The Case for a Post-Tribulation Second Coming

[CrowCross]

"Sun darkened" (Joel 2:31, Matthew 24:29, Acts 2:20, Revelation 6:12, Isaiah 13:10) refers to a lunar eclipse. There was a similar lunar eclipse when Jesus was crucified in April 3, 33 A.D. (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44).

"Lunar" stems from Latin luna= "moon."
"Eclipse" stems from Greek εκλειψις (ekleipsis) = "failure to appear."

The eclipse narrative...

Matt 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.
Note: The sixth hour is 12:00.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour

This would be 3 hours of "darkness".....12:00PM to 3:00PM. An eclipse can take 2 to 3 hours from start to finish and "totality" typically last from a few seconds to 7 1/2 minutes. This doesn't seem to match the description

I also check my astronomy program....sky safari pro...and there was no eclipse on 4-3-33 that could be seen from Jerusalem. A Google search also showed no eclipse.

 

[CrowCross]

Correct.
Acts one really gets em going with creativity and bible changes.

It is so nice and beautiful to be in sound doctrine that requires no changes to acts 1, mat 24, mat 25, rev 13, rev 19, the last supper dialogue, and the 2 escape verses.

Whew, what a postrib rapture train wreck.

One would think if Jesus left in such a spectacular manner Mark and Luke would have mentioned it. Luke even had 2 chances to mention the white horse.

Mark 16:19 says.....19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God

Luke 24:51 puts it this way......And it came to pass, in His blessing them, that He was separated from them and was carried up into heaven.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Besides not leaving on a white horse...Jesus didn't leave in the spectacular way in which He returns in Rev 19.

LOL. You just don't get it. The only thing described in Acts 1:9-11 about the manner in which He left was that it was bodily and visible (people literally saw Him ascending). So, He will return in that manner. It's not saying His return will be exactly the same as His ascension in every possible way. You are reading that into the text in order to support your pre-trib theory.

Secondly, when Jesus left He didn't leave when " sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken" as mentioned in Matt 24.

I'm simply telling you what the bible says...If you don't want to properly apply hermeneutics...then have at it.

LOL. You clearly have no understanding at all of how to properly apply hermeneutics. Adding things to the text in Acts 1:9-11 beyond what the context indicates is not a case of properly applying hemeneutics.

 

[CrowCross]

LOL. You just don't get it.

That's a pretty rude way to start a response. In fact that's where I stopped reading your reply.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Correct.
Acts one really gets em going with creativity and bible changes.

LOL. No one is changing anything. Yet another false accusation from you. You act as if Acts 1:9-11 means that if Jesus is described as coming on a white horse or with angels or any other details related to His return that aren't mentioned in Acts 1:11 then that doesn't match the way He left, so you conclude that means Matthew 24:30-31 and Revelation 19:11-21 can't be referring to the return of Christ that Acts 1:11 references. That is completely ridiculous. When He returns with His angels and on a white horse (not meant to be taken literally) it will be bodily and visible in the same manner in which He left. There is no requirement for Him to have left with His angels or on a white horse or anything like that in order for Matthew 24:30-31 and Revelation 19:11-21 to refer to the same coming of Christ as Acts 1:11 does. The only requirement is that He comes from heaven visibly and bodily just as He ascended to heaven visibly and bodily.

If Jesus was going to descend from heaven twice in the future, then why did Paul never teach that? He taught that Jesus will be descending from heaven ONCE and describes it in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 and never teaches that He would later descend from heaven again. If Jesus was going to descend from heaven twice in the future, as you falsely believe, then I'm sure Paul would have taught that. But, he did not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's a pretty rude way to start a response. In fact that's where I stopped reading your reply.

I couldn't care less if you reply to me or not. I'm tired of your nonsense, anyway. I can't take you seriously. And, naturally, you wouldn't find it to be rude to laugh at my post where I questioned why you just posted a verse without any commentary. No, that wasn't rude at all, right? Stop being a hypocrite and grow up. This forum is for adults.