Can you prove from the Bible that great tribulation Christ tells His disciples both they and we must endure is DUAL Prophecy? I don't see it as DUAL Prophecy, but as continual prophecy or prophecy that began to come to His first disciples that is also true for Christians in every single age as the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ is proclaimed.
Both Pretribbers and Preterists are clearly wrong that great tribulation begins with the DOTL.
- Thread starter Davidpt
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can you prove from the Bible that great tribulation Christ tells His disciples both they and we must endure is DUAL Prophecy? I don't see it as DUAL Prophecy, but as continual prophecy or prophecy that began to come to His first disciples that is also true for Christians in every single age as the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ is proclaimed.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Not all the church is the bride as illustrated in the virgin parable. And mat 24 ( one taken, one left)
The rapture is the gathering of the bride.
There is a resistance in the church of Jesus to that fact.
I never knew it even existed in the body of Christ until these Christian forums.
Part of the good news of the gospel.
Actually wonderful news.
And it is avoided like it is a disease.
An entire end times group of thousands of believers that have no clue as to how heaven sees end times.
Last edited:
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Why pervert it?
Neither the bible nor I suggest the bride is female.
I would suggest you stay with omission.
Just stay away from the bride /groom dynamic.
I would hate to see where that logic of your leads.
BTW...under your logic,one new man...the perfect man....YOU JUST CALLED YOURSELF A MAN.
So under that logic. There are no women in the kingdom.
Tedious.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Lol
Ruth was gentile.
Boaz represents Jesus.
Hello....the kinsman redeemer.
Ruth= the body of christ the gentile church.
Both Jew and Gentile in the same household
Are You are replacement theology.????
Last edited:
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
My fingers are numb from that.
If there were 1000, you would cast down each and every one of them.
Why does Christ tell His disciples that they must endure "great tribulation" as they proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ to all the nations of the world, if believers are caught up to meet the Lord in the air (raptured) to keep them from going through great tribulation?
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Pathetic.
Your doctrine places the rapture at Rev 19, (the second coming).
The harvest of rev 14:14 is BEFORE your supposed rapture placement.
So you , are oblivious that both your accusations are DIRECTLY AT YOURSELF.
WOW.
BIZARRE.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Lol
Take a look at the 2 escape verses.( you wont)
Take a look at EVERY RAPTURE VERSE.( you wont)
They are all pretrib setting.
Lot delivered pretrib
Noah gathered pretrib.
The one taken/left behind pretrib setting.
The baby Jesus gathered and removed pretrib.
The virgin parable is pretrib setting WITH THE BRIDE TAKEN TO THE MARRIAGE CHAMBER.
Hello...you doctrine says at the rapture the church never goes to heaven, instead the church does a make believe uturn back to earth.
I got about 8 or 6 more, but you guys cast it all down to replace it with conjecture ....as you have pointed out.
You ain't gonna listen.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Have you read romans 9-11?
Once the omissions start, and are incubated, the Bible can say most anything.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Nope. Unique in that everyone received the same spiritual gift of speaking in tongues at that time. Obviously, not everyone receives the gift of speaking in tongues every time they receive the Holy Spirit, but that's how it was that day in order to make it clear to everyone that things had changed at that point. But being baptized of the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit was not different on that day than it is still today. Them being baptized with the Holy Spirit placed them into the body of Christ on that day just as is still the case today.
The following verse....
Acts 1:5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
...is not talking about a different baptism with the Holy Spirit than the following verse...
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
This is in response to me saying "The baptism of the Holy Spirit was to place them into the body of Christ just like has been the case ever since.". Okay, so how can you not see that they were baptized with the Holy Spirit AFTER they believed? Besides the 3,000 Jews who repented and believed that day, there were about 120 believers in the upper room, including the apostles, who were baptized with the Holy Spirit that day. They clearly believed BEFORE being baptized with the Holy Spirit and places into the body of Christ.
Here is the setting before people started to be baptized with the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry.”
So, this was when they were deciding who should replace Judas Iscariot as the 12th apostle. As you can see, there were 120 disciples there. If you continue reading until the end of the chapter you can see they chose Matthias after casting lots. Then right after that it says this...
Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
This is talking about the 120 disciples who "were all with one accord in one place" in the "house where they were sitting". They were baptized with the Holy Spirit and received the Holy Spirit at that time. Yet, they were all believers before that happened. This shows that faith precedes regeneration and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. After that, the crowd outside the house from every nation witnessed the 120 disciples speaking in each of their tongues/languages. This led to 3,000 more souls being saved that day (Acts 2:41) because they listened to what Peter said in Acts 2:38 and repented of their sins and believed the gospel and then received the Holy Spirit.
Nope.
Colossians 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Being raised with Jesus refers to regeneration. Notice here that Paul says that occurs "through faith in the working of God". That's personal trust in the working of God, not "God's assurance". Faith is personal confidence and trust in God/Christ.
Ephesians 1:12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
You make faith something that God does. Scripture describes it as something we do and it involves us putting our trust in Christ.
Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Notice that the jailer didn't ask "What must God do so that I can be saved?". He asked "What must I do to be saved?". In your doctrine, there is nothing he could do to be saved. If he was not one of the elect, there would never be anything he could do to be saved. If he was elect, the only thing he could do was wait to see if God ever gave him faith that he would automatically exercise unto salvation. But, that isn't how Paul and Silas answered his question. I would expect a Calvinist to answer his question that way, though. Without knowing if the jailer was elect or not, Paul and Silas told him personally that what he had to do to be saved was "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and they said that was the case for those in his household as well. That means they knew he, and everyone in his household, had the ability to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" unto salvation. Otherwise, they were being dishonest with him.
In Acts 3:19, Peter was telling unbelievers who had not been born again of the Spirit to repent, not believers. So, I don't know what you're trying to say here. For some reason you're conflating the confession of sins by believers with the call to unbelievers to repent.
Nope.
As have I. But, somehow, you're just now realizing that we agree on that.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
...and yet all that ....with zero verses.
100% conjecture, accusations , and reframing clear bible doctrine.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
Amen.
Now get yourself a bible and actually read what it says.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
This literally sums up your end-time theology. It is all speculations and man-made theories.
That is why you avoid, run and name-call.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
But, I've explained it to you many times. How could you forget? I accept your apology, but please try to read what people say to you more carefully so that you don't forget what people actually believe.
As I've told you many times, yes.
Yes, but it's not as clear in Matthew 24 as it is in this parallel passage...
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.
Notice that when the great tribulation, described here as "great distress in the land and wrath upon this people" ends, then the Jews who did not "fall by the edge of the sword" were "led away captive into all nations". That's exactly what happened in 70 AD. Then look at what else Jesus said would happen at that point. Jerusalem would "be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". The temple was destroyed at that time and Gentiles have been trampling on Jerusalem with no temple there ever since. So, there's the gap I'm talking about. It is when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled that Jesus will return "after the tribulation of those days". Some would say that Jesus was referring to the entire time period of the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentiles as "the tribulation of those days" and I think that's a viable view, but in Matthew 24:23-26 He refers to a time after the great tribulation described previously of such a high level of deception that even the very elect would be deceived, if possible. That reminds me of what Paul describes in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 in relation to a time period of unrestrained wickedness before Jesus returns. So, I tend to think that Jesus was talking about coming "after the tribulation of those days". Either way, He wasn't referring back to the great tribulation that ended up in the destruction of Jerusalem as if He was saying He would come immediately after the tribulation of those days in Jerusalem in 70 AD, as preterists believe.
My view doesn't deny that Jesus was asked about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. He explicitly told the disciples that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed, so there's no reason to think that they wouldn't have asked a question about that. But, they also asked another question which Matthew makes clear relates to a different event, which is the future second coming of Christ at the end of the age. So, the rest of the Olivet Discourse relates to His answer to that question.
See above. That's not my view. That's how preterists understand it. Both futurists like you and preterists assume that Jesus was talking about that tribulation when He said He would come "immediately after the tribulation of those days", but that isn't what He was talking about. He would come immediately after the times of the Gentiles trampling upon Jerusalem was fulfilled, not immediately after Jerusalem was destroyed.
So, hopefully, you can at least understand how I see it now and how my view differs from how futurists and preterists typically interpret the Olivet Discourse.
Why would I or anyone for that matter listen to your vivid imagination since you cannot or will not answer my question? You, like some others in these forums more resemble internet trolls, then Christian you profess to be.
Defining an Internet Troll in Christian Forums
In the context of Christian forums, an internet troll is someone who deliberately posts inflammatory, rude, or off‑topic comments in an online community — such as a Christian discussion board — with the intent of provoking emotional reactions, stirring up conflict, or steering conversations away from their own agenda.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I didn't cut if off because it doesn't agree with what I said. The very next verse confirms what I said.
Hold on here. You are accusing me of ignoring what it says in verse 13, but you seem to be ignoring what it says in verse 12. Do you not think that someone becomes a child of God immediately upon being born of God? When else would someone become a child of God except when they are born of God? It should be obvious that becoming a child of God and being born of God are the same thing. So, what does verse 12 indicate? It indicates that receiving Christ, which refers to accepting and believing in Christ, precedes becoming a born again child of God. You can't just brush that under the rug.
So, what does verse 13 mean then? It's referring to the actual act of regeneration. That is something done by God, not man. That's all verse 13 is saying. Obviously, we don't regenerate ourselves. God does that. We're born of God, not of man. It's a spiritual birth, not a physical birth ("of blood", "of the will of the flesh/man"). That's what verse 13 means. But, verse 12 indicates that this occurs after we accept/receive and believe in Christ.
You are always only looking at part of the picture instead of the big picture. Yes, it's entirely God's choice on whom to have mercy! Agree completely! But, does He just have mercy on people randomly? Does He flip a coin to determine who to have mercy on? No! He wants to have mercy on all people.
Romans 11:30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
So, why doesn't God have mercy on all people? Because He requires people to humble themselves in order to receive His mercy. His mercy is conditional, not unconditional as you believe. And He decided to make it that way, not man.
Luke 18:9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
There's a lot of things I can say about you, but what I will say now is the same thing you are accusing me of, which is that you're refuting scripture itself. As I'm showing throughout this post.
Now, I will say another thing about you. You are intellectually dishonest. In no way, shape or form did I say that I make myself a child of God. God makes people children of God when they do what He requires, which is to repent and believe. All we can do is accept God's gracious offer of salvation. We can't regenerate ourselves and make ourselves children of God. God does that when we do what He requires. Humbling ourselves and accepting His gracious gift is not a case of making ourselves children of God. You are always misrepresenting what I believe. As I said, your arguments are geared towards those who believe in a works-based salvation doctrine where they think that people can earn their own salvation by somehow being good enough. That is not what I believe. Stop wasting your time with your strawman arguments.
Scripture repeatedly presents faith as something that we are required to do and you deny it. Why do you draw conclusions from your cherry picked verses whlie ignoring the rest of scripture? That's not how to form doctrine.
Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
In your doctrine, there is nothing that the jailer had to do to be saved. Can you acknowledge that? Can you admit that you could not answer that question the same way Paul and Silas did if someone asked you that question? The jailer asked them what he himself had to do to be saved. You do not believe he had to do anything to be saved except wait and see if he was lucky enough to receive faith from God some day. That is how you should answer that question if anyone ever asks you that question. But, Paul and Silas were telling the jailer what he must do right then and there or at any time in order to be saved. At any time, he had to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". They did not tell him there was nothing he could do at that moment, but some day, if he was lucky enough to be chosen by God and to receive faith from God, then he would need to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". No, that's not what they said at all.
Nowhere does scripture teach this.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You act as if faith automatically results from hearing the gospel. Have you never looked at Romans 10:17 in context? To see the context you need to read all of the surrounding verses.
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: “Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.” 19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: "I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.” 20 But Isaiah is very bold and says: “I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.” 21 But to Israel he says: “All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people.”
First, Paul explains that people can't "believe in Him of whom they have not heard". That makes sense, right? How could they believe in Jesus without hearing about Him? That's not possible. So, then, in relation to the Israelites of his time, Paul says "they have not all obeyed the gospel". Then he asks in relation to those who did not obey the gospel: "But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed". So, they heard the gospel but they chose not to believe it. So, when Paul said "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God", he is not saying that faith automatically occurs upon hearing the word of God/Christ (the gospel). Clearly not. Many of those who heard the gospel rejected it. Is that because they had no ability to accept it, as you believe? No. If that was the case, then why did God reach out to them "all day long"? Was He reaching out to them all day long to call them to believe the gospel despite them having no ability to do so? Of course not. God would not do that. He reached out to them all day long in order to persuade them to believe the gospel because He wanted them all to be saved, just as He wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6).
Faith is not given to people. Why would Abraham be commended for his faith if it was given to him? Why did Jesus marvel at the faith of the centurion who believed He could heal his servant without going to him in person if faith is given to people?
LOL! That's not a contradiction at all. Hello? You become a child of God upon being born of God.
Says the guy who refutes more passages than I can keep track of.
You are proof of that.
Ah! Think about what you're saying here! Here's the we're talking about in relation to what you said here...
John 10:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
In light of what you said here, why do you try to use this verse to support your doctrine? You try to say that the reason they didn't believe is because they were not His sheep. Yet, here you are now (correctly) saying that some of them who didn't believe at that time could have believed at a later time. That means some of them who didn't believe at that time could have become His sheep at a later time when they believed. This shows that people become His sheep when they believe rather than having been chosen to believe and be His sheep before the foundation of the world, as you believe.
Your interpretation of the verse would only make sense if all of those who did not believe at that time were not His sheep and never would believe and never would be His sheep. But, that is not the case.
That means the reason those who are among us do not currently believe, but will believe later is not because they are not His sheep, yet that is how you interpret John 10:26. Obviously, if they don't believe now, but believe at some point in the future, then that means they are among His sheep. So, it can't be said that they don't believe now because of not being His sheep. You're not realizing it, but you're confirming that, in reality, you don't actually believe your own interpretation of John 10:26.
No, I don't believe that you have given your interpretation of those verses a hundred times before now. I don't recall you doing that even once. Certainly nowhere near a hundred times before.
What He didn't say is that man has no responsibility to choose whether to believe or not. Salvation is presented as something that is offered to people (Matthew 22:1-13, Titus 2:11). That means that man has responsibility in relation to salvation, which you deny. I agree with you that man cannot be righteous enough to save himself. He cannot do good works enough to save himself. Are you with me so far? Those are the things you typically argue against, which are not things that I believe.
What I believe instead of those things (pay attention here) is that man is required to humble himself and admit to God that he is a sinner who can't save himself while accepting God's gracious offer of salvation in order to be saved. Just as Jesus indicated in the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector in Luke 18:9-14 and in the parable of the wedding invitation in Matthew 22:1-13. You say you go by what Jesus said. Well, that's what I'm saying about my belief. I'm going by what He said. Humbly accepting a free gift has nothing to do with meriting one's salvation. So, you can say whatever you want about what I believe, but you cannot say that I believe that man merits his own salvation. We are not save by our own works, we are saved by God's grace through putting faith and trust in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-13). Nowhere does scripture say that we can boast of our own faith. It only says we could boast of our own works if our own works saved us (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-5).
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Good Afternoon
Directly calling pre-trib what it is and where it came from.
We all must abide in Christ and His every word to avoid the deceptions of the enemy = especially when he uses scripture
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, He was hungry.
The tempter came to Him and said, “If You are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
But Jesus answered, “It is written:
‘Man shall not live on bread alone,
but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Then the devil took Him to the holy city and set Him on the pinnacle of the temple.
“If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw Yourself down. For it is written:
‘He will command His angels concerning You,
and they will lift You up in their hands,
so that You will not strike Your foot
against a stone.’”
Jesus replied, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
“All this I will give You,” he said, “if You will fall down and worship me.”
“Away from Me, Satan!” Jesus told him. “For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.’”
Then the devil left Him, and angels came and ministered to Him.
Similar threads
