The Rapture

[tomwebster]

If they are Hebrew assemblies why are they called churches?

The word ἐκκλησία ekklēsia can be translated either assembly or church. As you read Rev you will become aware of the Hebrew imagery, symbles, etc. They are Hebrew assemblies not Christian churches. The Christian Church is a product of Grace shortly after the beginning of the book of Rev. Grace comes to an end. The members of the Rev Assemblies are Christians but are now in the administration of Judgment.

 

[rockytopva]

The word ἐκκλησία ekklēsia can be translated either assembly or church. As you read Rev you will become aware of the Hebrew imagery, symbles, etc. They are Hebrew assemblies not Christian churches.

Revelation was written in the Greek. The title came into usage from the first word of the book in Koine Greek: apokalupsis, meaning "unveiling" or "revelation" ... Not the Hebrew

 

[tomwebster]

Revelation was written in the Greek. The title came into usage from the first word of the book in Koine Greek: apokalupsis, meaning "unveiling" or "revelation" ... Not the Hebrew

I am not talking about the language used for writing the book. I am talking about the time it is written to.

 

[rockytopva]

I am not talking about the language used for writing the book. I am talking about the time it is written to.

We are discussing the rapture on this thread. If you would like to start a new discussion please start a new thread.

 

[Joshua David]

Veteran,

[quote]'m aware brother of what the Pre-trib doctrine teaches, and where it orginated (1830's Britain)[/quote]

Well brother, it seems that you are unaware of the fact that the Pre-trib doctrine did not in fact originate in the 1830's with John Darby. There are at least 2 sources that talk about a pretrib doctrine before Darby. One is called The Shepherd of Hermas, written about 110 AD. It was in a bound book of New Testament writings called the Codex Sinaiticus. It has recently been translated into English.


This is an excerpt from the english translation

Now after I had passed by the wild beast, and had moved forward about thirty feet, lo! a virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber, clothed entirely in white, and with white sandals, and veiled up to her forehead, and her head was covered by a hood.s And she had white hair. I knew from my former visions that this was the Church, and I became more joyful. She saluted me, and said, "Hail, O man!" And I returned her salutation, and said, "Lady, hail!" And she answered. and said to me, "Has nothing crossed your path?" I say, "I was met by a beast of such a size that it could destroy peoples, but through the power of the Lord and His great mercy I escaped from it." "Well did you escape from it," says she, "because you cast your care on God, and opened your heart to the Lord, believing that you can be saved by no other than by His great and glorious name. On this account the Lord has sent His angel, who has rule over the beasts, and whose name is Thegri, and has shut up its mouth, so that it cannot tear you. You have escaped from great tribulation on account of your faith, and because you did not doubt in the presence of such a beast. Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart, and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your life in serving the Lord blamelessly. Cast your cares upon the Lord, and He will direct them. Trust the Lord, ye who doubt, for He is all-powerful, and can turn His anger away from you, and send scourges" on the doubters. Woe to those who hear these words, and despise them: better were it for them not to have been born."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html

Now I am NOT claiming that this work is inspired. Just that the concept of a pretribulation rapture did not originate with Darby.


The other source that I can think of is a book by Ephraim the Syrian titled 'On last times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World', written in 376.


This excerpt is found in section 2

See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: "Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!" For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/on-last-times-antichrist-and-end-of-world-english

Now again I am not claiming that either of these sources are inspired, but I am presenting them as proof that the doctrine of the Pre-tribulation rapture did not originate in 1830, nor am I disputing the fact that Darby did indeed popularize this doctrine. But popularizing and originating are two different things. Also, ultimately, even if Darby was the one who first preached the idea of the pre-tribulation rapture, ( he isn't but for the sake of argument) it still wouldn't matter, since as you so expertly put it, since it doesn't matter what man says or thinks, it is what the Word of God says.


Like I said, People are just regurgitating what they have read from other Post tribulation authors.

I'm also aware of how the Pre-trib doctrines teaches that the event of 1 Thess.4:16-17 is separate from the event in 1 Cor.15:51-54, but they are actually the same event,

That being your opinion does not make it so. I see it as two different events, you see it as one event. One does not disprove the other nor vise versa. Both are opinions whether you want to admit it or not.

If we were debating the post-trib vs. pre-trib issue, you would have already left the debate with those ideas, instead of staying within Scripture. It's not about what man says or thinks; it's about what God's Word says and staying with in It.

I agree.. I believe that the scriptures teaches a pretribulation rapture, and you believe that the scriptures teach a post tribulation rapture. You think this, I think that. You use scripture to support your position, I use scripture to support mine. But we both agree that it is what God's words says is what is really important.

No offense, but what's that got to do with the Scripture evidence? No sense in going that kind of thinking route if the object is to stay with the Scripture and allow God to speak for Himself. The correct view is what God and His Son said it is. No amount of dilly-dallying can change that. Either one accepts what He said, or they deny what He said to default to something else.

It has everything to do with scripture evidence, since it describes how most post tribulation rapture believes present their case scripturally, as I will show you later in this reply.

What you are actually suggesting, is that 'post-tribulationists' have more of a tendency to condemn 'pre-tribulationalists', and not the other way around. That's totally untrue.
And it's also an idea that completely leaves the object and tools of a debate, like The Scripture. What I've found, is that when you try to show a 'pre-tribulationist' simple direct Scripture that cannot be toyed with, like our Lord's declaration in Matthew 24 that His gathering of the saints is after the tribulation, then they get upset and begin getting personal. I even had one 'pre-tribulationalist' fellow start to strike me because of it. He showed actual hatred towards me just for showing him Scripture which countered the pre-trib idea.

What I was giving you was my experience has been. I am not saying that it was uncategorically true for everyone, just that based on my experience this seems to be the case. I believe I can find ample evidence on this website alone to back up my claim, if you wish. Now do you remember when I told you that I would get back to my example. This is exactly what I was talking about. You believe that Matt 24 proves your point, since it proves that Jesus returns after the tribulation period. Great! guess what, I believe Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation too. Jesus returning at the end of the tribulation does not prove a post tribulation rapture any more than Jesus returning at the end of the tribulation proves a pre-tribulation rapture. This is exactly what I was talking about in my example of John eating the sandwich. You believe John ate the sandwich, I believe John ate the sandwich, the only problem being is that you believe that just because you can prove that John ate the sandwich, that proves that John was outside first, and that is just not the case. Just because you can prove that Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation proves that the Rapture takes place at the exact same time.


[quote]Focus should be on Scripture in God's Word, not just what someone 'wants' to believe. And that's really what you're suggesting, the idea of 'wanting to believe an idea' instead of simply accepting what God's Word declares on the matter regardless how it makes us feel.[/quote]



I am so glad that you are such an expert on what I am suggesting. I may not feel comfortable in telling you that you are definitely wrong about the timing of the rapture, but I think I am pretty safe in saying that you are wrong in what I am suggesting. I have no problem accepting the idea of the Post Tribulation rapture, I really don't. Like I said, I have been wrong about things in the past, and have since changed my view on those things. I find it rare when a post tribulationist can get past Matt 24, even though it is something that we both agree that it is true.


Joshua David

 

[tomwebster]

We are discussing the rapture on this thread. If you would like to start a new discussion please start a new thread.

I am questioning your post and responding to you. Look at all of your posts on this topic and see how many of them are discussing "rapture," most of the time you are arguing with someone on a totally different subject than "rapture."

 

[rockytopva]

I am questioning your post and responding to you. Look at all of your posts on this topic and see how many of them are discussing "rapture," most of the time you are arguing with someone on a totally different subject than "rapture."

I have studied this stuff and have never heard anyone refer to the seven church's as Hebrew assemblies.

 

[tomwebster]

I have studied this stuff and have never heard anyone refer to the seven church's as Hebrew assemblies.

Well, keep your eyes and ears open because in the next few years you will hear a number of things you haven't seen or heard before.

 

[rockytopva]

The book of Revelation is written in metaphors... In which everyone who reads and attempts to understand this prophecy may see the metaphor differently than someone else. So I don't expect everyone to see the prophecy quite like I do. In which I acknowledged on my church ages video (My Take on the Churches) that and have issued this disclaimer...

No man knows exact prophetical dates, the full mystery of the ages, nor even yet the mystery of the last millennial, the author wishes those who read these prophesies to independent research (read Revelations and discern these things for yourself).

 

[Robbie]

One of the most interesting thing to me about the Book of Revelation.. is that it's not the book of revelation... it's the revelation of Jesus Christ... and how many other places it talks about the revelation of Jesus Christ... maybe if people saw it more in such a way it would make more sense to them...

Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—

and other places it's talked about...

1. Romans 16:25
   [ Benediction ] Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
   Romans 16:24-26 (in Context) Romans 16 (Whole Chapter)
2. 1 Corinthians 1:7
   so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,
   1 Corinthians 1:6-8 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 1 (Whole Chapter)
3. Galatians 1:12
   For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
   Galatians 1:11-13 (in Context) Galatians 1 (Whole Chapter)
4. Ephesians 1:17
   that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,
   Ephesians 1:16-18 (in Context) Ephesians 1 (Whole Chapter)
5. 1 Peter 1:7
   that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ,
   1 Peter 1:6-8 (in Context) 1 Peter 1 (Whole Chapter)
6. 1 Peter 1:13
   [ Living Before God Our Father ] Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
   1 Peter 1:12-14 (in Context) 1 Peter 1 (Whole Chapter)

 

[rockytopva]

In which, I am sure that Jesus looks down from heaven on this thread and says to himself... "These guys are amateur at best!" Haha!

 

[tomwebster]

...
No man knows exact prophetical dates, the full mystery of the ages, nor even yet the mystery of the last millennial, ...

If one studies all of Scripture and knows the signs and seasons you can come very close. And as time goes by we will even be able to know to the hour. It's in the Book! If you want to know more about the Millennium you could read Ezekiel.

 

[Rach1370]

None of this should matter any more....this Saturday is the end of the world, remember

 

[tomwebster]

None of this should matter any more....this Saturday is the end of the world, remember

But the fact of the matter is that Saturday is not the end so we need to continue to watch and prepare.

 

[aspen]

My Dad's birthday is the 21st........he always said, 'I brought you into this world and I can take you out!' - who knew?

 

[veteran]

Veteran,

Well brother, it seems that you are unaware of the fact that the Pre-trib doctrine did not in fact originate in the 1830's with John Darby. There are at least 2 sources that talk about a pretrib doctrine before Darby. One is called The Shepherd of Hermas, written about 110 AD. It was in a bound book of New Testament writings called the Codex Sinaiticus. It has recently been translated into English.

I'm aware there were 'suggestions' of the doctrine in past history, but not as an accepted doctrine of the Church in those times. But in 1830's Great Britain, with the Edward Irving movement, and John Darby's association with it coining the phrase "secret rapture", that's officially when a rare few whole Churches began accepting the idea of Christ coming 'secretly', to rapture His saints prior to the great tribulation. There was also a fellow back in history (Ephraime?) that toyed with the idea in an essay. It was not an accepted idea by the Church then either.

Now I am NOT claiming that this work is inspired. Just that the concept of a pretribulation rapture did not originate with Darby.

John Darby was the one who coined the phrase "secret rapture". The Pre-trib school today still accepts a portion of the meaning Darby gave that term. So, when talking about historical aspects of the doctrine, John Darby is important to the movement, as also Edward Irving and the Irvingite movement Darby got the ideas from.

The other source that I can think of is a book by Ephraim the Syrian titled 'On last times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World', written in 376.

There it is. That's the guy I was trying to remember. That still has nothing to do with Darby and the Edward Irving movement in 1830's Britain. As far as I know, Darby nor Irving ever used a previous history of the idea, especially since the Irving Church was claiming a brand new era of manifestation by The Holy Spirit with the "secret rapture" idea. Pulling up sources to show that someone long before may have also had the idea destroys the supposed authority those Churches in Britain claimed for the doctrine being from The Holy Spirit, and as a new thing happening in their day.

Now again I am not claiming that either of these sources are inspired, but I am presenting them as proof that the doctrine of the Pre-tribulation rapture did not originate in 1830, nor am I disputing the fact that Darby did indeed popularize this doctrine. But popularizing and originating are two different things. Also, ultimately, even if Darby was the one who first preached the idea of the pre-tribulation rapture, ( he isn't but for the sake of argument) it still wouldn't matter, since as you so expertly put it, since it doesn't matter what man says or thinks, it is what the Word of God says.

The later sources of the doctrine, like from Margaret McDonald were not "inspired" either. In a letter she even said herself what she felt when speaking the idea felt evil. (see Dave McPherson's The Incredible Cover-Up).

Like I said, People are just

regurgitating what they have read from other Post tribulation authors.

You mentioned two sources (FROM OTHER PRE-TRIB WRITERS) to try and prove earlier existence of the doctrine, which that's a common tool used by Pre-tribulationalists to try and show the idea had earlier credibility, when it actually reveals just how 'private' the idea really was among the very few. Yet Apostle Peter said no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Pet.1:19-20).

That being your opinion does not make it so. I see it as two different events, you see it as one event. One does not disprove the other nor vise versa. Both are opinions whether you want to admit it or not.

There's a difference with simply assigning it as an opinion vs. actually being able to back it up in The Scriptures, i.e., the idea of letting The Scriptures interpret Itself.

I agree.. I believe that the scriptures teaches a pretribulation rapture, and you believe that the scriptures teach a post tribulation rapture. You think this, I think that. You use scripture to support your position, I use scripture to support mine. But we both agree that it is what God's words says is what is really important.

Hardly. Like I said, there's a difference between assigned opinion and being able to allow Scripture to interpret Itself. With one who assigns opinion, they will always use that as an excuse for denial when they need it.

It has everything to do with scripture evidence, since it describes how most post tribulation rapture believes present their case scripturally, as I will show you later in this reply.

That's a straw man argument, "Well, Post-tribulationalists always do this, or do that...". That's not a valid example at revealing Biblical Truth, but only a stab at credibility in attempt to gain an audience. Like I said before, I've met pre-tribulationalists that got very angry when I simply got them to read Scripture that countered the pre-trib view. But are all, or even "most" pre-trib believers like that? How can one say yes to that and make oneself believable to others thereafter?

What I was giving you was my experience has been. I am not saying that it was uncategorically true for everyone, just that based on my experience this seems to be the case. I believe I can find ample evidence on this website alone to back up my claim, if you wish.

Looks like a draw then, because I could probably find you examples of pre-trib folks doing the same thing. Yet I refuse to assign that attitude to all on the pre-trib idea, because I know it's not true for all of either one.

Now do you remember when I told you that I would get back to my example. This is exactly what I was talking about. You believe that Matt 24 proves your point, since it proves that Jesus returns after the tribulation period.

Whoah! What our Lord Jesus said in Matthew 24 is not about me trying to prove how right I am. Our Lord Jesus made a direct statement, not a metaphorical or symbolic statement. It's about believing what He said to be true. It's about Him meaning what He said, and those in Him believing it.

Great! guess what, I believe Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation too. Jesus returning at the end of the tribulation does not prove a post tribulation rapture any more than Jesus returning at the end of the tribulation proves a pre-tribulation rapture.

Well, Jesus returning at the end of the tribulation AND gathering His saints then like He said, DOES prove a post-tribulational gathering of the saints. Nowhere did Christ say He was going to gather His saints PRIOR to that tribulation.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my example of John eating the sandwich. You believe John ate the sandwich, I believe John ate the sandwich, the only problem being is that you believe that just because you can prove that John ate the sandwich, that proves that John was outside first, and that is just not the case. Just because you can prove that Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation proves that the Rapture takes place at the exact same time.

Do you realize what your statement in bold is declaring? I'll let you think about that one. Maybe what you meant to say, that proving when our Lord Jesus returns after the tribulation does not prove that's when the rapture also happens too, right? If that's what you meant, then, don't forget to read Matthew 24:31 which is included in Christ's coming after that tribulation.

I am so glad that you are such an expert on what I am suggesting. I may not feel comfortable in telling you that you are definitely wrong about the timing of the rapture, but I think I am pretty safe in saying that you are wrong in what I am suggesting. I have no problem accepting the idea of the Post Tribulation rapture, I really don't. Like I said, I have been wrong about things in the past, and have since changed my view on those things. I find it rare when a post tribulationist can get past Matt 24, even though it is something that we both agree that it is true.

Joshua David

Well, what that shows is you're 'saying' you are not really sure per The Scripture just when Christ does return to gather His saints (per your statement in bold). Now what do you think that statement suggests? Have I misunderstood what you yourself said? I don't think I have.

I don't know what you mean by your statement that you "find it rare when a post tribulationalist can get past Matt 24", because it's obvious you and I do not agree on what our Lord Jesus said there. I do not agree He taught any pre-trib coming and gathering there. But I do agree our Lord Jesus was teaching a post-trib coming and gathering there in Matt.24.

 

[aspen]

I am learning a lot from this conversation.....

 

[Joshua David]

John Darby was the one who coined the phrase "secret rapture". The Pre-trib school today still accepts a portion of the meaning Darby gave that term. So, when talking about historical aspects of the doctrine, John Darby is important to the movement, as also Edward Irving and the Irvingite movement Darby got the ideas from.

I never said that John Darby was not important. Just that it did not originate with him. Let me try to explain something. Just because the early church believed or didn't believe something does not really influence my acceptance or rejection of an idea. The majority of the church at one time accepted replacement theology. Does this mean that I should accept it? I do not, as I consider this to be a heresy. Before the reformation there was a lot of things about Salvation that the church did not believe, that I do. The church used to believe that you had to confess your sins to a priest and only a priest could forgive them, I do not believe this. The church used to believe that it can sell sin 'indulgences', and you can have some of your sins forgiven by giving money to the church, I do not believe this. I am a protestant, not because I followed the history of the Protestant movement, and because of what some man in the movement might have said or done, but because the protestant churches for the most part teach what I believe to be true when compared to the Catholic church.

I do not consider myself to be in any denomination because I have yet to find one that believes exactly what I believe to be true. As far as John Darby is concerned, to be totally honest, I have never actually read anything that the man wrote. I don't use the term 'secret rapture'. And in fact, with only one exception, every single time I have seen that term used, it has been used by a Post tribulationist, as they talk about the pretrib rapture. They try to disprove that the rapture is secret as if that had any bearing on my understanding of scripture at all.

Let me address one more point and then hopefully we can move past the 'history' of the pretrib rapture. Margaret McDonald did not teach a pre-tribulation rapture. I would ask, have you ever read the actual 'prophecy' of Margaret McDonald or are you just repeating what other Posttribs have said? I found a copy of the entire vision on a post trib site, which is an excerpt from Dave Macpherson's ( A post tribulationist ) book 'The incredible coverup.' Hopefully this site is slanted enough in the Post tribulation arena that you will not claim that I got my information from a biased source.

I won't include the entire 'vision' here but you can read the entire vision at http://www.preterist...le-coverup.html

... I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived. - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will be shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - But the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth. and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive ... It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out. The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept. I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within - be clay in the hands of the potter - submit to be filled, filled with God This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the lamb. I saw It to be the will of God that all should be filled.



Yep, that fits right into the pretrib doctrine. I mean doesn't everyone know that Pretribbers teach that the people of God will be in awfully dangerous situations, to be tried, and many will be deceived and fall? Oh wait.. no that is the post tribulation people that believe that. Oh I know, the pretrib people must think that the fiery trial which shall come upon us will be 'The Wicked' with all power and signs and lying wonders.. no wait, that not us either, that is the post trib folks. Wait I got it.. the pretrib folks are going on and on about how the body of Jesus must be purged and purified by a fiery trial. No wait a minute, that's not us either, the pretrib folks claim that Jesus has already purified us with his blood. That is the post tribulation folks that claim that the church needs to be purified. WAIT...WAIT I got it, I got it.. The pretrib folks are saying that the trial of the Church is from the Antichrist! Right?? No... Oh that's right... that is the Post tribulation folks again.

Man, Veteran, I am sure glad you set me straight on that, now that I know where the pretrib doctrine comes from, I can rest easy. But seriously.. The 'vision' of Margaret MacDonald had nothing to do with the pretribulation rapture doctrine. In fact, I have yet to find one pre tribulationist who credits Margaret MacDonald with anything, much less relating to pretribulation rapture theory. It has been Post Tribulationist like Dave MacPherson who has made this claim, and as you can clearly see, it is a bunch of mess. I do try to be unbias as far as where I get my information, but I have found information on Post tribulation slanted sites to be lacking.

So to be honest, I don't care that the church has believed in a post tribulation rapture of the church. I see a distinction between Israel and the Church. I see that Jesus promised that he would keep the church from the trial that is about to come upon the entire earth. I believe that when Jesus said, "If I go away I will come again and recieve you unto myself. So that where I am you will be also." That is exactly what he meant. The tribulation has 3 purposes, 1) To purify an unbelieving Israel, so that her blindness will be removed and she will accept her messiah, 2) to awaken the undecided in one final attempt to draw them to God, and 3) To punish an unbelieving and rebellious world.

The church does not have any part in any of those three functions.

That's a straw man argument, "Well, Post-tribulationalists always do this, or do that...". That's not a valid example at revealing Biblical Truth, but only a stab at credibility in attempt to gain an audience. Like I said before, I've met pre-tribulationalists that got very angry when I simply got them to read Scripture that countered the pre-trib view. But are all, or even "most" pre-trib believers like that? How can one say yes to that and make oneself believable to others thereafter?

This comment actually made me laugh. First off, I did not say that Post Tribulationist always do this or do that, I said that most of them will just quote Matt 24 and think that this solves the issue. And not only that, but I later provided an example of you doing this exact thing. In case you missed it, let me repost it.

And it's also an idea that completely leaves the object and tools of a debate, like The Scripture. What I've found, is that when you try to show a 'pre-tribulationist' simple direct Scripture that cannot be toyed with, like our Lord's declaration in Matthew 24 that His gathering of the saints is after the tribulation, then they get upset and begin getting personal. I even had one 'pre-tribulationalist' fellow start to strike me because of it. He showed actual hatred towards me just for showing him Scripture which countered the pre-trib idea.

But what made me laugh was that you did the exact same thing that you condemn me for doing.

You mentioned two sources (FROM OTHER PRE-TRIB WRITERS) to try and prove earlier existence of the doctrine, which that's a common tool used by Pre-tribulationalists to try and show the idea had earlier credibility, when it actually reveals just how 'private' the idea really was among the very few. Yet Apostle Peter said no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation

Wouldn't you say that if most people are doing something, then this something would be considered common? So if most pretribs are doing this, then you can comment on it, but if I say that most post tribs are doing that, and give an example of you doing it, for me it is a strawman argument. Wow.. at least I was trying to add to the debate by providing references, I actually did look for a post trib site that mentioned pre Darby writings, but strangly enough they all said, Darby was the one who started it, just like you did. So forgive me for going to some sites that actually had the information. But then again, I guess if they actually published that there were writings of a pre trib rapture before Darby then they couldn't really claim that Darby came up with the concept now could they?

Looks like a draw then, because I could probably find you examples of pre-trib folks doing the same thing. Yet I refuse to assign that attitude to all on the pre-trib idea, because I know it's not true for all of either one.

Oh I am sure you could. But I could probably find MORE examples of condemnation coming from Post trib folks, than coming from pre trib folks. That was the point I was making. Now am I saying that this is true from all of either one, as you are implying I did? No absolutely not. And I dare you to find a quote of me saying such. If you do, then by all means quote it and I will come on here and issue an apology to each and every post tribulationist on this board.

Whoah! What our Lord Jesus said in Matthew 24 is not about me trying to prove how right I am. Our Lord Jesus made a direct statement, not a metaphorical or symbolic statement. It's about believing what He said to be true. It's about Him meaning what He said, and those in Him believing it.

And as I said many times in this debate, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT MATT 24. There is not a single pretribulationist I know, that does not believe that Jesus will return at the end of the tribulation. YES! John ate the sandwich! I don't know how to make this any clearer. I believe, I believe, I believe, by everything that I hold dear, I believe. Does that help?

Do you realize what your statement in bold is declaring? I'll let you think about that one. Maybe what you meant to say, that proving when our Lord Jesus returns after the tribulation does not prove that's when the rapture also happens too, right? If that's what you meant, then, don't forget to read Matthew 24:31 which is included in Christ's coming after that tribulation.

Well anyone who was following along with our conversation and looked at the context of my statement would know that I forgot to add in the words 'doesn't' as in "Just because you can prove that Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation doesn't prove that the Rapture takes place at the exact same time."

Yes I made a mistake. And I also believe that there is going to be a gathering at the end of the tribulation. A gathering from one end of Heaven from the other ( hmm... I wonder who is in Heaven at this point?) and a gathering of Israel and the Tribulation Saints on earth.

Well, what that shows is you're 'saying' you are not really sure per The Scripture just when Christ does return to gather His saints (per your statement in bold). Now what do you think that statement suggests? Have I misunderstood what you yourself said? I don't think I have.
I don't know what you mean by your statement that you "find it rare when a post tribulationalist can get past Matt 24", because it's obvious you and I do not agree on what our Lord Jesus said there. I do not agree He taught any pre-trib coming and gathering there. But I do agree our Lord Jesus was teaching a post-trib coming and gathering there in Matt.24.

No, what I am saying is that I realize that I am human, and that means that I could be wrong in what I believe the scriptures are saying. If I saw a compelling enough argument that addressed more of the questions that I have than a belief in a pre tribulation rapture, then you can rest assured, I would be one of the most ardent defenders of the Post Tribulationist doctrine that you have ever seen. But right now, there are just too many gaps that I see in the Post Tribulation rapture doctrine. The problem, and consider this a strawman if you want, most of the post tribulationist that I talk to can't understand my position enough to address my concerns. They think that Matt 24 should be enough for me. And like I said before, if you believe that Jesus is coming back at the end of the tribulation and I believe that Jesus is coming back at the end of the tribulation, proving that Jesus is coming back at the end of the tribulation isn't going to prove anything to me. It isn't going to sway me one bit.

Joshua David

 

[charlesj]

I never said that John Darby was not important. Just that it did not originate with him. Let me try to explain something. Just because the early church believed or didn't believe something does not really influence my acceptance or rejection of an idea. The majority of the church at one time accepted replacement theology. Does this mean that I should accept it? I do not, as I consider this to be a heresy. Before the reformation there was a lot of things about Salvation that the church did not believe, that I do. The church used to believe that you had to confess your sins to a priest and only a priest could forgive them, I do not believe this. The church used to believe that it can sell sin 'indulgences', and you can have some of your sins forgiven by giving money to the church, I do not believe this. I am a protestant, not because I followed the history of the Protestant movement, and because of what some man in the movement might have said or done, but because the protestant churches for the most part teach what I believe to be true when compared to the Catholic church.

I do not consider myself to be in any denomination because I have yet to find one that believes exactly what I believe to be true. As far as John Darby is concerned, to be totally honest, I have never actually read anything that the man wrote. I don't use the term 'secret rapture'. And in fact, with only one exception, every single time I have seen that term used, it has been used by a Post tribulationist, as they talk about the pretrib rapture. They try to disprove that the rapture is secret as if that had any bearing on my understanding of scripture at all.

Let me address one more point and then hopefully we can move past the 'history' of the pretrib rapture. Margaret McDonald did not teach a pre-tribulation rapture. I would ask, have you ever read the actual 'prophecy' of Margaret McDonald or are you just repeating what other Posttribs have said? I found a copy of the entire vision on a post trib site, which is an excerpt from Dave Macpherson's ( A post tribulationist ) book 'The incredible coverup.' Hopefully this site is slanted enough in the Post tribulation arena that you will not claim that I got my information from a biased source.

I won't include the entire 'vision' here but you can read the entire vision at http://www.preterist...le-coverup.html

... I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived. - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will be shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - But the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth. and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive ... It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out. The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept. I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within - be clay in the hands of the potter - submit to be filled, filled with God This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the lamb. I saw It to be the will of God that all should be filled.



Yep, that fits right into the pretrib doctrine. I mean doesn't everyone know that Pretribbers teach that the people of God will be in awfully dangerous situations, to be tried, and many will be deceived and fall? Oh wait.. no that is the post tribulation people that believe that. Oh I know, the pretrib people must think that the fiery trial which shall come upon us will be 'The Wicked' with all power and signs and lying wonders.. no wait, that not us either, that is the post trib folks. Wait I got it.. the pretrib folks are going on and on about how the body of Jesus must be purged and purified by a fiery trial. No wait a minute, that's not us either, the pretrib folks claim that Jesus has already purified us with his blood. That is the post tribulation folks that claim that the church needs to be purified. WAIT...WAIT I got it, I got it.. The pretrib folks are saying that the trial of the Church is from the Antichrist! Right?? No... Oh that's right... that is the Post tribulation folks again.

Man, Veteran, I am sure glad you set me straight on that, now that I know where the pretrib doctrine comes from, I can rest easy. But seriously.. The 'vision' of Margaret MacDonald had nothing to do with the pretribulation rapture doctrine. In fact, I have yet to find one pre tribulationist who credits Margaret MacDonald with anything, much less relating to pretribulation rapture theory. It has been Post Tribulationist like Dave MacPherson who has made this claim, and as you can clearly see, it is a bunch of mess. I do try to be unbias as far as where I get my information, but I have found information on Post tribulation slanted sites to be lacking.

So to be honest, I don't care that the church has believed in a post tribulation rapture of the church. I see a distinction between Israel and the Church. I see that Jesus promised that he would keep the church from the trial that is about to come upon the entire earth. I believe that when Jesus said, "If I go away I will come again and recieve you unto myself. So that where I am you will be also." That is exactly what he meant. The tribulation has 3 purposes, 1) To purify an unbelieving Israel, so that her blindness will be removed and she will accept her messiah, 2) to awaken the undecided in one final attempt to draw them to God, and 3) To punish an unbelieving and rebellious world.

The church does not have any part in any of those three functions.



This comment actually made me laugh. First off, I did not say that Post Tribulationist always do this or do that, I said that most of them will just quote Matt 24 and think that this solves the issue. And not only that, but I later provided an example of you doing this exact thing. In case you missed it, let me repost it.



But what made me laugh was that you did the exact same thing that you condemn me for doing.



Wouldn't you say that if most people are doing something, then this something would be considered common? So if most pretribs are doing this, then you can comment on it, but if I say that most post tribs are doing that, and give an example of you doing it, for me it is a strawman argument. Wow.. at least I was trying to add to the debate by providing references, I actually did look for a post trib site that mentioned pre Darby writings, but strangly enough they all said, Darby was the one who started it, just like you did. So forgive me for going to some sites that actually had the information. But then again, I guess if they actually published that there were writings of a pre trib rapture before Darby then they couldn't really claim that Darby came up with the concept now could they?



Oh I am sure you could. But I could probably find MORE examples of condemnation coming from Post trib folks, than coming from pre trib folks. That was the point I was making. Now am I saying that this is true from all of either one, as you are implying I did? No absolutely not. And I dare you to find a quote of me saying such. If you do, then by all means quote it and I will come on here and issue an apology to each and every post tribulationist on this board.



And as I said many times in this debate, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT MATT 24. There is not a single pretribulationist I know, that does not believe that Jesus will return at the end of the tribulation. YES! John ate the sandwich! I don't know how to make this any clearer. I believe, I believe, I believe, by everything that I hold dear, I believe. Does that help?



Well anyone who was following along with our conversation and looked at the context of my statement would know that I forgot to add in the words 'doesn't' as in "Just because you can prove that Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation doesn't prove that the Rapture takes place at the exact same time."

Yes I made a mistake. And I also believe that there is going to be a gathering at the end of the tribulation. A gathering from one end of Heaven from the other ( hmm... I wonder who is in Heaven at this point?) and a gathering of Israel and the Tribulation Saints on earth.




No, what I am saying is that I realize that I am human, and that means that I could be wrong in what I believe the scriptures are saying. If I saw a compelling enough argument that addressed more of the questions that I have than a belief in a pre tribulation rapture, then you can rest assured, I would be one of the most ardent defenders of the Post Tribulationist doctrine that you have ever seen. But right now, there are just too many gaps that I see in the Post Tribulation rapture doctrine. The problem, and consider this a strawman if you want, most of the post tribulationist that I talk to can't understand my position enough to address my concerns. They think that Matt 24 should be enough for me. And like I said before, if you believe that Jesus is coming back at the end of the tribulation and I believe that Jesus is coming back at the end of the tribulation, proving that Jesus is coming back at the end of the tribulation isn't going to prove anything to me. It isn't going to sway me one bit.

Joshua David

Hello Joshua David:

Here is a good site http://www.bible.ca/rapture.htm


Your servant in Messiah,
charlesj

 

[Joshua David]

Hello Joshua David:

Here is a good site http://www.bible.ca/rapture.htm


Your servant in Messiah,
charlesj

Well I went to the site... I will look over it in detail but when the first point that is made on the site is ...

[font="Calibri]1.[/font] [font="Calibri]Rapture doctrine is widely believed today, but it did not exist before it [url="http://www.bible.ca/rapture-origin-john-nelson-darby-1830ad.htm"]“popped” into John Darby’s head in 1830 AD[/url]. If you believe in the Rapture, you probably wrongly assumed it was a historic Bible doctrine, when in fact it was born in the era of the cults (1830-1880 AD).[/font]
[font="Calibri] [/font]
[font="Calibri][size="3"]And I have already proven that statement to be false, I do not hold much hope.. So far it just looks like your standard Post tribulation arguments. I wonder how long it will take him to get to Matt 24.

Well I was wrong.. it bypasses Matt 24 all together. Sorry any site that deny's Christ's literally return makes Christ out to be a liar, and I won't read that mess. I see Replacement theology, and amillenniumism and sorry there are too many scriptures that this site directly contradicts for me to take it seriously.[/size][/font]
[font="Calibri][size=2]
[/size][/font]
[font="Calibri][/font][font="Calibri][size=2]But thank you for at least trying.
[/size][/font][font="Calibri] [/font]
[font="Calibri][size="3"]Joshua David
[/size][/font]