shortened. How beautiful is God's Word when it is unadulterated by secular stories, ideas and theories. That is how consistent God's Word is when it is allowed to interpret itself.

The third and final verse tribulation or [thlipsis] occurs in Matthew 24 is in verse 29.

Matthew 24:29

• "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"

So here again, God doesn't leave His Word up to Josephus to interpret it's time period like you do, He says immediately after the tribulation "of those days," which is a continuing theme. What days are in view? The very same days of tribulation that He has just been talking about from the start of the chapter. Thus no eschatological gymnastics to introduce another tribulation 2000 years before is necessary.

And you've already admitted that this [thlipsis] in versre 29 occurs at the end of the world. If that is the case (and it is) then the tribulation preceding verse 29 is also at the end of the world, but the phrase "immediately after." Now we've just about covered every single verse in the whole chapter up to verse 29, and not one word anywhere from God about a multiple tribulation period. The reason is that this is man's self-serving rationalization in order not to receive what "IS" clearly written there.

There are no other verses in Matthew 24 which use the word tribulation or [thlipsis], and I am sorry, but your preterism-infused amillennial thinking that we are all theologically ignorant so that we cannot see this other alleged tribulation in this chapter, is clearly without any foundation in fact.

Ahem. You speak nonsense. So many words to say nothing. To not acknowledge that Jesus talked at all about the destruction of the temple buildings in the Olivet Discourse despite being asked about the timing of that after telling the disciples the temple buildings would be destroyed is ludicrous. Luke 21:20-24 is clearly a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and it describes exactly what happened in 70 AD. But, I guess that is just a coincidence in your mind? You will never convince me that what you're saying is true because I will never accept the foolish claim that Jesus did not answer the disciples question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In your imagination you have Jesus calling Jerusalem the holy city when telling His disciples that when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem, then those who are in Judea should flee - because you have that statement in Luke 21:20 connected to Jesus telling His disciples that when they see an abomination of desolation standing in the "holy" place (of a "holy" temple in Jerusalem), they should flee.

But Jesus did not say "When you see armies gathered around the holy city". He called it Jerusalem, and said nothing about the temple in it.

LOL. This is an incredibly weak argument. Luke was paraphrasing what Jesus said for his Gentile audience. Matthew and Mark recorded what Jesus actually said. So, there is no requirement that it should say "the holy city" instead of Jerusalem. You go out of your way to dream up nonsense like this instead of accepting that Jesus was asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed (after telling the disciples they would be destroyed) and He answered that question.

If Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 are connected, then you cannot have Jesus calling the temple in Jerusalem "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15 if you do not also have Him calling Jerusalem "the holy city" in Luke 21:20, because it was the temple in Jerusalem that made that city holy in accordance with the Old Covenant.

Nice man-made rule you came up with here. I don't need to go by your useless man-made rules.

But long before it was destroyed, Paul likened Jerusalem to Hagar and said it was in bondage with her children.

You are obsessed with what was holy under the OC in your interpretation of Matthew 24:15-22. @TribulationSigns explains it to you here

I don't take TribSigns any more seriously than I take you, so I couldn't care less what he says about this. He's the guy who doesn't acknowledge that Satan is an actual living spirit being. But, you want to trust anything he has to say? The guy spiritualizes almost the entire Bible.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is that the same excuse you use for your insults and rudeness to almost everyone else who disagrees with your eschatology? Or do you have a different excuse for the others? LOL. Do you individualize your excuses for your rudeness, insults, insinuations and misrepresentations of the things all those who disagree with you believe, or do you have boxes of different sorts of excuses which you use for different groups?

Did you miss where I told you to look in the mirror, hypocrite? I have no reason to listen to you about this when you do the exact same things you are complaining about on a regular basis.

No, I agree with him. Unlike you I see the validity in what he is saying, which is why I posted the difference in meaning between the different types of crown used in the Revelation, and why I said that IF Revelation 14:14 is referring to Jesus, it means that He is the only one in the Revelation seen to be wearing both types of crown. You obviously have reading comprehension issues.

LOL. Tell me what I'm not comprehending about what you said here:

In the Revelation everything that's associated with the color white is pure:

Jesus' head and hair appear white like wool (Rev 1:14).
A white stone with a saint's name written on it (Rev 2:17).
The white raiment of the saints (Rev.3:5 & 18; 6:11; 7:9, 13 & 14).
The white clothing of the 24 elders (Rev 4:4).
The white clothing of angels (Rev 15:6).
The white raiment of the bride of Christ (Rev 19:8).
The Great White Throne (Rev 20:11).
Christ seated on a white cloud (Rev 14:14).

Should I assume you didn't actually mean anything you said here including the last line?

 

[Davy]

Watch for Jesus coming for the rapture.

If that's all you are watching for, then you will be way too late to the party. Party is OVER when the rapture happens. It will be too late to retract any falling away to the false-Messiah that comes first by just waiting for the rapture.

What Jesus pointed for us, His Church, to be watching, should be so obvious that He really had no need to spell it out for the simple, although He still did.

It is the SIGNS of the end leading up to His coming that He gave us to WATCH.

That is specifically... what His Olivet discourse is about, the SIGNS He gave. And those SIGNS are the SEALS of Revelation 6.

So are you SEALED in prep for the end? If you don't know those SIGNS and are not watching for them, then it shows YOU ARE NOT SEALED.

 

[rebuilder 454]

If you were an Amil rather than a Premil it would at least make sense to apply what I brought up per Matthew 13 to be meaning after the millennium. After all, that would not remotely contradict an Amil view. But it does contradict a Premil view since what I brought up per Matthew 13 is clearly involving the end of this present age and is not even remotely meaning a thousand years after Christ initially returned.

LOF and GWTJ are both after the mil.

Mat 13
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Watch for Jesus sent by the Father to rapture us up from this earth as something good, the blessed hope, which we are blessed with the redemption of our bodies, and be taken by Jesus to heaven, to forever be with Him.

How to make sure that we are ready..... by being saved in Christ and to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. And love your neighbor as your self. (Matthew 22:37-39)

They see us as weak and cowardly.
They see themselves as powerful overcomers and so tough as to go through the gt.

....but then there is the bible.
Which has them as foolish and us as wise.

They will get their prophetic wish and deal with the ac

They are NOT IN ANY WAY looking for his coming.
...but in the parable of the virgins, even the foolish had enough discernment to watch for Jesus, and actually looked up to the wise ( us wise ones)
FF to today, we are looked at as scum by postribs.

 

[rebuilder 454]

If that's all you are watching for, then you will be way too late to the party. Party is OVER when the rapture happens. It will be too late to retract any falling away to the false-Messiah that comes first by just waiting for the rapture.

What Jesus pointed for us, His Church, to be watching, should be so obvious that He really had no need to spell it out for the simple, although He still did.

It is the SIGNS of the end leading up to His coming that He gave us to WATCH.

That is specifically... what His Olivet discourse is about, the SIGNS He gave. And those SIGNS are the SEALS of Revelation 6.

So are you SEALED in prep for the end? If you don't know those SIGNS and are not watching for them, then it shows YOU ARE NOT SEALED.

..and there you go!
Celebrating not looking for Jesus?

....well. ok.

 

[Zao is life]

Luke was paraphrasing what Jesus said for his Gentile audience.

You have no evidence that Luke was paraphrasing anything, or that Luke was writing primarily for a Gentile audience. That's just a lame and incredibly weak argument you always use and think is valid because you repeat it so often - like it's some sort of mantra that materializes your imagination.

YOU paraphrase Luke 21:20 in your imagination to have Luke talking about the holy temple in the holy city (that's how you read it) because you have the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24;15) linked to what was holy during the days of the Old Covenant.

You have said that Jesus knew that by the time the temple was destroyed it would no longer be the holy place because it ceased being the holy place when the veil in the temple was torn in two, BUT you assert, Jesus used the words "the holy place" because "that's how His audience understood the temple when He spoke".

Well then Jesus would have spoken about armies gathering around the holy city if that were indeed the case - but because that's not what Luke wrote, your next piece of imaginary information that exists in your own imagination, is that Luke was "paraphrasing what Jesus said for Luke's Gentile audience".

You're obsessed with what was holy under the Old Covenant in your interpretation of what Jesus meant when speaking about the abomination of desolation in the holy place in the context of what He was saying about the tribulation of His disciples at the end of the Age which (tribulation of His disciples) will lead to the return of Christ.

Jesus was done with that Old Covenant and its temple after declaring that it was going to be left to the Jews desolate and that not one stone of those magnificent buildings would be left upon another.

He was concerned only with what his disciples were going to experience from that time and forward, and until the end of the Age, and especially at the time of the end of the Age. That's the only reason He also told them that when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem, they should flee.

But you equate Luke 21:20 with a holy city by equating Luke 21:20 with the holy place of Matthew 24:15 which you equate with the Old Covenant temple. And all your denials of this fact won't change the fact.

Matthew and Mark recorded what Jesus actually said. So, there is no requirement that it should say "the holy city" instead of Jerusalem.

Likewise there's no requirement or any logical reason, given the grammar of Matthew 24:9-31, to say that the holy place of Matthew 24:15 refers to a holy temple in Jerusalem.

You go out of your way to dream up nonsense like this

You think it's nonsense only because in your own fallible human imagination you have gone out of your way to dream up nonsense like equating the Jerusalem spoken of in Luke 21:20 with the holy place spoken of in Matthew 24:15.

So it has led you to imagine that the two passages are "parallel passages", while you ignore the context and grammar of Matthew 24:9-31 and completely butcher the passage by cutting verses 15-22 out of their end of the age context and pasting them into the 1st century.

It's a bad butcher job and no intelligent human being buys it.

instead of accepting that Jesus was asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed (after telling the disciples they would be destroyed) and He answered that question.

.. and you do so instead of accepting that the disciples asked Jesus about the end of the age and of His return and though they also asked Him when the temple would be destroyed, He did not answer that question because Jesus was not interested in talking about that temple anymore. It was as good as destroyed the moment He turned His back on it and began making His way down and into the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives. It was what lay ahead that He was interested in telling His disciples about. Nothing else.

Your arguments show over and over that you are obsessed with what was holy under the Old Covenant when you interpret the things Jesus spoke about on the Mount of Olives.

Jesus did not have to still be interested in talking about what was no longer holy just because you are still interested in it.

Jesus did not have to follow your logical fallacies and your rules about whether He may or may not answer His disciples by speaking to them only about the tribulation and persecution that was to come upon them, and that still is to come upon all those who remain faithful to Him at the end of the age.

He did not have to follow your rules and talk about things He had turned His back on after declaring that it had become desolate even 40 years before it was destroyed - because He had said what He had said. It was left to them desolate. Not one stone would be left upon another. Nothing more to say. He was not going to tell his disciples when it would happen - and He did not tell His disciples when it would happen.

I don't take TribSigns any more seriously than I take you, so I couldn't care less what he says about this.

Your hubris shows yet again every time you make remarks like the above. That's why only your Amil buddies take you seriously - and not even all of them - so I'm sure @TribulationSigns does not regard it as being any skin off his back if you don't take him seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have no evidence that Luke was paraphrasing anything, or that Luke was writing primarily for a Gentile audience.

How can you be this ignorant? The person Luke was writing to directly, whose name was Theophilus, was Greek and, obviously, a Gentile. He addressed the book of Acts to Theophilus as well.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Do you think it would have made sense for Luke to write "let the reader understand" based on a prophecy in Daniel to Theophilus and other Gentiles who would have had no knowledge of any of Daniel's prophecies? Of course not.

That's just a lame and incredibly weak argument

I love how you copy the words I use to describe your arguments. So original. What is lame and incredibly weak is your lack of effort to research who the book of Luke was addressed to. You just make assumptions without even looking into it. You didn't even bother reading the beginning of the book to see that it was address to the Gentile Theophilus.

It's beyond insane to think that Jesus said the following things separately within the Olivet Discourse...

Matthew 24:15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Imagine how confused the disciples would have been if He had said these things separately. You expect me to believe that He said "when you see" something that would result in the desolation of the temple and Jerusalem that those in Judea would need to flee to the mountains and that no one should try to enter the area at that time twice? You expect me to believe that He said "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!" twice? You expect me to believe that He talked about great tribulation/distress occurring twice? No way. That's complete nonsense. It's beyond obvious that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21 and only doctrinal bias can prevent someone from acknowledging that.

 

[Douggg]

It's beyond obvious that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21

No, those particular sets of verses are not parallel. But there are parallel sets of verses in Luke 21 and Matthew 24, as I will explain.

First of all, Luke 21:20 starts off differently than Matthew 24:15.

abomination of desolation standing in the holy place
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Jerusalem surrounded with armies
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Luke 21:20 the destruction of Jerusalem took place in 70 AD and the Jews taken captive into the nations, Luke 21:24 - until the time of the Gentiles control of Jerusalem ends.

That (which I underlined) is the key, the space of time between verse 24 and verse 25.

The Jews are back in control of Jerusalem now (in 1967), the parable of the fig tree generation. So what do we read in Luke 21:25-27 ? Compare it with Matthew 24:29-30. The 1967 generation will not pass away before Jesus returns.

Luke 21:25-27 is describing events that will take place at the time of Jesus's return.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

The parallel is Luke 21:25-27 and Matthew 24:29-30.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, those particular sets of verses are not parallel.

Yes, they most definitely are. Do you actually think that Jesus talked about people in Judea needing to flee to the mountains after seeing something that would indicate that Jerusalem was about to be made desolate twice during the Olivet Discourse? And do you think He said "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" twice? That is not reasonable at all. Imagine how confused the disciples would have been if He did that. The similarities in these passages are undeniable. Matthew's account is very similar to Mark's in Mark 13:14-19, so that's why the whole passages are very similar, but Luke paraphrased part of what Jesus said for the sake of his Gentile audience.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: ) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The text that comes right before each of these passages in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are also very similar. Do you try to say that Matthew 24:4-14 is not parallel to Luke 21:7-19?

But there are parallel sets of verses in Luke 21 and Matthew 24, as I will explain.

First of all, Luke 21:20 starts off differently than Matthew 24:15.

abomination of desolation standing in the holy place
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Jerusalem surrounded with armies
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

I cannot believe how many people on this forum believe this nonsense. Do you understand that Luke was writing to a different audience than Matthew? He addressed his gospel to a Gentile, Theophilus, and recorded what Jesus wrote in a way that Gentiles could understand. It would've made no sense for Luke to say to Theophilus and other Gentiles reading his gospel account to "let the reader understand" the prophecy from Daniel when they would have had no familiarity with it. So, he spelled it out to them in a way they could understand. When the armies surrounded Jerusalem, that is when its desolation would be at hand. They would not have known what he was talking about if he said when they see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place then those in Judea should flee to the mountains.

Luke 21:20 the destruction of Jerusalem took place in 70 AD and the Jews taken captive into the nations, Luke 21:24 - until the time of the Gentiles control of Jerusalem ends.

That (which I underlined) is the key, the space of time between verse 24 and verse 25.

The Jews are back in control of Jerusalem now (in 1967), the parable of the fig tree generation. So what do we read in Luke 21:25-27 ? Compare it with Matthew 24:29-30. The 1967 generation will not pass away before Jesus returns.

Luke 21:25-27 is describing events that will take place at the time of Jesus's return.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

The parallel is Luke 21:25-27 and Matthew 24:29-30.

Yes, those are parallel, but so are Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 24:15-22. And so are Matthew 24:4-14 and Luke 21:7-19.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They see us as weak and cowardly.
They see themselves as powerful overcomers and so tough as to go through the gt.

For the past almost 2,000 years many Christians have suffered much persecution and tribulation, but for some unknown reason Christians will not have to experience it once we get to the point where we're 7 (or however many) years before the return of Christ at the end of the age. Pre-trib is a joke.

Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

I'm not seeing the part here where it says everyone except the Christians who are around 7 years before Christ returns must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

....but then there is the bible.
Which has them as foolish and us as wise.

They will get their prophetic wish and deal with the ac

They are NOT IN ANY WAY looking for his coming.
...but in the parable of the virgins, even the foolish had enough discernment to watch for Jesus, and actually looked up to the wise ( us wise ones)
FF to today, we are looked at as scum by postribs.

Talk about foolish...what a lie to say that post-tribs are not looking for His coming. Proving that you have no understanding at all about what others believe.

 

[Douggg]

Do you understand that Luke was writing to a different audience than Matthew?

In Luke 21-27, Luke was quoting Jesus. In the online kjv, the text in red is Jesus speaking.

Luke chapter 21 KJV (King James Version)

Luke chapter 21 KJV (King James Version)

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

 

[Douggg]

Do you actually think that Jesus talked about people in Judea needing to flee to the mountains after seeing something that would indicate that Jerusalem was about to be made desolate twice during the Olivet Discourse?

Jesus was not saying that the city of Jerusalem would be made desolate twice.

The abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15 refers to the temple being made desolate of the worship and praise of the One True God. The abomination of desolation will be set up on the temple mount.

---------------------------------------------------------

In Luke 21:20-24, do you not agree with recorded history that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70ad and the Jews taken captive into the nations ?

Just as Jesus said would happen.

 

[Davidpt]

You're not even recognizing that Matthew 13:39 and Revelation 14:14 are not speaking of the same thing. That's your problem. Revelation 14:14 is a reference to the rapture while Matthew 13:39 refers to the angels separating the righteous from the wicked at the judgment after all people are gathered before Christ's throne (Matthew 25:31-46).


How am I doing that? All you can ever do anymore is just make things up. Do you not understand the difference between being gathered and caught up to Christ and being separated from unbelievers with believers being moved to His right hand and unbelievers to His left hand when all are gathered before His throne?


You clearly have no clue what Revelation 14:14 is about, yet you are trying to say I'm helping pretribbers somehow? You need to think first before you post.

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather(sunago) the wheat into my barn.


You would have us believe that this part has zero to do with a rapture---but gather the wheat into my barn? Since when does a rapture not involve a gathering? How do you propose that the wheat are gathered into His barn by bypassing a rapture? Keep in mind, when I say things like this, all I'm doing is forming an argument in general.


And what about this verse?

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather(episunago) together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The text plainly says Christ sends His angels to do these things. In Matthew 13:30 (sunago)
is the Greek word used. In Matthew 24:31 (episunago) is the Greek word used. But even so, notice (episunago) is connected with (sunago).

episunago
ep-ee-soon-ag'-o
from epi - epi 1909 and sunagw - sunago 4863; to collect upon the same place:--gather (together).


In both accounts it is His anglels, not Christ Himself doing any of the gathering. In Revelation 14:14 the one meant in that verse is obviously taking part in the gathering.

I don't know what your doctrinal reason is that you need Revelation 14:14 to be meaning Christ, but speaking for myself I don't have a doctrinal reason why I need it or not need it to be meaning Christ. I'm just simply basing my conclusions on the fact, that if it is allegedly meaning Christ, in my mind that would cause a contradiction with both of these verses I submitted above. Not to mention, it is not reasonable that His angels can gather the wheat into His barn by bypassing a rapture in order to do so.

Apparently, some ppl, unless something clearly and plainly says something, it can't mean this or that then since it doesn't clearly and plainly say so. A rapture can't be meant anywhere in Matthew 13:30, right? After all, one should never logically deduce something. Therefore, unless something clearly and plainly says something, it is wrong, it is bad, to logically deduce what all something might be involving.

No wonder I can't ever agree with you about much, Premil vs Amil aside, since you don't reason things the way I might, that sometimes things can be logically deduced when the text does not come out and plainly say this or that. Or let me guess. You agree there are occasions when things can be logically deduced, except you think when I do that, that it doesn't count.

I wish you were the same person I knew years ago on Bibleforums. I literally enjoyed discussing things with you. I literally enjoyed reading your replies to me. But now I no longer enjoy that. The truth is I don't even read the majority of your posts to me. Mainly because I know they are going to be laced with mockery and ridicule throughout in regards to what I concluded. And that's sad since I always read your posts addressed to me when I knew you on BF. Probably because those posts were never laced with mockery and ridicule in regards to what I may have been concluding at the time. I have a theory as to why. Probably because the Mods would not have let you get away with it there. But in a forum like this I get to know the real you, not the apparent phony you pretended to be on BF.

I have no room to talk, of course. Some of my posts contain the same tone as yours. Except my thinking is, if this person can dish it out this person should be able to take it. In my mind you all started this mess a long time ago by falsely accusing me of representing Amil when I was doing no such thing. I know what it means to misrepresent someone, you apparently don't. For example. If I said Amils are Pretribbers disguised as Post tribbers, that would be an example of blatantly misrepresenting Amil. I don't do things like that, though. Never have, never will since that would mean I'm being purposely deceitful if I were to do something like that.

Back in those BF days I used to take the 2Ws in the literal sense. Even so, you treated me better back then than you do now, and it was because of you and my discussions with you at the time that I eventually quit taking the 2Ws in the literal sense. But that's not the only thing you helped me eventually change my mind about. Granted, you didn't change my mind over night, but you did eventually change my mind.

While OTOH, I have never changed your mind about anything, Premil vs Amil aside. Which then tells me that you view me being wrong about absolutely everything, Premil vs Amil aside, meaning anything we might not already agree on. The things we don't already agree on, apparently I am wrong about everyone of those things and that you are right about everyone of those things. As if anybody can be that good to where they are never wrong, or that good to where they are never right.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In Luke 21-27, Luke was quoting Jesus. In the online kjv, the text in red is Jesus speaking.

Luke chapter 21 KJV (King James Version)

Luke chapter 21 KJV (King James Version)

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

That comment does not address what I'm saying. I am not saying that Luke was speaking there. Obviously, it's Jesus speaking there. I'm saying that Luke paraphrased what Jesus said for the sake of his Gentile audience. They would not have known anything about Daniel's prophecies, so that's why Luke 21:20 is worded a bit differently than Matthew 24:15. But, the similarities in the rest of the passages of Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 21:20-24 are too obvious to ignore. Do you claim that the passages before those are not parallel passages (Matthew 24:4-14 and Luke 21:7-19)?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus was not saying that the city of Jerusalem would be made desolate twice.

The abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15 refers to the temple being made desolate of the worship and praise of the One True God. The abomination of desolation will be set up on the temple mount.

No, that is talking about the destruction and desolation of both the city and the temple, as prophesied in Daniel 9:26-27. That is the prophecy that Jesus expected people to think about when He mentioned the prophecy in Daniel in relation to the abomination of desolation.

---------------------------------------------------------

In Luke 21:20-24, do you not agree with recorded history that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70ad and the Jews taken captive into the nations ?

Just as Jesus said would happen.

Yes, of course I agree with that. That is the same as what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 as well. Believers in Judea fled to the mountains to avoid the destruction that occurred just like Jesus warned them to do, as recorded in Matthew 24:15-16, Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20.

 

[Douggg]

Believers in Judea fleed to the mountains to avoid the destruction that occurred just like Jesus warned them to do, as recorded in Matthew 24:15-16, Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20.

Matthew 24:15-16 does not say the city of Jerusalem will be destroyed.

Luke 21:20-24 was fulfilled historically in 70ad.

Matthew 24:15-16 is end times, when Jesus will return. The abomination of desolation in Daniel 12:11-12 is at the time of the end, Daniel 12:7, Daniel 12:9.