ghtan

Is there any evidence in the text of Rev 1 that Jesus was actually in heaven when he 'appeared' to John on earth? Is there any other occasion in the NT where Jesus was in one place but 'appeared' to someone else in another place? Is God omnipresent? The issue is not whether Jesus COULD HAVE remained in heaven when he appeared to John on earth; the issue is whether he DID. Unless you can provide evidence from the text to support your belief that he did - re my two questions earlier - we ought to take the text at face value i.e. Jesus was there IN PERSON when he visited John. But I suspect you already realise that. I think whether he could have is very relevant. Are you asking me to find something in Revelation where Jesus tells John, "Oh, and by the way, I'm still in heaven in case you were wondering."? What I do know is that Jesus is God and God is omnipresent and those two facts are relevant. I don't need an explicit statement from the text when those two facts support the possibility. John says that he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's day" at the time of the revelation. Doesn't that give it a spiritual context to start with? When I put on immortality and understand fully then I'll be in a better position to answer your question. Until then, there's no point in debating something we're incapable of completely understanding (the trinity, election / free will, etc.). Jesus' staying in heaven until the restoration speaks to a specific purpose. I see it as pertaining to this, at least for starters: So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Acts 1:6 Jesus ascended and the seven spirits of God have been active around the world since, convincing people of sin, as the gospel is preached in every nation. The Holy Spirit continues convincing the world of sin until the point of demarcation, the seventh trumpet, when Jesus takes over governance of the earth and restores the kingdom to Israel. Eventually Jesus hands the kingdom back to the Father and God becomes all in all. That's what I see as the restoration of all things. It begins at the seventh trumpet. Thanks for confirming that you cannot find anything in Rev 1 to indicate that Jesus was still in heaven when he appeared to John on earth, but that you base your view on the omnipresence of God. I thought I had missed out something in the text and hence it is important for me to know that I have not. I find it more fruitful to let Revelation speak for itself without imposing anything from outside. Take care.

Concerning Acts 23:11, Acts 9:3, and Revelation 1:9, those were appearances. Nothing in those verses indicates a return or an ascension. I am confused by the above. Wasn't John on earth in Rev 1:9? And doesn't v 17 say Jesus placed his right hand on John? Shouldn't the latter mean Jesus was actually there with John? I think that is the natural way to read it, and it shows Jesus has come back down to earth since his ascension, at least on that occasion to visit John. Logically, Jesus as God is sovereign. Who are we to tell him how often he can come back down to earth? His Second Coming will be visible to all, but it does not stop him from making less conspicuous visits earlier. Why the confusion? As mortals we are confined to being at one point at any given time. Are you thinking that God is likewise confined? The question for this thread, I guess, is "Can Jesus appear on earth without leaving heaven?" Is there any evidence in the text of Rev 1 that Jesus was actually in heaven when he 'appeared' to John on earth? Is there any other occasion in the NT where Jesus was in one place but 'appeared' to someone else in another place? Is God omnipresent? The issue is not whether Jesus COULD HAVE remained in heaven when he appeared to John on earth; the issue is whether he DID. Unless you can provide evidence from the text to support your belief that he did - re my two questions earlier - we ought to take the text at face value i.e. Jesus was there IN PERSON when he visited John. But I suspect you already realise that.

Concerning Acts 23:11, Acts 9:3, and Revelation 1:9, those were appearances. Nothing in those verses indicates a return or an ascension. I am confused by the above. Wasn't John on earth in Rev 1:9? And doesn't v 17 say Jesus placed his right hand on John? Shouldn't the latter mean Jesus was actually there with John? I think that is the natural way to read it, and it shows Jesus has come back down to earth since his ascension, at least on that occasion to visit John. Logically, Jesus as God is sovereign. Who are we to tell him how often he can come back down to earth? His Second Coming will be visible to all, but it does not stop him from making less conspicuous visits earlier. Why the confusion? As mortals we are confined to being at one point at any given time. Are you thinking that God is likewise confined? The question for this thread, I guess, is "Can Jesus appear on earth without leaving heaven?" Is there any evidence in the text of Rev 1 that Jesus was actually in heaven when he 'appeared' to John on earth? Is there any other occasion in the NT where Jesus was in one place but 'appeared' to someone else in another place?

Concerning Acts 23:11, Acts 9:3, and Revelation 1:9, those were appearances. Nothing in those verses indicates a return or an ascension. I am confused by the above. Wasn't John on earth in Rev 1:9? And doesn't v 17 say Jesus placed his right hand on John? Shouldn't the latter mean Jesus was actually there with John? I think that is the natural way to read it, and it shows Jesus has come back down to earth since his ascension, at least on that occasion to visit John. Logically, Jesus as God is sovereign. Who are we to tell him how often he can come back down to earth? His Second Coming will be visible to all, but it does not stop him from making less conspicuous visits earlier.

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. I've done some house-keeping above. Hope that is fine with you. Why provide evidence against until there is evidence for? If someone comes to me and say the rapture occurs during the millennium, I would expect him or her to show that Revelation does mention or imply a rapture at the appropriate juncture in the text. The process should not begin with me having to prove that such a rapture cannot exist. Same here. I am glad you have found an approach that suits you. I am all for trying new approaches. That said, if your approach results in placing the ch 7 multitude on earth despite the text saying they are in heaven, does that not call into question the approach itself? Hmm. So let me see if I understand you right. You're basically saying that you make a claim without explaining and I ask if you would explain and now it's up to me to explain my position? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your thinking. To be honest your reasoning up to this point is a little confusing. Did you have a basis for making that statement or not? If so why don't you just say what it is? The only other thing I can think of is that I've misunderstood you and you weren't actually making a claim, just pointing out that you weren't aware of any such support for post-trib in Rev. I think some clarification is needed here. Well, if you want to set aside the other pointers in chapter 7 and the whole of Rev you could deduce that the vision is being shown just before the GT begins. However it's no stretch at all, in my opinion, to simply deduce, since the vision is showing the multitude that went through great tribulation, that the time period of the vision is of the multitudes in heaven after the rapture. After all, according to the passage they already went through great tribulation, and we know that the GT happens during the second half of the 7 years. There's no reason I can see that this couldn't be the time period that John is being shown. It would be the easiest and clearest way to go about it when everyone is gathered together in one place after the rapture rather than scattered all over the world before the GT begins if one assumes a post-trib rapture. But again, if you rely solely on how it reads naturally, then I could see that you could read it that way. Oh, and thanks for the house-keeping! Surprisingly, I think we may be making some progress. It appears you now agree the ch 7 multitude is the raptured church in heaven. (See the first statement I underlined above.) However, why then do you see this as a post-trib rapture if the GT is still to follow (see second underlined statement)? I think if you reread what I already wrote in the above paragraph that you are commenting on you will find the answer to your question. To shift gears a bit, the original intent of my asking you about your claim was to get a better understanding of a mid-trib interpretation. So I hope you don't mind if I jot down what I know about it and let you make any necessary corrections and fill in the missing gaps. I would be grateful if you would oblige me on this. So far, what I know about the mid-trib rapture is according to the interpretation the last 7 years is all part of the tribulation. The first half is sort of a general trib, and the last half is the GT. The saints will be raptured at the end of the first half of the 7. I'm not sure but there may be some others rapture at the end of the 7? (144,000?) So far I've heard about the passage in Rev 7 we've been discussing and chapter 12 that has two mentions of 3.5 years of persecution as support for it. Can you let me know what other verses there are that support it? Thanks. Why seek more evidence unless you can explain ch 7?

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. I've done some house-keeping above. Hope that is fine with you. Why provide evidence against until there is evidence for? If someone comes to me and say the rapture occurs during the millennium, I would expect him or her to show that Revelation does mention or imply a rapture at the appropriate juncture in the text. The process should not begin with me having to prove that such a rapture cannot exist. Same here. I am glad you have found an approach that suits you. I am all for trying new approaches. That said, if your approach results in placing the ch 7 multitude on earth despite the text saying they are in heaven, does that not call into question the approach itself? Hmm. So let me see if I understand you right. You're basically saying that you make a claim without explaining and I ask if you would explain and now it's up to me to explain my position? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your thinking. To be honest your reasoning up to this point is a little confusing. Did you have a basis for making that statement or not? If so why don't you just say what it is? The only other thing I can think of is that I've misunderstood you and you weren't actually making a claim, just pointing out that you weren't aware of any such support for post-trib in Rev. I think some clarification is needed here. Well, if you want to set aside the other pointers in chapter 7 and the whole of Rev you could deduce that the vision is being shown just before the GT begins. However it's no stretch at all, in my opinion, to simply deduce, since the vision is showing the multitude that went through great tribulation, that the time period of the vision is of the multitudes in heaven after the rapture. After all, according to the passage they already went through great tribulation, and we know that the GT happens during the second half of the 7 years. There's no reason I can see that this couldn't be the time period that John is being shown. It would be the easiest and clearest way to go about it when everyone is gathered together in one place after the rapture rather than scattered all over the world before the GT begins if one assumes a post-trib rapture. But again, if you rely solely on how it reads naturally, then I could see that you could read it that way. Oh, and thanks for the house-keeping! Surprisingly, I think we may be making some progress. It appears you now agree the ch 7 multitude is the raptured church in heaven. (See the first statement I underlined above.) However, why then do you see this as a post-trib rapture if the GT is still to follow (see second underlined statement)?

Ghtan you claimed that there is no evidence for a post-trib rapture in Rev, did you not? The point I'm trying to make is that if you already believe the rapture happens after a period of trib that occurs in the first 3.5 years of the 7, and not pre-trib at the beginning of the 7, seems natural to assume that if you were to remove just the part of your interpretation about the rapture happening mid-trib you would be left with a post-trib interpretation. So it makes no sense to me that you would make such a claim. If you were a pre-tribber it would make more sense to me. But since you never have answered me why you claim there is no evidence of a post- trib rapture I can only assume that what I'm assuming is correct. Can't quite understand why you aren't willing to back up the claim you made, but I guess you must have some reason? I never read Rev 7 the way you did, but now that I'm aware of it I do admit that it could be read that way. However, I think it's also important to bear in mind that Rev is translated into English, so relying on the way the passages naturally read has it's limits. I would say it is usually a good rule of thumb, but looking at it in the context of the chapter and understanding how certain passages fit in with the rest of the passages in the whole of the book is also important. And I feel at times there needs to be a blend of these different approaches along with others considering how complicated language and translation can be, not to mention Rev itself. I try not to get too stuck on one particular approach especially when things don't seem to add up. I find it necessary at times to weigh as many of the different factors as I can together and then decide what to me makes the most sense. I personally have found approaching Rev like I do a puzzle gives me an amazingly clear picture of what's going on. I start with putting the border pieces, i.e. the main outline, together. Then I work on the pictures within that are clearest to me, e.g first the seals happen, then the trumpets and then the bowls. Then I work my way into the details keeping in mind how they fit together with the border pieces and the pictures that I've already pieced together. That way, if the individual pieces don't seem to fit quite right with the bigger picture I can see if it makes more sense and fits better in another place. That way I have a better chance of getting them in the right place. So when I look at chapter 7, for example, that's why I see it the way I do. It just makes sense to me in the context of the overall picture that I get when I step back and look at how the chapter and the whole of Rev is laid out. I've done some house-keeping above. Hope that is fine with you. Why provide evidence against until there is evidence for? If someone comes to me and say the rapture occurs during the millennium, I would expect him or her to show that Revelation does mention or imply a rapture at the appropriate juncture in the text. The process should not begin with me having to prove that such a rapture cannot exist. Same here. I am glad you have found an approach that suits you. I am all for trying new approaches. That said, if your approach results in placing the ch 7 multitude on earth despite the text saying they are in heaven, does that not call into question the approach itself?

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation. I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on? Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period. "When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it. So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer. And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing. I did answer your question. It is implied in my question. I think the main difficulty for a post-trib rapture is that it does not find expression in Revelation. However, your assertion that "there is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture" led me to pose the question instead. Your choosing to focus on the side issue of the number of tribulation periods reinforces my suspicion. As to the extent of the tribulation period, Rev 7:14 says the multitude in heaven came out of the great tribulation. Evidently, the tribulation is already underway at that point. It does not start with the trumpets. Hope that helps. Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are implying in your comment about side issues and suspicions. Would you mind to clarify that please? Regarding Rev 7:14 that's one way to read it, and I see how you could possibly use that to support your position. Assuming you want to know my position, since the chapter is about sealing the saints of God, the way it reads to me is that in verse 4 there are 144,000 sealed of the tribes of Israel, and verse 9 continues with disclosing, besides the 144,000, that the rest of the saints that were sealed are a multitude without number. In verse 14 I see it as the elder confirming to John that these multitudes are indeed those who were sealed, which is what the chapter starts out describing, and went through the period of great tribulation that the following 7 chapters describe. Also the fact that he specifically says "great tribulation" adds weight to the fact that this is specifically about the period that is mentioned in Matt 24:21 which is clearly stated as after the AD and therefor in the second half of the 7 years. I would also add, since there is no specific mention of a trib period to which you are implying in any of the preceding chapters, I find it a bit of a stretch to think that the passage in question is implying that these saints came out of some tribulation that took place before the tribulation that is about to be described. As I mentioned previously I only see one period of the trib in question described in end-time prophecy, and that period is in the second half of the 7 years. I would be curious to know how you come to the conclusion that there are two periods, or that the trib stretches out over 7 years instead of 3.5 years? I think the main issue is, whatever the length of the tribulation period, whether there is any sign of a post-trib rapture in Revelation. As for the multitude, I don't understand your line of thinking. Why is there need to seal them given that they are already in heaven, standing before the throne and in front of the lamb (v 9)? This is where I agree with pre-wrath. I believe they too see the multitude as the raptured church. I came to this conclusion on my own, before I heard of pre-wrath. It was reassuring to learn later that they understood it this way too. Suggests that it is a natural reading. However, we differ on the interpretation of the later chapters and that is why I am mid-trib and not pre-wrath.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation. I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on? Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? OK. I think things are getting a little confused here. Now I'm not exactly sure of what point Omegaman was trying to make, but let me try again. The way I see it there are only scriptures of exact references to 3.5 years of GT in the second half of the 7 years, and in scripture about the first 3.5 years of the 7 years there is no place that talks about a period of trib in that period. "When ye see the AD, then shall be GT such as was never known." Mt 24. Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 indicate that "in the midst of the week" is when the AD starts. That to me is 3.5 years that begin "in the midst of the week", or in the second half of the seven years. Dan 7:25 says the saints will be given into the hand of the AC for 3.5 years. Rev 12:6 and 12:19, as well as 13:5 have the same 3.5 years of the same GT period. Rev 11:2 has the period of the 2 witnesses at 3.5 years during the same GT period. The way I see it these are all references to the same period, that of the 3.5 years of GT that begins "in the midst of the week" during the second half of the 7 years. Regarding the seals, trumpets, and bowls, for me the tribulation is specifically dealt with in the trumpets. The seals are generally an overview from John's time till NHNE and the bowls are about the wrath which occurs after the trib. Now I know there are differences of opinion on this, but this is how I see it. So let me try to reword my original answer to your question gthan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is disagreement about the rapture being after a period of trib so no point covering ground that's not necessary to cover. Where we differ is on the tribulation period that the rapture follows. If I understand right, you see the saints raptured at the end of what you consider the first 3.5 years of the 7 years of trib. What I'm saying is that according to how I read prophecy there is only one 3.5 year period of trib in the 7 years of the AC and that it is in the second half, not the first. As far as I see it the first 3.5 years has nothing to do with the period referred to in scripture as a time of trib/persecution. The first 3.5 years is only referenced in Dan 9:27 as being the beginning of the reign of the AC when he "confirms the covenant." So in light of that this paragraph is a general answer @ Rev supporting a post-trib rapture, and the first paragraph would be dealing more in specific with the answer. And speaking of answering questions, in case you missed it, or it wasn't clear to you that I was making a request, I asked you a question in the beginning that went unanswered. I referenced it above for you in BIU. How about before we go any further, since I never got an answer to my question which preceded yours, if you answer my question? I think it might help to clarify things in what we are discussing. I did answer your question. It is implied in my question. I think the main difficulty for a post-trib rapture is that it does not find expression in Revelation. However, your assertion that "there is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture" led me to pose the question instead. Your choosing to focus on the side issue of the number of tribulation periods reinforces my suspicion. As to the extent of the tribulation period, Rev 7:14 says the multitude in heaven came out of the great tribulation. Evidently, the tribulation is already underway at that point. It does not start with the trumpets. Hope that helps.

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture? Well, I hope this is not too off topic as Omegaman pointed out. However, I think you are a mid-tribber if I understand some of your other posts correctly. So I don't think we have any problem with the pre-trib rapture on that score. I think where the rub comes in, at least for me, is whether or not there are two tribulation periods. I personally don't see Revelation describing 2 tribulation periods, only one. If there is only one, then that would put the rapture at the end of that one and only period of tribulation. I would be interested to hear how a 2 trib interpretation is supported. So far I've heard that it's built around the two passages in Rev 12 of 3.5 years of persecution. Is that correct? Anymore to support it that you can fill me in on? Yes, I am also uneasy that our discussion may violate the purpose of this thread but I hope our prewrath friends would forgive us. I think omegaman has addressed your question in his post. Personally, I just refer to one tribulation period covering the period of the seals, trumpets and bowls. But you have not answered my question: what do you find in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture?

Interesting. What have you found in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture?

It just makes more sense to start with what is plainly stated and use that as a framework for the more ambiguous aspects of prophecy. It all has to harmonize. If you start with highly symbolic imagery, you're much more likely to force a strained interpretation on those things that are clear and wind up with something arcane or esoteric that requires an inordinate amount of tap-dancing to explain. I agree with Omegaman's approach. If the earlier passages were plain, why is there still so much disagreement over them? Why do new views like pre-wrath arise? Evidently, those passages do not point clearly to any view. Therefore, they have no advantage as a starting point. On the other hand, if an author makes isolated statements on various occasions about a certain topic and then writes a whole book on that topic, which would we read? I would read the book, because it would put the earlier statements into perspective. No need for tap dancing. One of the maxims that I use when interpreting prophecy is to give things that are plainly stated precedence over inferences when there's a conflict. So, if you look at all the things that are plainly stated and use them to build your framework, you're much less likely to have to engage in major reconstruction since they will take priority. This is my preference and what makes sense to me. Everyone's free to do as they wish. Yes, plainly stated verses do have an advantage as a starting point. Are you saying that all this "disagreement" came from people who prioritized what is plainly stated? Maybe the issue is that they didn't. People obviously have different approaches to the subject and come to different conclusions. There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. If they did not prioritise the 'plain' statements, it shows they agree those are not good starting points for this purpose. In the end, methods are only as good as the results they produce. I once tried to interpret Revelation using what I thought I understood of earlier end time passages, but it got me nowhere. Revelation remained a closed book. Then I decided to read Revelation as a self-contained work, without the baggage of earlier passages. It worked wonders for me. And when I went back to the other passages, it brought order to chaos. I recommend this approach to everyone.

It just makes more sense to start with what is plainly stated and use that as a framework for the more ambiguous aspects of prophecy. It all has to harmonize. If you start with highly symbolic imagery, you're much more likely to force a strained interpretation on those things that are clear and wind up with something arcane or esoteric that requires an inordinate amount of tap-dancing to explain. I agree with Omegaman's approach. If the earlier passages were plain, why is there still so much disagreement over them? Why do new views like pre-wrath arise? Evidently, those passages do not point clearly to any view. Therefore, they have no advantage as a starting point. On the other hand, if an author makes isolated statements on various occasions about a certain topic and then writes a whole book on that topic, which would we read? I would read the book, because it would put the earlier statements into perspective. No need for tap dancing.

Well, let me be clear here on some small points. First, there is no need for me to reconcile what I think with Revelation, because I have not been presented with any conflict with Revelation. Reconciliation, is to make right, something that is wrong, or to make order out of disorder. Revelation is demonstrably non-chronological, therefore it is difficult for me to have extreme convictions of sequence, based on that particular book. There is of course, symbolism in Revelation to an extent, that does not exist in other New Testament documents, compounding the problem. Revelation seems to me, to have more extremes in variance of understanding that perhaps any book in the Bible, I just do not feel like I am smart enough, to unravel a book that I am not convinced anyone else has yet unraveled, lol. I do not see where it logically follows, nor that the Bible asserts, that Revelation should be the clearest book on what the future holds, so I have a fundamental disagreement there. All I would conclude about latter books, is that they could contain additional information, but that does not necessarily equate to clarity. To the degree that I am content with the post-trib view, it is due to the fact, that I see it as containing no contradictions with any verse or passage of scripture, and it does not insert into the end times scenario, things that are not stated is scripture (like pre-trib raptures, secret comings and the like). So, having this view of total harmony and zero compatibility issues with scripture, let suppose I decide to examine Revelation. What position does the place me in? One of four things will happen, either Revelation will confirm, what I already hold, or it will contradict it, or it will add to it, or it will have no effect. If it has no effect, then there is little to be gained. If it confirms it, then nothing is gained either. if it adds to it, so what, I already have all the details I need for the rest of my life now, although that might be interesting. If it contradicts it, then one of three things is wrong, of those three I get to choose from: 1. My theory is wrong 2. My new, Revelation based theory is wrong 3 Both theories are wrong. From choice 3, I do not know how I could even know that, and I have no known alternatives to move to, that I know to be right. From choices numbers one and two, I should choose the other theory, but again, how would I know which one to go with? So then I am faced with the question: Do I go with a theory that is compatable with every other book of the Bible that deals with eschatology, but has a rub with a single, difficult book, full of visions and symbols and is unclear, of should I accept a theory based on an interpreation that I suspect is prone to errors, based on a single book that I admit to not understanding completely? There is a principle in exegetical practice, which I think makes a lot of sense: Always interpret unclear passages in the light of the clearer ones. That is what I have tried to do, and is one reason why I do not spend a lot of time in the book of Revelation. Regarding the period of wrath after the tribulation. Allow me to restate and/or clarify. I believe that there is a period of time, after the tribulation, which contains Gods wrath. Time, a period, is not Gods wrath. That post-trib period, is a span of time, during which God expresses or exercises His wrath. However, his wrath is not limited to that period only, and it is has already been expressed many times, and that time just after the tribulation, is not even the last time that He will express His wrath. I do not know if that clarified or muddied the waters, regarding my thoughts (for you), but hopefully it allowed me to make what I hold to be true, and what I am not willing to go on record as holding to be true, more clear. I know that sentence is not even clear, but what I mean to say, is that there are things that I believe to be true, and believe with enough conviction, to say I am confident, x, y, and z will take place. There are things, I am confident in saying that I am confident a, b, and c, will not take place, and then there are all the other letters, where I can say I do not know, or I am unsure, and I do not make them part of my 'official' position. Those things are not part of my official position, because I do not want to assure people of things, that may be error. I apologize for my limited ability to communicate what it is, that I am attempting to say, but it is a limitation I do not know how to overcome. Why would God add information if it does not make the picture more complete and thus clearer? Therefore, I find Revelation gives a better idea of what to expect in the last days than the earlier parts of scripture relating to this subject. I would have little confidence on any end-time view unless I find it supported in Revelation. But, that's just me. To each his own.

I read your post with interest because it seems to be a non-standard post-trib view. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that there is an end time period called the great tribulation followed by another end time period called the period of wrath, and that the rapture will happen in between. If so, that can equal a pre-wrath position or a mid-trib position. To help me better understand your view, where exactly in the book of Revelation do you see the rapture happening? Okay ghtan, let me see if I can put this into some sort of succinct way. First of this is a defense of the pre-wrath position thread, so I have not tried to be that specific about what I think. I have here, however, kind of mumbled some of my thought, where I think I have difficulty with the pre-wrat position apart from the fact that I am not sure there is a definitive way to even describe that position. I made that graphic, of what I think are some events that are spelled put is scripture, and had no representation of the wrath of God in the graphic. Now, pre-trib people often use as a defense of there position, that we are not apointed unto wrath, we being believers. Both pre-trib and post-trib people, believe that we are not appointed unto wrath, but the detail of what that implies vary. Many pre-trib believers, believe the the tribulation, is the wrath of God. Some, will say that the purpose of the tribulation, is to punish Israel, and point out a verse about the "time of Jacob's trouble", from the Old Testament. In other words, God is angry (wrath) with the Jews, so this is the time of Jacob's trouble, not a time of trouble for the church. I think that is a fair representation of a view, which is held by some or many. In contrast, a post-tribber might say, that the tribulation is not God's wrath, but is a time that the church (those who are alive at that time) will endure the persecution of anti-christ, etc. So, there is a fundamental difference in the mind of some, what this wrath is, that the church is not appointed to. I think that the basis of pre-wrath belief, that which this thread is about, is an attempt to acknowledge, that the church is not appointed unto wrath, but that indeed, also, we do see the wrath of God, represented in the Book of Revelation. So, in this (pre-wrath) theory, I think, the rapture would be before the time when God's wrath is unleashed, so the church is spared, but . . . it does not acknowledge the idea that the church is absent in the tribulation period, or more precisely, the 70th week of Daniel prophecy. I do not notice any consistent agreement, on where the wrath occurs in this theory so in that graph I made, I do not show it. One can decide where they think that is in that graph, and kind of figure out, what to call oneself. You can see in that graphic, that I place a gathering to be with Jesus, after the tribulation, for the simple reason, that I can find that event in the Bible. I do not show a rapture before the trib, because I cannot find that in the Bible. I have not so much, presented my view here in detail, other than to note, that in making that graphic, I actually made it clearer to myself, that I do not see how, one arrives are a pre-wrath position, IF the wrath is withing the 7 years period that some refer to as the tribulation. I made some technical distinctions in vocabulary. I refer to the 7 years period, as Daniel 70th week, because that is terminology acceptable to many camps. In the first part of that period, I label a section I call tribulation, because Jesus seems to have done so also, in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24). In that same discourse, Jesus said that after the abomination of desolation, there will be great tribulation, so I never refer to the 7 years as the great tribulation, I reserve the "great" adjective, for the portion after the appearance of the abomination of desolation, which I believe to be synonymous with the man of sin, the anti-christ and maybe some other labels. Now, you thought that I see a period called wrath. Actually, that is not technically what I hold. Wrath, to me, is the anger of God, manifested on the objects of His wrath, and that is of course, not the church. I believe that God has good aim, so that if He chooses, he can exercise His wrath, while not directing in on His people, Therefore, no matter at what point, or over what period of time, God is exercising His wrath, he can do so, without the church being an object of His wrath, and therefore, no matter when that wrath is, we the church, are not appointed unto it. I can see the wrath of God, in the description of bowls or vials in the book of revelation, like other do. But I do not have a well developed sense of the timing or duration of His wrath. As to your question of my assumption of where the great tribulation is in Revelation, I do not see the Book of Revelation as presenting a sequence of events. I think it goes over the same ground several times, somewhat like Gen 1 and Gen 2, cover the creation, but one is basically a recap of the other. The fact that much of Revelation is vision and symbolic, and non-sequential, means I do not get a lot of chronology out of that book. i readily admit that I cannot read it, and get a clear picture. So, for me to make many pronouncements based on the book of Revelation, would be improper, since I do not feel that my discernment and qualifications, are up to that task. Now, certainly there are portions of the book of Revelation, that we can see represent the tribulation (we see the mark of the beast, beheading of those who held to their testimony of Jesus etc.), but I am not up to the task of arranging that book in order with confidence. So, what then? I think it is the wrong approach to look at the book of Revelation, and build one's case or understanding upon it. I think that it is a sound rule, to base ones doctrine on teachings which are clear and specific, and ones that the bible explains in details, to aid our understanding. Taking the clear passages, and laying out the detail in a chronological order to that there are no contradictions, and in a way that as much as possible, one uses the plain and simple understanding of what a test says. I do not think we should import our ideas to he text, we should let the text, shape our ideas. Then we are in a position, to look at other sections of scripture, to see how they can fit in seamlessly. If we do not do that, then were start with what may be some faulty assumptions, and then read the clearer verses in the light of our faulty understanding, and we end up inadvertently, twisting the scripture and adding ideas, to make it all work - and often it really doesn't, if we are honest with ourselves. Incorporating these principle, right or wrong, into my Bible study, has lead me to conclude that there is not responsible way to assume a pre-trib rapture, and that a post-trib scenario seems more likely and compatible with scripture. Clearly, others disagree. Now, what I actually believe, whether it is the "standard" post-trib position or not (is there such a thing?), is summarized on a page on another site, where I have enough control over how the page looks, that it is easier to present, than it is here on the forums. That page is here. That summary, is about as much as I hold, as my official position, going much outside of those things, I believe gets into too much speculation, and I want to be responsible. I hope that even if that all was not that helpful that at least I have made my own position and methods clear. Thanks for the questions. OK, my mistake then. You do not after all hold to a separate period of wrath after a tribulation period. That said, I am surprised that you are content with the post-trib view despite not being able to reconcile it with Revelation given that the latter is the latest and hence should be the clearest of God's revelation on what the future holds. But you are right that this is not the appropriate thread to discuss it. Thanks for your explanation.

Hi Omegaman, I read your post with interest because it seems to be a non-standard post-trib view. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that there is an end time period called the great tribulation followed by another end time period called the period of wrath, and that the rapture will happen in between. If so, that can equal a pre-wrath position or a mid-trib position. To help me better understand your view, where exactly in the book of Revelation do you see the rapture happening?

Yes, it is possible to read all that as one event - and many do - but Luke helps us by expanding Mk 13:24 (=Mt 24:29) into Lk 21:25-26 and thus clarifies that it actually refers to a whole series of (end-time) events. Therefore, Luke can say in 21:28 "when these things BEGIN to take place..." It is also noteworthy that he does not say "BEFORE these things begin to take place..." as that would suggest a pre-trib rapture.

Hi there! I too think Mt 24:29-31 does not have to describe one event but neither are they arranged in chronological order. The rapture ("gathering of the elect") is described in 24:31 but it is significant that Luke's equivalent in Lk 21:28 says that when these things BEGIN TO HAPPEN, lift up your heads for your redemption is drawing near. The redemption likely corresponds to the gathering of the elect, i.e. the rapture, and Luke understands that it can happen anytime once the events of earlier verses begin to take place. It need not therefore be the last in the series, i.e. it need not be post-tribulational.

You could call the falling away within Christendom the trigger event. Even evangelical and fundamentalist churches are showing a greater and greater departure from the truth, and that is what Paul tells us will be the key event. When homosexual clergy and same-sex marriages are considered "OK" we know things can only worse. Falling away within Christendom is hardly anything new. It was what spurred the Reformation but we know the rapture did not happen then. I am not pretrib but I thought the trigger event for pre-trib would be the unveiling of the antichrist. Don't pretrib believe that the church would be raptured before the antichrist is unveiled? Or is it only some pretrib that think so?

To be fair to ave, the two witnesses are also described as lampstands and the same symbol is used for churches in 1:20.

Hi there! Out of curiosity, if you take this view, shouldn't you also see the subsequent bodily resurrection of the two witnesses as the rapture? Do you therefore believe that the rapture happens at this point in Revelation?

When Jesus says "ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies" (Luke 21:20), he is referring to the first part of Daniel 11:31: "And arms shall stand on his part". And when Jesus says "the desolation" in Luke 21:20, he is referring to the "abomination of desolation" part of Daniel 11:31, just as in Matthew 24:15, he is referring to the "abomination of desolation" part of Daniel 11:31. So Luke 21:20-23 isn't referring to 70 AD, nor (as is sometimes claimed) to the pillaging of Jerusalem which will occur at the very end of the future tribulation, right before Jesus' 2nd coming to save Jerusalem (Zechariah 14), but is referring to what will happen mid-tribulation, when the Antichrist will antitypically fulfill Daniel 11:31 at the start of his future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:4-18), during which 3.5 years, Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles (Revelation 11:2b), which future treading down is what Luke 21:24 is referring to. Regarding the "abomination of desolation", Daniel 11:31 was typically fulfilled by the abomination of desolation in 1 Maccabees 1:54, which occurred in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of the 2nd Jewish temple in Jerusalem in the time of Antiochus IV. But per Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:15, the church will see the abomination of desolation in Daniel 11:31 fulfilled (antitypically) in the future, when the church will see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place (of a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem). This future abomination of desolation could be a standing, android image of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:15) which his followers ("they") will put in the holy place of the temple (Daniel 11:31) to be worshipped (Revelation 13:15), after they have stopped the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices which the ultra-Orthodox Jews will have restarted in front of the temple (Daniel 11:31). This image will pollute the holy place of the temple (Daniel 11:31). The Antichrist will then fulfill Daniel 11:36 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 by sitting himself (at least one time) in the temple and proclaiming himself God. By the power of Satan (the dragon, Revelation 12:9), the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") will then rule and be worshipped by all the nations of the earth for 3.5 literal years (Revelation 13:4-18), and will physically overcome Biblical Christians (not in hiding) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13). Also, from the day on which (antitypically) "the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be 1,290 days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the 1,335 days" (Daniel 12:11-12, Revelation 16:15). Also, because the Antichrist will fulfill Daniel 11:31 antitypically (Matthew 24:15) and will fulfill Daniel 11:36 for the first (and only) time, then he will also fulfill all of Daniel 11:21-45 (the first part of it antitypically, and the rest for the first and only time) when he arises on the world stage, for that passage refers to the career of the same man. And since the Antichrist will fulfill all of Daniel 11:21-45 when he arises on the world stage, then just preceding his arising on the world stage, Daniel 11:13-19 could be fulfilled antitypically by an Iraqi Baathist General completely defeating and occupying Israel and Egypt with a huge Iraqi Army (Daniel 11:15-17; in verse 17 the original Hebrew word translated as "daughter" is "bath"). Daniel 12:11-12 and Revelation 16:15 could mean that 1,335 literal days after the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) is set up in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31), Jesus' 2nd coming will occur, and blessed are those believers who wait and remain obedient until that day. If the literal 1,260 days of the Antichrist's worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5-8, Revelation 12:6) will begin when the abomination of desolation is set up, and if the 7 vials of God's wrath will begin on the day after the 1,260 days of the Antichrist's worldwide reign (Revelation 11:15,19, Revelation 15:5 to 16:1), and if the first 6 vials will be poured out over 30 days, then the 6th vial could be poured out on the 1,290th day after the abomination of desolation is set up (Daniel 12:11). It is on this 1,290th day that the blessing of Daniel 12:12 and Revelation 16:15 could be given, after the 6th vial has been poured out (Revelation 16:12), encouraging those in the church who will still be alive on the earth at that time to keep holding on just 45 more days until Jesus' 2nd coming on the 1,335th day. The 45 days could be taken up by the gathering together of the world's armies to Armageddon (Revelation 16:14,16) (Har Megiddo: Mount Megiddo in northern Israel) and then their moving south to pillage Jerusalem, right before Jesus' 2nd coming and their total defeat (Zechariah 14:2-21, Revelation 19:19-21). I don't think Mt 24:15 or Luke 21:20 refers to Dan 11. My own view is that nothing in Dan 11 refers to the end time. But so that we do not get bogged down with that topic (which in any case does not concern this thread), I allowed that there might be another AoD in the future. My point was then that it would not serve to warn christians about an upcoming persecution since it should come later than Seal 5. Nothing you have written suggests otherwise. Btw, where exactly in the text of Revelation do you expect the AoD to fit in?

Note that in Daniel 9:26, the original Hebrew word (karath: H3772) translated as "cut off" can refer to when a peace treaty/covenant is "made" (Genesis 21:27). The 1st century AD fulfillment of Daniel 9:26a was at the Crucifixion, when the true Messiah, Jesus, made the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17). The future fulfillment of Daniel 9:26a will be when the Antichrist makes a peace treaty, which will be a fulfillment of the covenant in Daniel 9:27 and the league in Daniel 11:23, with a future, ultra-Orthodox Jewish false Messiah in Jerusalem, after he and his followers are defeated by the Antichrist (Daniel 11:22-23). So the future fulfillment of Daniel 9:26a can refer to this false Messiah being "cut off" in the sense of being "covenanted", peace-treatied. This treaty will allow this false Messiah and his followers to keep a 3rd Jewish temple which they will have built on Jerusalem's Temple Mount (after they or great earthquakes have destroyed the Muslim structures there), and to (mistakenly) continue to perform the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices in front of the temple for at least 7 years (Daniel 9:27a), so long as they give up the outer court of the temple (Revelation 11:2a) to the Muslims so that the Muslims can rebuild the (by that time destroyed) Al Aqsa Mosque on the southern end of the Temple Mount and resume worship there. After "cutting" this treaty (Daniel 9:26a), the Antichrist could appear before the "many" (Daniel 9:27) nations represented at the U.N. General Assembly, and "confirm" (Daniel 9:27) that for at least 7 years he will keep this treaty with the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem, using this as purported proof to the world that he is (in his words) "a man of peace, and no Hitler". In Daniel 9:27, "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" refers to when, only some 3.5 years after making the peace treaty of Daniel 9:26a,27a and Daniel 11:23a, the Antichrist will break the treaty, attack the 3rd temple, stop the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices, place the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of the temple (Daniel 9:27b, Daniel 11:31, Matthew 24:15), and then sit himself (at least one time) in the temple and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). Thus could begin the Antichrist's literal, 3.5-year Luciferian (Satanic) worldwide reign of terror (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:9). At the very end of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, the Antichrist (Daniel 11:45) and the world's armies will pillage Jerusalem right before Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21). And at the 2nd coming, there will be tremendous earth changes in the vicinity of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4-5). These events could result in all of Jerusalem's structures, including the 3rd temple and the Wailing Wall (also called the Western Wall), being broken down so that not one stone will be left on another (Luke 19:44, Matthew 24:2). Then the returned Jesus (Zechariah 14:4, Acts 1:11-12) will rebuild Jerusalem and make it the capital of the world (Zechariah 14:8-19, Micah 4:1-4). He will also build a 4th temple there (Zechariah 14:20-21, Zechariah 6:12-13). It will serve a similar function for the church during the future millennium (of Revelation 20:4-6) as the 2nd temple served for the church in the 1st century AD (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17), and as the temple building in heaven (Revelation 11:19) serves for those in heaven (Revelation 7:15). There have been many and different interpretations of Daniel 9's seventieth week ranging from it's all been fulfilled, to halfway fulfilled, to all future. Everyone makes a good case and I try to keep them all in mind. Because it is so widely interpreted, and we are never told to look for it as a sign, I don't want to lean on it too heavily. I wonder why Jesus didn't mention a peace treaty when the disciples asked about the sign of His return? Seems iffy to me but I keep it in mind. I agree that there will be a tabernacle or temple where the false prophet goes and exalts himself but don't think that event is necessarily part of any peace treaty. The first "actionable" event, as I understand things, is when the abomination of desolation is set up. Matthew 24:15-16 The signs leading up to the AoD are deception, war, famine, pestilence; basically the first four seals. Agree that too much hope is placed on THE peace treaty as a sign. I suspect many will be disappointed. But the AoD might not be much help either. The parallel in Luke 21:20 suggests that it has already been fulfilled in AD70. And even if there is going to be another AoD, it should surely be after the persecution of Seal 5 i.e. it would not be much use as a warning sign.

Is the antichrist limited to one peace treaty? What if he signs several treaties involving Israel and her neighbours over a period of time, each time with different neighbours? Christians will not be able to agree which treaty to start the count from. And then it would be too late.

Hi there! I've always been curious about this argument, which is also levelled against the mid-trib view of which I am a supporter. It is valid only if we know when the tribulation begins. What event marks the start of the tribulation? Will it be so obvious that everyone will be in no doubt that the tribulation has begun? I doubt it would be that clear. Then, if people cannot be sure the tribulation has started when it does start, they would not be able to count down to a pre-wrath or mid-trib rapture either, and the latter will still take everyone by surprise. Blessings.