|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Support for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: In other words rather than defend your assertions you are going to run away. Which makes it rather clear that all you have is things your sources tell you, and we’ve already seen that many of them do not stand up to examination. And really if the context does make it obvious that the Olivet Discourse doesn’t refer to the then current generation you should be able to point out at least some of the features that support that view. If you can’t see them, they cannot be obvious.
quote: Since I’ve clearly looked at it more than you, you aren’t really in a position to make that claim. The more so since you can’t support it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
The introduction has Jesus saying that the Herodian Temple will be destroyed (v2). They move on, but Peter, James, John and Andrew ask him to explain when that will occur (v3-4).
It starts off with Jesus warning them of bad things that are going to happen, and telling the disciples that they must go out and preach and they will be persecuted for it. Things kick into a higher gear in verse 14: When they see the Abomination of Desolation - a reference to Daniel - those in Judaea must flee to the mountains. The Abomination should be in the Temple - which should still be standing. After all the destruction is what this is all about. Daniel 12:11 is relevant:
11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Which fits into the seventy weeks of Daniel 9. This is the Tribulation. The next verses emphasise how bad it will be. I’ll quote 19-20 to make the point.
19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. 20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. So the Tribulation is in full swing and the Temple hasn’t been destroyed (and there’s no mention of a Rapture). Jesus is still addressing the Disciples as if they will see it. Then we get the cosmic signs and the Son of Man arrives (another Daniel reference, although slightly distorted 7:13-14).
24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Still no mention of the Temple being destroyed. This is really the end of the events, so presumably the Temple is destroyed at this point. Jesus goes on with the parable of the Fig Tree, which is where the generation comes in:
28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: 29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. 30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Again, Jesus addresses the Disciples as if they will be there - when they see the signs, they will know that the end is near, and if they can endure through it they will be saved. Reading it as the present generation is the natural reading (in English that would be used to indicate some other), it is consistent also with the expectation that the Disciples will see it, and it emphasise the nearness of the event - a point seen elsewhere. Reading it as some future generation denies these indicators and diminishes it - if it will be only a few years from the Abomination to the end as Daniel says, then it is redundant to say that that will be within a generation. Yet there are no clear signs before then - we’ve had lots of wars, earthquakes and famines and we can’t pin them down to say that only one generation will see them, and the end. Also the fate of the Herodian Temple is very problematic to the idea that the prophecy must be true. The time of the Temple’s destruction is the main point of the Discourse, it can’t go unremarked right at the beginning. That is not a viable reading, So we are left with the Temple certainly surviving until the start of the Tribulation and likely through it. The Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Revelation 4 leads into Revelation 5, so it represents the situation just prior to opening the Seven Seals.
quote: It seems pretty clear that it doesn’t represent the Rapture. The lack of any mention of the Rapture in Revelation is a major problem to the pre-Trib Rapture so they desperately cast around for something. But if we take a bit of the framing as prophecy and John for the Church, why stop there?
quote: I suspect that they have reasons, and they aren’t likely to be much worse than the pre-Trib Rapture people’s reasons. You’ve never made the argument about Revelation 5 (which is odd because I can see an argument there which is better than most of them - but still with a significant problem). Further, as I have pointed out there are good reasons in the Revelation to doubt it. However, there are better readings. For instance the multitude of Revelation 7 is likely meant to be the survivors of the Church, rescued from the Tribulation. The description matches that of the church (7:9 and 5:9). They are only taken to be others because of the pre-Tribulation Rapture is assumed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: If you are reduced to using such strained readings as evidence you are desperate. There is no other reason to do it.
quote: The reason the likely references to the Church on Earth are rejected is the idea of a pre-Tribulation Rapture. So trying to use that as evidence for a pre-Tribulation Rapture is just begging the question.
quote: And the references in Revelation 4 and 5 are questionable interpretations - which do not fit well with other parts of the text.
quote: The souls of the martyrs are not identified as bring only those martyred in the Seal Judgements. There is no clear identification of the armies of Heaven in Revelation 20 (and if they are meant to be human they are very likely the multitude from Revelation 7)
quote: GDR provided a good answer by N T Wright (Message 138)and if the Rapture is the gathering of the Elect they would go up and come down - but not in the same place. The Elect have to be transported somehow - why not by being caught up in the air?
quote: Only the armies that oppose Jesus are killed in Revelation 20, so there can be surviving unbelievers. Moreover, there is no general resurrection of believers until after the Millenium - so the Rapture and the transformation would seem to occur then.
quote: There is no mention of the Church reigning unless you mean the resurrected martyrs (only they and Jesus get to reign). And I really don’t think that he who shall endure to the end means he who sits it out in heaven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The idea that it refers to the Rapture is obviously strained.
quote: Even if that were true it is still highly strained. in reality the case is so weak supporters are reduced to clutching at straws - and this is an example.
quote: That is not a fact, it is based on the assumption of a pre-Tribulation Rapture and hence cannot support it.
quote: It is not at all strained.
quote: These are more strained than the idea that the multitude is the Church!
quote: I.e. it’s a mess of assumptions that don’t fit well with the rest of the text.
quote: Again that is obviously false - the idea that John being called up to Heaven refers to the Rapture is strained even if you follow the rest of the case. It is clearly part of the framing, it does not closely resemble the Rapture, you’ve made no case for John representing the Church, nor explained why we should take this action as referring to an event. Are all Johns actions to be taken as representing events in the story? Or, if it is only some why those, not others? Without that it is just obvious clutching at straws, a desperate attempt to deny the fact that the Rapture is not mentioned and there is no Resurrection until after Jesus return - and even that only covers a minority of Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It is a matter of fact that your evidence relies on questionable interpretations- when it isn’t begging the question by assuming a pre-Trib Rapture. It is a matter of fact that you have yet to address the problem of the resurrections of Revelation 20. And that all means that it is a matter of fact that you did not make a good case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Revelation 20 is quite clear on the point., as I’ve shown. Maybe I’ll look to see if MacArthur has come up with genuine contradictions, but I doubt it. Someone who claims that John’s entry into heaven in Revelation 4 is the Rapture is not someone to be taken seriously.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It’s not even slightly convincing taken in context either.
quote: Obviously it can simply be a part of the framing - John goes up to Heaven in his vision to see what will happen there. That is the natural reading and the only aspect that can even possibly resemble the Rapture is John - one person alone going up to Heaven. And the Rapture quite likely isn’t even intended to refer to ascending to Heaven. Noe if you had a scheme of interpretation - rules for interpreting Revelation - that made sense - then you might have a point. But forcing everything into the mould of the pre-Trib Rapture is not a sensible scheme.
quote: It doesn’t matter how many people fall for silly nonsense, it’s still silly nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I wouldn’t worry. Even by the dodgy interpretations favoured by Faith and her like you still need the Jewish Temple to be rebuilt and the Roman Empire to come back. Neither is likely in the immediate future. The second isn’t likely at all (maybe if Italy goes Fascist again, but even that’s only a start).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I haven’t seen any. I’ve made better arguments.
First of all, if you examine all of the Old Testament prophecies that deal with the Tribulation, the Church is never mentioned once. If you look at all the New Testament prophecies that deal with the Tribulation, the Church is not mentioned once. The Church isn’t mentioned in the OT at all. So that’s a red herring.
In 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 Thessalonians 5:9, we are told that the Church will be delivered from the wrath to come. Now there are a couple points to make there. The wrath to come is not just general wrath that we all experience. Rather, it is a specific period of wrath. It is the wrath to come which we Christians are to be delivered from it But there are also indications that the Church will be around during the Tribulation. And that the Rapture occurs with the Second Coming - or later if you want to try and fit Revelation 20 into it. And Revelation 20 really blows it out of the water. And really what makes you think that God can’t find an alternative way of protecting Christians? (One reading of the Revelation 2-3 material is that you all get martyred or apostatise) Besides, as I’ve pointed out the Olivet Discourse - in all three versions puts the Tribulation before the destruction of the Herodian Temple. Which happened 1950 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: And since there is no sign of either the Temple being rebuilt - which will take years - or the revived Roman Empire which supposedly will rule - it seems very likely that he isn’t the AntiChrist.
quote: Since all you will give us of the Biblical arguments is your opinion - and you are clearly incapable of recognising a good case - the second argument being an example - that really isn’t much to go on, the more so since it will apply every bit as much to the next Pope and the next.
quote: And these are mere superstition. The last being particularly risible since nobody would write the time as 6:66. Why write one of the hours - and only one - as 60 minutes ?
quote: Donald Trump is a far better candidate for the latter (and looking at your contributions to the political threads it seems likely that you support him because of that). Indeed Francis seems to be more Christian than many Popes, though I wouldn’t expect you to understand that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 7:06 am could. 11:06 am would be 666 minutes which avoids the inconsistency of treating one hour differently.
quote: Like the Europa statue which was significant because it was a woman on a beast and for no other reason. I guess it’s part of the superstitious mindset to seize on such things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
You’re a really big fan of finding the meaning you want, whether it’s there or not. That’s one reason why you are so often wrong - often obviously wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Do you really believe that none of the previous apocalyptic movements in Christianity - none of them - found equally unBiblical and insignificant signs ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: How can he be when the end times are in the latter days of the Diadochi Kingdoms (Daniel 8) and the Tribulation occurs before the destruction of the Herodian Temple (Mark 13, Matthew 24 and especially Luke 21) ? And, of course, since there is no reason to believe it even could occur in the next few years, the logic surely indicates that Francis is not the AntiChrist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024