toknowthetruth

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? I've already gone over that with you. Either you didn't understand, or you dismissed what I said. Either way I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. Thanks for what little input you did provide about your view. Hopefully I can find out more about mid-trib from someone else.

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.

FYI in the US you can buy gold coins/bars at a jeweler or online and get them delivered to your house or to a safe deposit box of your choice. Don't know what the situation is in Europe but I'm sure you can get gold coins which have a little higher premium than gold bars, but I think you can get gold bars as well. The premium in the US is @ $30 per oz for bars and $40 for gold coins. http://www.jmbullion.com/silver/?gclid=CjwKEAjw1f6vBRC7tLqO_aih5WISJAAE0CYwiN4qVzj16KW82L0bqPn9AXRKgGR43gi47Wuor9yAlhoCxUTw_wcB Thanks other one. There are several online dealers. As far as I can tell it's a safe and convenient way to go about it. I would just make sure to do my research into which one to use and have a good understanding of how they operate and be comfortable with the process before ordering online.

FYI in the US you can buy gold coins/bars at a jeweler or online and get them delivered to your house or to a safe deposit box of your choice. Don't know what the situation is in Europe but I'm sure you can get gold coins which have a little higher premium than gold bars, but I think you can get gold bars as well. The premium in the US is @ $30 per oz for bars and $40 for gold coins.

Thankyou for this post .I am not too interested in finance on a daily basis ,but would appreciate a word on how this would affect the euro if it happens . In my opinion it's really hard to know exactly what's going to happen. For what it's worth my advice is, if you have savings, to diversify them into different things like some local currency, some gold and/or silver, some other stable currencies like SF, etc. You might lose a little in the deal but in my opinion it's worth it to have a bit of a safety net even if you never need it. And try to have at least a few weeks or a month's stock of food and supplies. And most of all trust the Lord and His promises to keep us through any trial. 1Peter 4:12-13 Thank you Marilyn ,you are very kind . Will take advice ,and depend on the Lord for the rest . Sorry Marilyn, guess I should have let you answer that one. Hope you don't mind.

Thankyou for this post .I am not too interested in finance on a daily basis ,but would appreciate a word on how this would affect the euro if it happens . In my opinion it's really hard to know exactly what's going to happen. For what it's worth my advice is, if you have savings, to diversify them into different things like some local currency, some gold and/or silver, some other stable currencies like SF, etc. You might lose a little in the deal but in my opinion it's worth it to have a bit of a safety net even if you never need it. And try to have at least a few weeks or a month's stock of food and supplies. And most of all trust the Lord and His promises to keep us through any trial. 1Peter 4:12-13

Yes, you hit the nail on the head there.

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!

Not so sure about that. From what I understand having the Dollar as the global currency that almost all international trade is done with is one of the major factors keeping the US a float. It's one of it's most powerful economic weapons. And if another currency should take it's place as the medium of international exchange I'm expecting it to tremendously weaken the US both economically and politically. Just the way I see it from what I understand of the situation. it will force us to stop living above our means.... and that is the fist thing any financial person will tell you when financial counciling. Well, that would be great if that's all it ends up doing. I have a feeling though it's going to affect things a lot more profoundly than that. But that's just how I see it. However, I think it behooves us as Christians to take heed to Jesus' warning to "watch and pray" lest we end up with our house broken into because we didn't take heed to the signs of the approaching thief. Matt 24:43

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. 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.

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?

Not so sure about that. From what I understand having the Dollar as the global currency that almost all international trade is done with is one of the major factors keeping the US a float. It's one of it's most powerful economic weapons. And if another currency should take it's place as the medium of international exchange I'm expecting it to tremendously weaken the US both economically and politically. Just the way I see it from what I understand of the situation.

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.

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?

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 see clarity in Revelation, but I also see there are places where it's not so clear. It is one of the longest prophetic books and I would say probably the longest of those dealing with what hasn't happened yet. So to me that would equate with more unclear passages than other shorter prophetic books/passages. From your post I'm assuming you are not a post-tribber. I'm curious as to what you think in Revelation contradicts post-trib rapture. I'm sure there are verses that can be interpreted so, but I think there are is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture. I don't know that you can come to a black and white yay or nay in that regard.

I like your post-trib summary Omegaman. Well ordered and concise. I like how you brought out that point in Rev 20:4-5 so well. Thanks for sharing that. Don't know if you saw my outline of Rev, but I find it easiest to start with the outside picture in Rev and then work my way in, sorta like working a puzzle. To me the beauty of how it's laid out becomes evident when taking that approach. Works for me anyhow. Thank you for the compliment, and you are more that welcome - I enjoy writing as I can. I have not seen your outline of Rev, but I shall try to look it up. I'll post it here for you. Here's a link to a thread I started where I referenced it as well. Outline of Revelation I. Chapters 1-7 (Seven seals) Bird's eye view of time from John's day to New Heaven and New Earth A. 1-3 Intro and Seven Churches B. 4-7 Six seals and prep for seventh seal II. Chapters 8-14 (Seven trumpets) Zeroing in on the period of great tribulation and rapture A. 8-11 Seventh seal and Seven trumpets of the tribulation B. 12-14 The Woman, the Dragon, the Beast, and the Rapture III. Chapters 15-22 (Seven vials) Zeroing in on wrath of God, the Millennium, Battle of Gog and Magog, and the New Heavens and New Earth. A. 15-16 Seven vials of God's Wrath B. 17-19 Mystery Babylon, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, Beast and False Prophet defeated C. 20-22 Millenium, Battle of Gog and Magog, White Throne Judgement, and New Heaven and New Earth

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. I like your post-trib summary Omegaman. Well ordered and concise. I like how you brought out that point in Rev 20:4-5 so well. Thanks for sharing that. Don't know if you saw my outline of Rev, but I find it easiest to start with the outside picture in Rev and then work my way in, sorta like working a puzzle. To me the beauty of how it's laid out becomes evident when taking that approach. Works for me anyhow.

The false prophet (AC) will not come across as an ordinary man. He will be a channel for supernatural displays of power. Those days will not be normal. The man of sin is described as coming with all the deception of wickedness. That's a lot. Actually, that's more than a lot. That could be. Still think it's stretching it quite a bit to think that the whole Muslim world is going to follow someone who declares himself as God when one of their core beliefs is that it's blasphemy for any man to declare himself as God. I'm not saying it's not possible, just don't see it happening that way myself. This much we know. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast. Revelation 13:14 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Matthew 24:24 Do you think perhaps this verse speaks about the Muslim world you refer to, the part about hypocrisy? Those who have insight among the people will give understanding to the many; yet they will fall by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder for many days. Now when they fall they will be granted a little help, and many will join with them in hypocrisy. Daniel 11:33-34 I've wondered who that part in bold could be a reference to. Maybe it's the hard-core Muslims as you say who likewise don't submit to the false prophet's rule but for the wrong reasons . Just a thought. Yes, that's one of those verses that's a little unclear. KJV says "but many shall cleave to them with flatteries." I just figure it means there's gonna be people who will try to infiltrate the underground believers by making out to be one of us in order to jail/kill us. But it could mean something else for sure. As for the Muslims, it's likely that the Muslims who are Muslims in name only will fall for the AC just as Christians who are Christians in name only very likely will. But, as you pointed out, the AC is pretty crafty so he could pull the wool over the more sincere believers as well. However, the interpretation of prophecy I hold to for me points more towards the Muslims fighting against the AC and possibly joining hands, to a certain extent, with Christians. I know that won't be a popular view, but that's how I see it. I see Russia and Europe as being the stronghold of the AC. I could be wrong, and I'm open to the fact that it's possible things will go differently than I see it. But that's my personal view at this point in time.

The false prophet (AC) will not come across as an ordinary man. He will be a channel for supernatural displays of power. Those days will not be normal. The man of sin is described as coming with all the deception of wickedness. That's a lot. Actually, that's more than a lot. That could be. Still think it's stretching it quite a bit to think that the whole Muslim world is going to follow someone who declares himself as God when one of their core beliefs is that it's blasphemy for any man to declare himself as God. I'm not saying it's not possible, just don't see it happening that way myself.

I'm jumping in a bit but I just want to make a point about the op. Islam teaches that a man cannot be God. That's their whole beef about Jesus. The AC will declare himself as God. Won't go over with Muslims at all imho.

Hi Omega. Thanks for the nice graphics and the interesting discourse. Since I'm a post-tribber and not a pre-wrather I guess I don't have much to say other than I agree that arguments from silence for the most part are not very convincing.

Hi, Love this discussion and I just have to chime in. The pre-wrath thing is something I have studied out over the decades since I first became acquainted with the return of Jesus and the gathering of the elect. At first I read every book I could find on the subject, all were pre-trib. That position always left me unsettled, as if I was somehow in the right crowd, in the know as it were, but still incomplete and searching. So much of the pre-trib position comes from the bias of certain ideas that have been rationalized into existence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing pre-trib, though there is much there to bash, this is just an introduction by way of a little history. In any case I stumbled across a book by M. Rosenthal that helped me to search in a different way, and the eyes of my heart were opened! In all the study i did over the years the only 'rapture' that makes sense, from all the verses related to such an event, is the one we like to call pre-wrath. Some seem to think it's also a post trib event but I think the trib continues until the 70 weeks is complete, though the tribulation of the saints is over at the coming of Jesus, or pre Wrath of God, probably why this rapture is called post-trib by some. The objection I have to the above Wiki quote has to do with this statement: states that Christians will be raptured at the end of a time called the Beginning of Sorrows that occurs in the first half of the seventieth week of the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, and before the day of the Lord's wrath Pre-wrath actually states that believers are gathered at the end of 'great tribulation' and before the wrath of God falls, and this on the same day, likely moments before the Wrath of God begins at the Day of the Lord. "Great tribulation" begins at the middle of the 70th week when the beginning of sorrows ends. Believers endure 'great tribulation' for a period of less than 3.5 years until the Lord returns to gather us up and fight against the rebellious armies of the world. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion! Hmm. I'm a little confused? OK, so if I get you right pre-wrath is similar to post-trib, just that you consider the wrath as part of the 3.5 years and that the rapture happens just before the wrath a little before the end of the 3.5 years of the last week of Daniel? Yep. OK. I guess we're possibly on the same page till we get to the--end of the trib beginning of the wrath--part. So what is it that leads you to interpret the wrath as part of the trib, which I assume means part of the 1260 days of GT that would be connected with the last half of the 70th week? If i understand what you are saying, correct me if i'm wrong, you are wondering why I think the Wrath of God and 'great tribulation' seem to coincide. Well, I don't. I don't see that sort of thing anywhere in scripture. What scripture shows us is a week of years with two halves. The week begins with the beast confirming a covenant. The first half of the week runs till the A of D when the beast is finally revealed for who he is, and the second half commences. The 2nd half of the week is 42 months, or 1260 days. Layered into this, on top of, or woven into, we might say, the 2nd half of the week, are two events of some undetermined duration: 'great tribulation' and the Wrath of God. Scripture does not record that 'great tribulation' has a specified end point except for " those days were shortened or no flesh would be saved." Scripture shows us the beginning of 'great tribulation', but the duration is not specified. The Wrath of God doesn't have a specified beginning either. We assume that the end of the Wrath of God is at the end of the 2nd half of the week and that seems reasonable to me, but scripture does not provide a beginning that is clearly defined("no man knows the day or the hour, but we can know the year and the month, yes?). Logically we know that believers are not appointed to wrath. We also know that 'great tribulation' is the refining fire God promised would come. If the refining fire is for the people of God, to make them pure and holy, then 'great tribulation' ceases when He comes to redeem us and gather us to Him. After he has gathered us the Wrath of God falls on the rebels. We know this from passages in Rev where the Lord gathers the believers from the 4 winds and then the Day of the Lord begins, likely on the same day and the same hour, and the wrath of God is poured out on the rebels It would look like this: 70th Week l____ _First Half__ ______l___ Second half l l Beginning of Sorrows_ _ l 'great tribulation' l Wrath of God l So the second half of the week only is 1260 days. 'Great tribulation' is in the 2nd half of the week and is part of the 1260 days, and is likely the greater part of the 2nd half. 2.5, 3 years, perhaps. I don't know for sure but scripture seems to say the Wrath of God lasts for around 5 to 6 months. OK. I guess you must have a different interpretation of Dan 7:25, Rev 11:3, and Rev 12:6 and 14 than me. To me these would point to the Church passing through the GT for 1260 days before the rapture. I'm interested to know how you interpret those passages. Not trying to challenge your view, just would like to understand it. Just a quick look at the references you supplied tells me we have a similar understanding. And feel free to challenge me. I could be wrong and I need to know that. As far as 'my view' goes I try to keep my personal bias out of it if I can. I learned long ago that hoping for a certain conclusion never led me to the truth and did nothing to help me mature. But, I am a creature and a sinful one, so I know that I can be incorrect. That being said, scripture is always correct IF we can understand what the Lord is telling us. Not so easy as it sounds. I see what you are saying concerning the above scriptures, and it makes sense. With your permission I'll look at them all. Dan 7 "25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." This verse clearly says the saints are under the power of the stout little horn for 3.5 years. If the second half of the week is also 1260 days, then the saints are in 'great tribulation' for the whole of the 2nd week. But scripture also says this: Matt 24 "15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16-20 These five verses are the warning to flee and the hardships the Jews will endure during their flight. 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." I wanted to look at the beginning and the end of 'great tribulation'. The beginning of 'great tribulation' is the A of D as Jesus is telling us here. Jesus is also telling us that it's going to be a time like no other. Most associate the dread of this fearful time with the cruel persecution of the saints of God, and I concur. But there are also many powerful, supernatural events occurring as well making this, 'a time like no other'. But that's another story. Verse 22 says the days are going to be shortened or no flesh would be saved. I understand this 'flesh' to be living saints. The last phrase of verse 22 tells us the days of 'great tribulation' are shortened for the sake of the elect(saints), so I understand this to mean some of the flesh(living saints) of the elect(all believers) must be saved alive(to fulfill another prophecy) so the days are shortened. But by how much are the days shortened? Not a lot. Maybe just a few months from what I read in the scriptures. That’s a possible interpretation for sure. However, it seems a little unlikely to me that something of this significance would only be mentioned once and in a manner that seems quite ambiguous if it were indeed about a shortening of the GT. To me it reads as a shortening of the days of man’s reign on earth. Surely man would eventually wipe himself out if he were allowed to reign over the earth for too long a time. I think your logic can be applied to your statement as well. It's far to important to mention the end of the reign of man only once. Indeed man may indeed wipe himself off the planet and so if the end of man's reign is coming, mankind should hear about many times. Still, it's hard to ignore the statement immediately following, " for then shall be great tribulation...", "and except those days be shortened..." and, "for the elects sake those days shall be shortened." The object of the shortened days is clearly the days of 'great tribulation'. I agree. I’ve never noticed that before. Thanks for pointing that out and for the information regarding the two witnesses falling into the first half of the 70th week. These kind of details I’m particularly interested in. I want to know what the other possible scenarios are regarding this time period so that, in case the interpretation I hold to is wrong, I'll be aware of these other options, and hopefully I won’t be groping in the dark wondering why things are happening as they are. So now I know if when the covenant is confirmed by the AC and it happens that the two witnesses are plowing ahead full steam that the only thing that's wrong is that I had the wrong interpretation. That’s definitely a good thing to be aware of. I don’t personally think that it will happen that way though. When you put that one verse that seems to be saying that the 1260 days is while they are alive against the backdrop of the surrounding passages it doesn’t seem like that’s what it’s saying. For instance you’ve got verse 2 talking about the holy city being trodden under foot by the gentiles 42 months. To me that’s an obvious reference to the second half of the 70th week. Then in verse 15 you’ve got the sounding of the 7th trumpet which, as far as I understand, is the end of the GT. Also the fact that it’s in a place in Revelation which I consider to be specifically about the GT (Chp 8-14) persuades me that the verse in question is only talking about the length of the 2 witnesses ministry on earth including the 3.5 days, not how long they would be alive. And the question I have here is: How can they minister if they are dead? It also seems to me having their ministry in the first half of the week is out of place since the Jews will be sacrificing in their temple during that period, which to me sounds like that first 3.5 years will be a somewhat peaceful time which is what one would expect after a peace deal has been signed. The idea here is that the Jews have made a covenant for peace with the one who will destroy them. The beginning of that destruction happens in the middle of the week. The two witnesses are going to be there to tell Israel and the world that the Jews have made a covenant with death. Even though it will be a time of peace it's just a ruse and that's what the witnesses are warning against, in the first half of the week. That's an interesting take on that passage in Rev 12. Personally I try to take the simplest explanation, especially when it comes to these types of passages. To me the woman is simply the church throughout the ages, Old and New Testament. But I will definitely keep that interpretation in mind. (More comments above in between your last post in case you missed them.) I guess I would ask who the man child is and the remnant of the seed of the woman. If the woman is the church what child did she give birth to that will rule the nations with a rod of Iron. Rev 19 says Jesus will rule the nations with a rod of iron. Psalm 2 says something similar. Maybe Jesus is the man child the woman gives birth to? Well, it seems we've both have put forth our views and are still convinced of the same interpretation as before. I don't know at this point if it will serve us to continue this dialog. I will at least answer your questions though, and if you think there is more we can profit from in continuing this dialog I'll be more than happy to continue. I do have one question for you. It's not clear to me, but you seem to be saying that there is only one mention of the end of man's reign on earth. However, it seems to me that there are several passages about man's reign on earth coming to an end. Could you clarify what you meant there? Thanks. OK. And the question I have here is: How can they minister if they are dead? I don't think that's what I said. I simply said that it could be considered that their ministry could include the last 3.5 days until they get taken up to heaven. I don't see that as an unreasonable statement especially when you look at all the surrounding passages and what makes the most sense in connection with the whole chapter. I guess I would ask who the man child is and the remnant of the seed of the woman. I would simply answer that Jesus is the man child and that the remnant are the body of believers who are still alive at the time. Is there some reason why that couldn't be the case if the woman is the church?

Hi, Love this discussion and I just have to chime in. The pre-wrath thing is something I have studied out over the decades since I first became acquainted with the return of Jesus and the gathering of the elect. At first I read every book I could find on the subject, all were pre-trib. That position always left me unsettled, as if I was somehow in the right crowd, in the know as it were, but still incomplete and searching. So much of the pre-trib position comes from the bias of certain ideas that have been rationalized into existence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing pre-trib, though there is much there to bash, this is just an introduction by way of a little history. In any case I stumbled across a book by M. Rosenthal that helped me to search in a different way, and the eyes of my heart were opened! In all the study i did over the years the only 'rapture' that makes sense, from all the verses related to such an event, is the one we like to call pre-wrath. Some seem to think it's also a post trib event but I think the trib continues until the 70 weeks is complete, though the tribulation of the saints is over at the coming of Jesus, or pre Wrath of God, probably why this rapture is called post-trib by some. The objection I have to the above Wiki quote has to do with this statement: states that Christians will be raptured at the end of a time called the Beginning of Sorrows that occurs in the first half of the seventieth week of the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, and before the day of the Lord's wrath Pre-wrath actually states that believers are gathered at the end of 'great tribulation' and before the wrath of God falls, and this on the same day, likely moments before the Wrath of God begins at the Day of the Lord. "Great tribulation" begins at the middle of the 70th week when the beginning of sorrows ends. Believers endure 'great tribulation' for a period of less than 3.5 years until the Lord returns to gather us up and fight against the rebellious armies of the world. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion! Hmm. I'm a little confused? OK, so if I get you right pre-wrath is similar to post-trib, just that you consider the wrath as part of the 3.5 years and that the rapture happens just before the wrath a little before the end of the 3.5 years of the last week of Daniel? Yep. OK. I guess we're possibly on the same page till we get to the--end of the trib beginning of the wrath--part. So what is it that leads you to interpret the wrath as part of the trib, which I assume means part of the 1260 days of GT that would be connected with the last half of the 70th week? If i understand what you are saying, correct me if i'm wrong, you are wondering why I think the Wrath of God and 'great tribulation' seem to coincide. Well, I don't. I don't see that sort of thing anywhere in scripture. What scripture shows us is a week of years with two halves. The week begins with the beast confirming a covenant. The first half of the week runs till the A of D when the beast is finally revealed for who he is, and the second half commences. The 2nd half of the week is 42 months, or 1260 days. Layered into this, on top of, or woven into, we might say, the 2nd half of the week, are two events of some undetermined duration: 'great tribulation' and the Wrath of God. Scripture does not record that 'great tribulation' has a specified end point except for " those days were shortened or no flesh would be saved." Scripture shows us the beginning of 'great tribulation', but the duration is not specified. The Wrath of God doesn't have a specified beginning either. We assume that the end of the Wrath of God is at the end of the 2nd half of the week and that seems reasonable to me, but scripture does not provide a beginning that is clearly defined("no man knows the day or the hour, but we can know the year and the month, yes?). Logically we know that believers are not appointed to wrath. We also know that 'great tribulation' is the refining fire God promised would come. If the refining fire is for the people of God, to make them pure and holy, then 'great tribulation' ceases when He comes to redeem us and gather us to Him. After he has gathered us the Wrath of God falls on the rebels. We know this from passages in Rev where the Lord gathers the believers from the 4 winds and then the Day of the Lord begins, likely on the same day and the same hour, and the wrath of God is poured out on the rebels It would look like this: 70th Week l____ _First Half__ ______l___ Second half l l Beginning of Sorrows_ _ l 'great tribulation' l Wrath of God l So the second half of the week only is 1260 days. 'Great tribulation' is in the 2nd half of the week and is part of the 1260 days, and is likely the greater part of the 2nd half. 2.5, 3 years, perhaps. I don't know for sure but scripture seems to say the Wrath of God lasts for around 5 to 6 months. OK. I guess you must have a different interpretation of Dan 7:25, Rev 11:3, and Rev 12:6 and 14 than me. To me these would point to the Church passing through the GT for 1260 days before the rapture. I'm interested to know how you interpret those passages. Not trying to challenge your view, just would like to understand it. Just a quick look at the references you supplied tells me we have a similar understanding. And feel free to challenge me. I could be wrong and I need to know that. As far as 'my view' goes I try to keep my personal bias out of it if I can. I learned long ago that hoping for a certain conclusion never led me to the truth and did nothing to help me mature. But, I am a creature and a sinful one, so I know that I can be incorrect. That being said, scripture is always correct IF we can understand what the Lord is telling us. Not so easy as it sounds. I see what you are saying concerning the above scriptures, and it makes sense. With your permission I'll look at them all. Dan 7 "25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." This verse clearly says the saints are under the power of the stout little horn for 3.5 years. If the second half of the week is also 1260 days, then the saints are in 'great tribulation' for the whole of the 2nd week. But scripture also says this: Matt 24 "15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16-20 These five verses are the warning to flee and the hardships the Jews will endure during their flight. 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." I wanted to look at the beginning and the end of 'great tribulation'. The beginning of 'great tribulation' is the A of D as Jesus is telling us here. Jesus is also telling us that it's going to be a time like no other. Most associate the dread of this fearful time with the cruel persecution of the saints of God, and I concur. But there are also many powerful, supernatural events occurring as well making this, 'a time like no other'. But that's another story. Verse 22 says the days are going to be shortened or no flesh would be saved. I understand this 'flesh' to be living saints. The last phrase of verse 22 tells us the days of 'great tribulation' are shortened for the sake of the elect(saints), so I understand this to mean some of the flesh(living saints) of the elect(all believers) must be saved alive(to fulfill another prophecy) so the days are shortened. But by how much are the days shortened? Not a lot. Maybe just a few months from what I read in the scriptures. That’s a possible interpretation for sure. However, it seems a little unlikely to me that something of this significance would only be mentioned once and in a manner that seems quite ambiguous if it were indeed about a shortening of the GT. To me it reads as a shortening of the days of man’s reign on earth. Surely man would eventually wipe himself out if he were allowed to reign over the earth for too long a time. I agree. I’ve never noticed that before. Thanks for pointing that out and for the information regarding the two witnesses falling into the first half of the 70th week. These kind of details I’m particularly interested in. I want to know what the other possible scenarios are regarding this time period so that, in case the interpretation I hold to is wrong, I'll be aware of these other options, and hopefully I won’t be groping in the dark wondering why things are happening as they are. So now I know if when the covenant is confirmed by the AC and it happens that the two witnesses are plowing ahead full steam that the only thing that's wrong is that I had the wrong interpretation. That’s definitely a good thing to be aware of. I don’t personally think that it will happen that way though. When you put that one verse that seems to be saying that the 1260 days is while they are alive against the backdrop of the surrounding passages it doesn’t seem like that’s what it’s saying. For instance you’ve got verse 2 talking about the holy city being trodden under foot by the gentiles 42 months. To me that’s an obvious reference to the second half of the 70th week. Then in verse 15 you’ve got the sounding of the 7th trumpet which, as far as I understand, is the end of the GT. Also the fact that it’s in a place in Revelation which I consider to be specifically about the GT (Chp 8-14) persuades me that the verse in question is only talking about the length of the 2 witnesses ministry on earth including the 3.5 days, not how long they would be alive. It also seems to me having their ministry in the first half of the week is out of place since the Jews will be sacrificing in their temple during that period, which to me sounds like that first 3.5 years will be a somewhat peaceful time which is what one would expect after a peace deal has been signed. That's an interesting take on that passage in Rev 12. Personally I try to take the simplest explanation, especially when it comes to these types of passages. To me the woman is simply the church throughout the ages, Old and New Testament. But I will definitely keep that interpretation in mind. (More comments above in between your last post in case you missed them.)

Hi, Love this discussion and I just have to chime in. The pre-wrath thing is something I have studied out over the decades since I first became acquainted with the return of Jesus and the gathering of the elect. At first I read every book I could find on the subject, all were pre-trib. That position always left me unsettled, as if I was somehow in the right crowd, in the know as it were, but still incomplete and searching. So much of the pre-trib position comes from the bias of certain ideas that have been rationalized into existence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing pre-trib, though there is much there to bash, this is just an introduction by way of a little history. In any case I stumbled across a book by M. Rosenthal that helped me to search in a different way, and the eyes of my heart were opened! In all the study i did over the years the only 'rapture' that makes sense, from all the verses related to such an event, is the one we like to call pre-wrath. Some seem to think it's also a post trib event but I think the trib continues until the 70 weeks is complete, though the tribulation of the saints is over at the coming of Jesus, or pre Wrath of God, probably why this rapture is called post-trib by some. The objection I have to the above Wiki quote has to do with this statement: states that Christians will be raptured at the end of a time called the Beginning of Sorrows that occurs in the first half of the seventieth week of the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, and before the day of the Lord's wrath Pre-wrath actually states that believers are gathered at the end of 'great tribulation' and before the wrath of God falls, and this on the same day, likely moments before the Wrath of God begins at the Day of the Lord. "Great tribulation" begins at the middle of the 70th week when the beginning of sorrows ends. Believers endure 'great tribulation' for a period of less than 3.5 years until the Lord returns to gather us up and fight against the rebellious armies of the world. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion! Hmm. I'm a little confused? OK, so if I get you right pre-wrath is similar to post-trib, just that you consider the wrath as part of the 3.5 years and that the rapture happens just before the wrath a little before the end of the 3.5 years of the last week of Daniel? Yep. OK. I guess we're possibly on the same page till we get to the--end of the trib beginning of the wrath--part. So what is it that leads you to interpret the wrath as part of the trib, which I assume means part of the 1260 days of GT that would be connected with the last half of the 70th week? If i understand what you are saying, correct me if i'm wrong, you are wondering why I think the Wrath of God and 'great tribulation' seem to coincide. Well, I don't. I don't see that sort of thing anywhere in scripture. What scripture shows us is a week of years with two halves. The week begins with the beast confirming a covenant. The first half of the week runs till the A of D when the beast is finally revealed for who he is, and the second half commences. The 2nd half of the week is 42 months, or 1260 days. Layered into this, on top of, or woven into, we might say, the 2nd half of the week, are two events of some undetermined duration: 'great tribulation' and the Wrath of God. Scripture does not record that 'great tribulation' has a specified end point except for " those days were shortened or no flesh would be saved." Scripture shows us the beginning of 'great tribulation', but the duration is not specified. The Wrath of God doesn't have a specified beginning either. We assume that the end of the Wrath of God is at the end of the 2nd half of the week and that seems reasonable to me, but scripture does not provide a beginning that is clearly defined("no man knows the day or the hour, but we can know the year and the month, yes?). Logically we know that believers are not appointed to wrath. We also know that 'great tribulation' is the refining fire God promised would come. If the refining fire is for the people of God, to make them pure and holy, then 'great tribulation' ceases when He comes to redeem us and gather us to Him. After he has gathered us the Wrath of God falls on the rebels. We know this from passages in Rev where the Lord gathers the believers from the 4 winds and then the Day of the Lord begins, likely on the same day and the same hour, and the wrath of God is poured out on the rebels It would look like this: 70th Week l____ _First Half__ ______l___ Second half l l Beginning of Sorrows_ _ l 'great tribulation' l Wrath of God l So the second half of the week only is 1260 days. 'Great tribulation' is in the 2nd half of the week and is part of the 1260 days, and is likely the greater part of the 2nd half. 2.5, 3 years, perhaps. I don't know for sure but scripture seems to say the Wrath of God lasts for around 5 to 6 months. OK. I guess you must have a different interpretation of Dan 7:25, Rev 11:3, and Rev 12:6 and 14 than me. To me these would point to the Church passing through the GT for 1260 days before the rapture. I'm interested to know how you interpret those passages. Not trying to challenge your view, just would like to understand it. Just a quick look at the references you supplied tells me we have a similar understanding. And feel free to challenge me. I could be wrong and I need to know that. As far as 'my view' goes I try to keep my personal bias out of it if I can. I learned long ago that hoping for a certain conclusion never led me to the truth and did nothing to help me mature. But, I am a creature and a sinful one, so I know that I can be incorrect. That being said, scripture is always correct IF we can understand what the Lord is telling us. Not so easy as it sounds. I see what you are saying concerning the above scriptures, and it makes sense. With your permission I'll look at them all. Dan 7 "25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time." This verse clearly says the saints are under the power of the stout little horn for 3.5 years. If the second half of the week is also 1260 days, then the saints are in 'great tribulation' for the whole of the 2nd week. But scripture also says this: Matt 24 "15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16-20 These five verses are the warning to flee and the hardships the Jews will endure during their flight. 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." I wanted to look at the beginning and the end of 'great tribulation'. The beginning of 'great tribulation' is the A of D as Jesus is telling us here. Jesus is also telling us that it's going to be a time like no other. Most associate the dread of this fearful time with the cruel persecution of the saints of God, and I concur. But there are also many powerful, supernatural events occurring as well making this, 'a time like no other'. But that's another story. Verse 22 says the days are going to be shortened or no flesh would be saved. I understand this 'flesh' to be living saints. The last phrase of verse 22 tells us the days of 'great tribulation' are shortened for the sake of the elect(saints), so I understand this to mean some of the flesh(living saints) of the elect(all believers) must be saved alive(to fulfill another prophecy) so the days are shortened. But by how much are the days shortened? Not a lot. Maybe just a few months from what I read in the scriptures. "3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." I have heard several contend the two witnesses are the church and the bible, the church and their testimony, the Jews and the church or, the OT and NT. I wish some scripture would explicitly identify these two. However, scripture definitively identifies them as two individuals, likely men, and there are logical(deductive)arguments that can place these two in the first half of the week. Rev 11:5-12 attributes several characteristics of individuals to the two witnesses: they have feet, a mouth, they speak, they prophesy, they have individual wills, they can be killed, they have bodies. Clearly these are individuals and not the church. There are a couple other things as well. These two are resurrected under different circumstances than the elect. The elect are gathered from the four winds after undergoing persecution during 'great tribulation'. These two laid in the street for three days and then heard a voice saying, "Come up here." The elect will hear a trumpet and see the sign of the coming of the Son of Man. Also, the elect are undergoing persecution by everyone in the world. These two are doing the persecution!! They are burning people to death, causing drought, smiting people with plagues as often as they will. These two are agents of the Most High prophesying for the Lord and smiting the earth; they cannot be the church, the Jews, the OT and NT, etc. The two witnesses certainly will not be able to fulfill 1260 days of prophecy in the second half of the week. If the witnesses were to fulfill their ministry in the second half of the week the reign of the beast would continue past the 42 months, or 1260 days. Let me explain: If the witnesses prophecy 1260 days and then are killed, and the world parties for 3.5 days and gives gifts to one another after the death of these two prophets, then the beasts time runs 3.5 days longer than it should. Since the two witnesses must prophecy for 1260 days it seem logical, though not imperative, their prophecy must fit within one of two time periods we know to be the same length of their prophecy. Namely, either the first or second halves of the week. Since we know they cannot fulfill the prophecy in the second half, then they must appear in the first half, before the beast is empowered and kills them. This seem logical to me. The two witnesses arrive on the scene at the beginning of the 70th week and prophesy against the covenant made with the Jews. The two torment the earth and kill their enemies for 1260 days. The beast ascends from the bottomless pit, is empowered by the dragon, kills the two prophets, the world parties, the beast places the A of D, and 'great tribulation' commences. Now it's true the 1260 days of their prophecy could be any 1260 day period. It could begin one year into the first half and run 2.5 years into the second half, or any other combination. But their days of prophecy cannot be fully contained within the 2nd half of the 70th week or the beast's reign runs past the allotted 42 months. The reason I'm convinced the time of the two prophets is fully contained within the first half is the same as I stated earlier. God will warn the Jews about their impending doom, relying on this little horn that promises peace and plans destruction. This prophesying will begin the moment the treaty for peace is confirmed and fulfill the 1260 days in the first half of the week. Rev 12. If I understand correctly you are equating the woman in Rev 12 with the church, elect. Since the scripture clearly says the woman flees to the wilderness on the wings of a great eagle, and is nourished there for 1260 days, the church, elect, must be in 'great tribulation' for 1260 days, therefore, a post trib rapture. I think scripture says exactly what you suggest. The woman in the wilderness, in the place prepared for her, is on earth for the entire 1260 days. But the group in question is the remnant of her seed. "17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" Now this group is different from the woman. But I guess we should let scripture identify the woman first. "5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." Clearly the man-child who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron that was caught up to God's throne, is Jesus Christ. The woman then must be Israel(at one point Jesus likened all the Jews to his 'mothers and brothers') as it certainly cannot be Jesus birth mother Mary. So the remnant of the seed of the woman can only be the elect as they, "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ". So the woman is here for the whole of the 1260 days in a special place whereas the other group that, "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" are under siege by the dragon. This is the elect for," except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened". So while the woman is on earth for 1260 days, 'great tribulation' for the elect is cut short, the elect is gathered and the Wrath of God begins, and ends at the culmination of the 70th week. In reality I understand pretty much the same as you do, except maybe the two witnesses. I just added some scripture to give us more to think about. Hi Diaste, You gave me a lot of homework there. I'll try to get back to you shortly. :)

Hi, Love this discussion and I just have to chime in. The pre-wrath thing is something I have studied out over the decades since I first became acquainted with the return of Jesus and the gathering of the elect. At first I read every book I could find on the subject, all were pre-trib. That position always left me unsettled, as if I was somehow in the right crowd, in the know as it were, but still incomplete and searching. So much of the pre-trib position comes from the bias of certain ideas that have been rationalized into existence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing pre-trib, though there is much there to bash, this is just an introduction by way of a little history. In any case I stumbled across a book by M. Rosenthal that helped me to search in a different way, and the eyes of my heart were opened! In all the study i did over the years the only 'rapture' that makes sense, from all the verses related to such an event, is the one we like to call pre-wrath. Some seem to think it's also a post trib event but I think the trib continues until the 70 weeks is complete, though the tribulation of the saints is over at the coming of Jesus, or pre Wrath of God, probably why this rapture is called post-trib by some. The objection I have to the above Wiki quote has to do with this statement: states that Christians will be raptured at the end of a time called the Beginning of Sorrows that occurs in the first half of the seventieth week of the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, and before the day of the Lord's wrath Pre-wrath actually states that believers are gathered at the end of 'great tribulation' and before the wrath of God falls, and this on the same day, likely moments before the Wrath of God begins at the Day of the Lord. "Great tribulation" begins at the middle of the 70th week when the beginning of sorrows ends. Believers endure 'great tribulation' for a period of less than 3.5 years until the Lord returns to gather us up and fight against the rebellious armies of the world. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion! Hmm. I'm a little confused? OK, so if I get you right pre-wrath is similar to post-trib, just that you consider the wrath as part of the 3.5 years and that the rapture happens just before the wrath a little before the end of the 3.5 years of the last week of Daniel? Yep. OK. I guess we're possibly on the same page till we get to the--end of the trib beginning of the wrath--part. So what is it that leads you to interpret the wrath as part of the trib, which I assume means part of the 1260 days of GT that would be connected with the last half of the 70th week? If i understand what you are saying, correct me if i'm wrong, you are wondering why I think the Wrath of God and 'great tribulation' seem to coincide. Well, I don't. I don't see that sort of thing anywhere in scripture. What scripture shows us is a week of years with two halves. The week begins with the beast confirming a covenant. The first half of the week runs till the A of D when the beast is finally revealed for who he is, and the second half commences. The 2nd half of the week is 42 months, or 1260 days. Layered into this, on top of, or woven into, we might say, the 2nd half of the week, are two events of some undetermined duration: 'great tribulation' and the Wrath of God. Scripture does not record that 'great tribulation' has a specified end point except for " those days were shortened or no flesh would be saved." Scripture shows us the beginning of 'great tribulation', but the duration is not specified. The Wrath of God doesn't have a specified beginning either. We assume that the end of the Wrath of God is at the end of the 2nd half of the week and that seems reasonable to me, but scripture does not provide a beginning that is clearly defined("no man knows the day or the hour, but we can know the year and the month, yes?). Logically we know that believers are not appointed to wrath. We also know that 'great tribulation' is the refining fire God promised would come. If the refining fire is for the people of God, to make them pure and holy, then 'great tribulation' ceases when He comes to redeem us and gather us to Him. After he has gathered us the Wrath of God falls on the rebels. We know this from passages in Rev where the Lord gathers the believers from the 4 winds and then the Day of the Lord begins, likely on the same day and the same hour, and the wrath of God is poured out on the rebels It would look like this: 70th Week l____ _First Half__ ______l___ Second half l l Beginning of Sorrows_ _ l 'great tribulation' l Wrath of God l So the second half of the week only is 1260 days. 'Great tribulation' is in the 2nd half of the week and is part of the 1260 days, and is likely the greater part of the 2nd half. 2.5, 3 years, perhaps. I don't know for sure but scripture seems to say the Wrath of God lasts for around 5 to 6 months. OK. I guess you must have a different interpretation of Dan 7:25, Rev 11:3, and Rev 12:6 and 14 than me. To me these would point to the Church passing through the GT for 1260 days before the rapture. I'm interested to know how you interpret those passages. Not trying to challenge your view, just would like to understand it.