Biblical Support for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture

quote:

---

I get so tired of having everything I say, that comes from reputable Christian sources, called false and wrong and a ***, I don't want to continue.

---

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:

---

No your reading is NOT true to the scripture, you are just deceiving yourself

---

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.

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: 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. 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). 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: 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.

quote:

---

As I've noted in a post or two here I've had lots of questions about the prophecies related to the end times that have been getting answered bit by bit as I listen to different preachers on them. New questions come up anyway, but I just answered one myself listening to Missler. First both he and MacArthur say that the Book of Revelation from Chapter Four on is yet future, which was something I hadn't been sure about before, since there are those who interpret it as occurring throughout history

---

Revelation 4 leads into Revelation 5, so it represents the situation just prior to opening the Seven Seals.

quote:

---

But if Chapter Four shows the Rapture then of course it's all future since the Rapture hasn't yet occurred in history.

---

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:

---

But if Chapter Four shows the Rapture then of course it's all future since the Rapture hasn't yet occurred in history. So I had to first come to accept that the Rapture is indicated by John's being called up to heaven in that chapter. Chapters four and five show the Church in heaven, so if it is a picture of Chrsitians there after the Rapture, then the seven seals of the scroll haven't yet been opened and will be opened at that time, and since everything from Chapter Six through Eighteen is the judgments on the Earth that have been sealed up in that scroll until that time, then all that is also yet future, and those who think it is just ongoing history are missing the clues.

---

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.

quote:

---

Nobody's desperate and there's no need for desperation. If it isn't there it isn't there, so what?

---

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 it is considered to be there is that there is no mention of the Church on Earth from Revelation 4 on.

---

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:

---

The Church is pictured in heaven in 4 and 5, and from 6 on we see the judgments on the earth starting in that Chapter with the first six seals.

---

And the references in Revelation 4 and 5 are questionable interpretations - which do not fit well with other parts of the text.

quote:

---

I always assumed the martyrs under the altar when the fifth seal is opened were the Church, but although they are believers who were martyred in the seal judgments they aren't necessarily the Church, and since we see the Church coming with Jesus in Chapter 20 after all the judgments are finished, it's got to be a separate group

---

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:

---

I finally understood that the Rapture can't come at the Second Coming because it would have no meaning at all then. Going up to meet Him to come back down is an empty movement

---

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:

---

And as MacArthur points out, if all believers ascend to meet Him in the air, and all the unbelievers are killed, there would be nobody to populate the Millennium, which is the next event on the schedule.

---

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:

---

The problem with that idea is that the Church has been promised that we will not have to experience God's wrath, which is what the Tribulation is, because Jesus took God's wrath into Himself in our place, and being Raptured off the Earth is the only way we can be protected from it since the entire Earth will be engulfed in it. So the multitude can't be the Church. It has to be a different set of people who come to belief during the Tribulation and go on to repopulate the Earth during the thousand year reign of Christ, with the Church reigning with Him

---

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.

quote:

---

Are you referring to the idea that John's being called up to heaven in Chapter 4 is strained?

---

The idea that it refers to the Rapture is obviously strained.

quote:

---

But since bit by bit other parts of the interpretations were making good sense eventually the most difficult parts of it fit in as well.

---

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:

---

After hearing a few teachers discuss the view in their own different ways I started to appreciate the different factors such as that the Church really is absent from the Earth in Revelation 6 to 18.

---

That is not a fact, it is based on the assumption of a pre-Tribulation Rapture and hence cannot support it.

quote:

---

What is strained is efforts some make to prove the Church is there, such as your idea that the "great multitude" of Revelation 7 is the Church.

---

It is not at all strained.

quote:

---

Two things make that unlikely: the fact that the Church comes back with Jesus in Revelation 20 and the fact that the Church is not to go through God's wrath because jesus took that wrath upon Himself so that we would not have to suffer it.

---

These are more strained than the idea that the multitude is the Church!

quote:

---

The point is all the parts work together and define each other

---

I.e. it’s a mess of assumptions that don’t fit well with the rest of the text.

quote:

---

None of this is put together in one place, the parts have to be separately appreciated, which takes hearing the relevant scriptures over and over. THEN the parts that seem particularly "strained," such as equating the Rapture with John's being called up to heaven in Chapter 4 are seen to fit into the overall interpretation. There is no strain then, it's all a whole.

---

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.

quote:

---

Whatever, PaulK, I disagree strongly and think I made a good case for the Pre Trib point of view, but I know you are just not going to be persuaded and are going to persist with your own judgments, contradicting everything I say anyway. Fine, whatever.

---

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.

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.

quote:

---

Yes, if you keep taking it out of context John's being called up to heaven doesn't seem very convincing as a representation of the Rapture.

---

It’s not even slightly convincing taken in context either.

quote:

---

I thought it untenable too at first. I've had to grow into this whole system and now it's the only thing it COULD mean.

---

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:

---

Also, MacArthur is far from the only one to hold this view. I've also been listening to a Gil Rugh at Sermon Audio on the Pre Trib Rapture and he's very good too. There are others but I'm trying to find the clearest presentations for now. MacArthur is a very gifted teacher and is VERY clear even when I don't agree with things he says.

---

It doesn’t matter how many people fall for silly nonsense, it’s still silly nonsense.

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).

quote:

---

They have decent arguments.

---

I haven’t seen any. I’ve made better arguments. The Church isn’t mentioned in the OT at all. So that’s a red herring. 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.

quote:

---

Want to come back to one of the points I started out with, that's my own thought as far as I know: the idea that the Rapture could be very close just because this current Pope is so old. If he's the Antichrist of Revelation it can't be too far away.

---

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:

---

I accept this idea because the Protestant Reformers made a good biblical case for the Pope as the Antichrist, also because of the calculation that the Roman numerals in "Vicarivs Filii Dei," meaning "In the place of the Son of God" which is as good as saying "Antichrist," which is a title of the Pope, add up to 666.

---

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:

---

Also there are what can only be regarded as signs given when this latest Pope, Francis, was elected which seem pretty telling to me: lightning hitting St. Peter's when the previous Pope resigned, a seagull sitting on the chimney where the smoke emerges to indicate whether or not a new Pope has been elected, then the fact that he was elected on 3/13/13 at 7:06 PM local time which can be written 6:66.

---

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:

---

... Unusual events all, it seems to me. Not to mention that he deviates from Christian doctrine farther than any other Pope I'm aware of, and deserves to be called the "man of lawlessness" who is to be revealed at the beginning of the Tribulation.

---

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.

quote:

---

As PaulK said, of course nobody writes 7:06 as 6:66. but there is no other time that COULD be written that way

---

7:06 am could. 11:06 am would be 666 minutes which avoids the inconsistency of treating one hour differently.

quote:

---

Perhaps I'm overly impressed with such oddities, but for now they all fit together in a way that is hard for me to ignore.

---

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.

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.

Do you really believe that none of the previous apocalyptic movements in Christianity - none of them - found equally unBiblical and insignificant signs ?

quote:

---

But you are missing the point. I don't have a date in mind at all, just the fact that if Francis is the Antichrist of the end times, since he's an old man it can't be far off.

---

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.