Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[iamlamad]

6 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

If they all see him (hide us from the face) and all are aware of him (hide themselves) and it is the day of wrath and the day of the great earthquake, and the stars from heaven fall, and heaven rolls like a scroll, it surely is the second coming. To imagine life just carries on on planet earth after that moment is unrealistic and an early event like this is not described anywhere else in the bible.

 

There is nothing in the sixth seal which contradicts Rev 19 or 1 Thess 4, it is all about the second coming.

This is indeed a theory. But if we look at the Old Testament verses on a great earthquake where people hide in the rocks, and where the sun is darkened and the moon appears blood red, it is only talking about the start of the Day of the Lord, the very thing John tells us. 

Can God created a worldwide earthquake without "coming" to do it? Of course He can.

Can God cause the sun to darken and the moon into blood without "coming?" Of course He can.

Can God begin the Day of the Lord, and cause people to be scared out of their wits, KNOWING it the the Day of the Lord - without His coming to do it? Of course He can.  John SHOWED US very clearly His coming in chapter 19. Why then do you imagine other hidden "comings" in previous chapters?

Why not just read it as it is, and say that the DAY begins at the 6th seal, but His coming will be much later as in Rev. 19? What scriptures, rightly divided, would that contradict?

Case in point: people read about signs in the sun and moon coming "after" the tribulation, but in another place read about the signs in the sun and moon coming BEFORE the Day of the Lord. Without future research then, they claim (in error) that the "tribulation" comes before the Day and the Day comes after the "tribulation."   The truth is, these signs in the sun and moon will be seen TWICE: the first time as shown at the 6th seal, as the sign for the start of the DAY, and then again around 7 years later, as the sign for HIS COMING.

Therefore, just because one sees words that might seem similar to words in another verse, does not mean the two verses are speaking of the same event.

[Diaste]

5 hours ago, iamlamad said:

This is indeed a theory. But if we look at the Old Testament verses on a great earthquake where people hide in the rocks, and where the sun is darkened and the moon appears blood red, it is only talking about the start of the Day of the Lord, the very thing John tells us. 

Can God created a worldwide earthquake without "coming" to do it? Of course He can.

Can God cause the sun to darken and the moon into blood without "coming?" Of course He can.

Can God begin the Day of the Lord, and cause people to be scared out of their wits, KNOWING it the the Day of the Lord - without His coming to do it? Of course He can.  John SHOWED US very clearly His coming in chapter 19. Why then do you imagine other hidden "comings" in previous chapters?

Why not just read it as it is, and say that the DAY begins at the 6th seal, but His coming will be much later as in Rev. 19? What scriptures, rightly divided, would that contradict?

Case in point: people read about signs in the sun and moon coming "after" the tribulation, but in another place read about the signs in the sun and moon coming BEFORE the Day of the Lord. Without future research then, they claim (in error) that the "tribulation" comes before the Day and the Day comes after the "tribulation."   The truth is, these signs in the sun and moon will be seen TWICE: the first time as shown at the 6th seal, as the sign for the start of the DAY, and then again around 7 years later, as the sign for HIS COMING. Wrong. This is all in relation to each other. Paul links the day of the Lord and the gathering as occurring together. Jesus says the same thing in Matt 24. This refutes the ridiculous claim you make above. The sign of His coming, His coming, and the gathering are linked, to wit:

Matt 24

30 “Then will appear the SIGN of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they SEE the Son of Man COMING on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will GATHER HIS ELECT from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

These three events happen in very close proximity. The Sign precedes the immediate appearance of Jesus, and Jesus send the angels to gather the elect. This is called biblical proof, a concept you cannot grasp. This further means your timeline of Rev is wrong, your exegesis is specious and your hermeneutic is preposterous.

Therefore, just because one sees words that might seem similar to words in another verse, does not mean the two verses are speaking of the same event.

You would make a poor investigator. Anytime there are similarities in descriptions we should think we are seeing the same event, or the director, or perpetrator of the event. This is how the police know they have a serial criminal on their hands; one crime scene has either similar or the same evidence or clues. This is also how they rule out copycats. The evidence is dissimilar. Every car accident has the same attributes, broken plastic, glass, twisted metal, leaking fluids, injured people, etc. Now maybe there isn't an injury in every car crash, but it's still a car accident, even if the cars, people and places vary. Mountains have the same attributes and every time we see one we conclude it's a mountain, not a plate of spaghetti. I know you're going to miss or ignore the point but I expect that. 

[Diaste]

On 7/16/2017 at 9:12 PM, iamlamad said:

In fact, when God pushed me into Revelation, I determined to throw out all preconceptions and come with an empty slate - and wait for His intended meaning. In fact, there are many that absolutely deny this passage is about Christ's birth.

If you have never heard God speak to you - with what seems like an audible voice - you would not understand. It is very similar with a human voice talking to you. Surely sometime in your life you have heard your mom or dad speak when you could not see them.

Just so you know, thoughts and imaginations come from outside the human spirit into your brain. ONLY GOD can speak to your spirit.

For those that pray in the Spirit - they learn WHERE the spirit speaks from - It comes from the Holy Spirit inside the human spirit to the mind. Our human spirit uses the same "channel." All other "voices" come from elsewhere." Every believer should learn the voice of their own human spirit.

Channeling spirits? Why am I not surprised.

Where have you been? Oh, preconceived glasses on: got it. Do you actually believe John when you read? Try this:

Rev. 5:

⁵ And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

⁶ And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

There is not one clue in the above that can lead anyone to the conclusion you present below. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is logic. By your logic we could conclude anything. The fact is Jesus was right there in the midst of the Throne, the Elders and the four beasts. Nothing here says. "Look, Jesus just showed up!" What John saw was simply the order in which God demanded. Plus you miss the overarching context of the book; 

Rev 1

¹² I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, ¹³ and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,^[d] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. ¹⁴ The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. ¹⁵ His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. ¹⁶ In his right hand he held seven stars,and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

¹⁷ When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. ¹⁸ I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever!

The above is Jesus in heaven. Already there. And appearing in power as God. Already glorified. Now how did he get here, at the beginning of Rev, when he's not supposed to be there? Maybe he was going back and forth from heaven to earth to build up frequent flier miles. That must be it!

 

Do you see it? Take off your preconceived glasses and try again: John got to see the moment Jesus ascended into the throne room. That would be right after He told Mary not to touch Him - for He had not yet ascended.

Notice also, it is the very moment that the Holy Spirit was sent down.

By the way, WHEN was He found worthy to open the book? Do you know? I mean, what just happened that caused Him to become worthy?

So you will leave your blinders on. Got it. Yes, it IS 95 AD. But this is a VISION and at this point this vision is showing John an event that took place around 30 years previous to 95 AD.  Don't just let this go over your head again!

Jesus was NOT IN the throne room in chapter 4 and not until this verse in chapter 5.

The Holy Spirit WAS in the throne room until this verse where He is sent down.

Jesus was NOT FOUND worthy in the first search John watched. That is why He wept much.

 

I know what you said, but you are deceiving yourself. The truth is, IF this was about evil, the horse would not be white, and there would we words telling us it was evil. For example: " upon his heads the name of blasphemy. "  Any doubt this "his" is evil?  "The dragon gave him his power"  Any doubt that this "his" is evil?  "All the world wondered after the beast."  Any doubt this beast is evil? "There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies" Any doubt this "him" is evil? Now compare:

² And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

Just like absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, absence of evidence is not proof of existence. do you get that? you are trying to prove a negative, an impossibility. I have noticed it's your MO.

There is not one hint of anything evil. Remember the duck? Remember the quack? Remember the duck bill? There is no hint of evil because this entity is NOT evil. Go through John's 17 uses of white and see if in ANY case john used white for evil. You will not find any because John never used white for evil. So you entire thesis of "no conclusion" is wrong.  I will say this; you sure fight hard to hold onto false theories.

YOu can't even be honest with yourself. You imagine God would use "white" for something evil. Show me "white" in Revelation that even hints of something evil.  In fact, you KNOW John used "white" to represent good things. Shall I refresh your mind?

white for God's hair
White for being worthy
white for overcomers
White raiment for the 24 elders
White robes for the martyrs
White robes for the huge crowd too large to number
A white cloud for a reaper to sit on: probably Jesus
White linen for the angels with the 7 plagues
Clean and white, fine linen for the righteousness of the saints
a White horse for Jesus to ride
White horses for the armies of heaven
a white throne

So you imagine a white horse  - the color chosen by God Himself - must represent something evil? And you call this using "facts and deductive reasoning?" Now you know why I frequently write "that nothing but imagination and human reasoning."

If the beast was to choose his own color, I could imagine he would chose white. But sorry, this is GOD'S vision in a book meant to REVEAL, not hide.  In this case, your imagination has run wild. You don't have a leg to stand on. God is simply not going to use white 16 times for good things, and then switch and use white once for something evil.  Why don't you just admit your theory here is wrong?

Because I'm not wrong. The white here is a horse. The symbol of a conqueror. Nothing more. That's all we have here. You cherry pick what you want from the above references of 'white'. Where white 'raiment' is seen it is called pure, holy, righteous, etc. That's clear. Still not a horse. The white horses are not associated with any of that. The righteous and holy, in and of themselves ride the symbol of a conqueror.

Still lost. God and John used a White stone, a white cloud, many white horses, and a white throne. Fact it: God is just not going to use white to represent evil.

It's a white horse. Not one time is 'white' alone said to be representative of righteousness. White linen is. White robes are. White, the color, needs an object, it's not stand alone. It's the conjunction of the linen or robes and the color that is the symbol of righteousness, but neither the robes nor the color imbue righteousness. So 'white' could be used to represent anything, and in the case of the white horse in seal 1 and the white horse that Jesus and the angels are riding is the symbol of a conqueror.

You realize, God could have chosen ANY color for the horse Jesus will ride. And the horses the armies of heaven will ride.  Let' see: what did John write about Jesus while on the white horse:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Hmmm. IN RIGHTEOUSNESS He will judge and make war. 

Does not say the white horse is a symbol of righteousness. The one who rides the horse IS righteousness. IS Faithful and True. He is a conqueror coming to judge and make war, riding a symbol of a conqueror.

Look, if you wish to imagine this first seal is to represent the Beast, you have that right. Go ahead on! But when we get to heaven, Jesus will probably ask you why you ever imagined the first seal was about the Beast. I am only trying to save you that embarrassment.

Whatever.

 

 

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Channeling spirits? Why am I not surprised.

Why would you say such a thing to a fellow believer? Channeling spirits is part of the Occult. 

I am talking about a born again believer with the Holy Spirit living INSIDE. Is this concept foreign to you?

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Rev. 5:

⁵ And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

⁶ And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

There is not one clue in the above that can lead anyone to the conclusion you present below. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is logic. By your logic we could conclude anything. The fact is Jesus was right there in the midst of the Throne, the Elders and the four beasts. Nothing here says. "Look, Jesus just showed up!" What John saw was simply the order in which God demanded. Plus you miss the overarching context of the book; 

You can imagine that if you choose - but you will be wrong. Let's cover some basics and see:

WHERE was the second person of the Godhead in the eons of time before He was inside of Mary?

Where was the second person of the Godhead - now called Jesus - AFTER he ascended? WHERE IS HE?

The truth is, since God the Son is a very part of the Father, and the Father is very much a part of the SON, before the Redeemer of old came to be born of a virgin, He was always with the Father.  And now that He ascended, He went to be at the right hand of the FAther. We have a dozen verses telling us this.

My point? there was 32 years or so that He was NOT with the Father in heaven, for then He was on the earth. You don't understand it, but John, in NOT seeing Jesus at the right hand of the Father, is telling us that it was during those 32 years. When John said "no man was found, we know it was before He rose from the dead.

"Look, Jesus just showed up!  Read the verse!  And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain

That lamb of God WAS NOT THERE a moment before.  But I expect this will go right over your head. 

In case you missed it, the FUTURE  is the context of the book! It is Jesus revelation.  But many chapters cover the period of the 70th week. And then future to that.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

The above is Jesus in heaven. Already there. And appearing in power as God. Already glorified. Now how did he get here, at the beginning of Rev, when he's not supposed to be there? Maybe he was going back and forth from heaven to earth to build up frequent flier miles. That must be it!

Are you telling me you cannot tell time in reading this book? It was 95 AD when John saw the vision, but Jesus ascended in 32 AD. Did you not understand that in a vision God can show all different timings?  In 12:1-5 it was ZERO AD, when Jesus was born.  The truth is, John gives us TIMING in chapter after chapter. Does it just go right over your head?  Perhaps you need to get a clock and study it. It is for TIME and TIMING. The very thing that Revelation does: it shows TIME and TIMING. But for those with preconceptions - they will miss it all.    Did you not notice that in the first chapter, it was JOhn's time: 95 AD. And in chapter 21, well over a thousand years into our future. Did it ever occur to you then that somewhere between chapter 1 and chapter 21 must be NOW?  I wonder of you know where the church is NOW in this book?

 

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Just like absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, absence of evidence is not proof of existence. do you get that? you are trying to prove a negative, an impossibility. I have noticed it's your MO.

We have evidence: WHITE, HORSE, OVERCOMING and the time of 32 AD. That is really enough to KNOW what the intended meaning is.  However, people with preconceptions will just pull this seal out of its 32 AD context and make it say anything.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Because I'm not wrong. The white here is a horse. The symbol of a conqueror. Nothing more. That's all we have here. You cherry pick what you want from the above references of 'white'. Where white 'raiment' is seen it is called pure, holy, righteous, etc. That's clear. Still not a horse. The white horses are not associated with any of that. The righteous and holy, in and of themselves ride the symbol of a conqueror.

WRONG! Every word here is a clue. Why ignore a clue if John gives it to us?  God could have chosen ANY COLOR for this horse. You can go on blinded by the truth if you wish. In the end, you will find out this is the GOSPEL.  If you will note, Jesus was NOT on a red horse, yet, He is coming for WAR. Colors mean something.  I know, you want to pull this out of the 32 AD context and imagine it is something different. You have been caught. The time is 32 AD. It is the very time Jesus ascended and the Holy Spirit was sent down.

 

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Does not say the white horse is a symbol of righteousness. The one who rides the horse IS righteousness. IS Faithful and True. He is a conqueror coming to judge and make war, riding a symbol of a conqueror.

Again, God could have chosen a RED Horse. Why did He choose white? In case you have not noticed, there is a PATTERN to John's use of white.

Does John spell out "conquering" in any of these uses of white?

white for God's hair
White for being worthy
white for overcomers
White raiment for the 24 elders
White robes for the martyrs
White robes for the huge crowd too large to number
A white cloud for a reaper to sit on: probably Jesus
White linen for the angels with the 7 plagues
Clean and white, fine linen for the righteousness of the saints
a White horse for Jesus to ride
White horses for the armies of heaven
a white throne

If so it is in invisible ink. I don't see it. But there IS a pattern here: God chose RED for the Dragon, but WHITE for all that are HIS.

[iamlamad]

12 hours ago, Diaste said:

Wrong. This is all in relation to each other. Paul links the day of the Lord and the gathering as occurring together. Jesus says the same thing in Matt 24. This refutes the ridiculous claim you make above. The sign of His coming, His coming, and the gathering are linked, to wit:

Sorry, but it is you who are wrong, once again: Paul DOES link the Day of the Lord to the rapture: if you read closely, you will see that His coming will be the trigger for the dead in Christ to rise, and the dead in Christ to rise will trigger the "sudden destruction" and that sudden destruction will be the start of the Day of the Lord.  But just before the Day and therefore just before His coming will be the signs in the sun and moon: the signs for the DAY as seen in joel 2: the sun turning dark and the moon into blood.

12 hours ago, Diaste said:

Matt 24

30 “Then will appear the SIGN of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they SEE the Son of Man COMING on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will GATHER HIS ELECT from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

These three events happen in very close proximity. The Sign precedes the immediate appearance of Jesus, and Jesus send the angels to gather the elect. This is called biblical proof, a concept you cannot grasp. This further means your timeline of Rev is wrong, your exegesis is specious and your hermeneutic is preposterous.

Sorry, but you are making a HUGE assumption. The DAY will have started before the 70th week, but it will be over 7 years after the DAY begins (with that great sudden destruction earthquake) at the 6th seal. You imagine the DAY starts with His coming as seen in Rev. 19. You are 13 chapters off.
Next, you assume this gathering is Paul's gathering. Yet, upon examination, it cannot be: This gathering in Matthew 24 INCLUDES gathering in heaven. Paul's gathering gathers from earth. And there is a difference in the signs:

When Jesus comes as seen in Rev. 19, DARKNESS will be upon the earth. NO SUN SEEN AND NO MOON SEEN: the heavens will be black with darkness. His coming will light up the world, as lighting streaking across a dark sky. They will indeed see Him, brighter than the sun! But during before the 6th seal Day of the Lord, the moon is seen as blood red. DIFFERENT SIGNS For DIFFERENT purposes. 

Sorry, but your "biblical proof" is that of a beginner in prophecy. I suggest you return to prophecy 101. Everything you write shows us your understanding is at the beginning stages. You THINK you know, but in fact, you don't.

In case you missed it: people have been trying to prove, unsuccessfully, for many years that Jesus' gathering in Matthew 24 is Paul's rapture gathering. It has NEVER been proven and never will, for they are different gatherings.

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by iamlamad

[Diaste]

It's clear the only reason you are here is to cast doubt on the truth, discredit the truth, change the truth and advance a series of lies. 

I know you aren't a confessing believer but in case I'm wrong about that you have an opportunity to set the record straight right here and now.

It's really too bad Worthy lets dissemblers such as yourself on this site.

Well said is;

 

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when they will not endure sounddoctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

[fixerupper]

8 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Sorry, but it is you who are wrong, once again: Paul DOES like the Day of the Lord to the rapture: if you read closely, you will see that His coming will be the trigger for the dead in Christ to rise, and the dead in Christ to rise will trigger the "sudden destruction" and that sudden destruction will be the start of the Day of the Lord.  But just before the Day and therefore just before His coming will be the signs in the sun and moon: the signs for the DAY as seen in joel 2: the sun turning dark and the moon into blood.

Sorry, but you are making a HUGE assumption. The DAY will have started before the 70th week, but it will be over 7 years after the DAY begins (with that great sudden destruction earthquake) at the 6th seal. You imagine the DAY starts with His coming as seen in Rev. 19. You are 13 chapters off.
Next, you assume this gathering is Paul's gathering. Yet, upon examination, it cannot be: This gathering in Matthew 24 INCLUDES gathering in heaven. Paul's gathering gathers from earth. And there is a difference in the signs:

When Jesus comes as seen in Rev. 19, DARKNESS will be upon the earth. NO SUN SEEN AND NO MOON SEEN: the heavens will be black with darkness. His coming will light up the world, as lighting streaking across a dark sky. They will indeed see Him, brighter than the sun! But during before the 6th seal Day of the Lord, the moon is seen as blood red. DIFFERENT SIGNS For DIFFERENT purposes. 

Sorry, but your "biblical proof" is that of a beginner in prophecy. I suggest you return to prophecy 101. Everything you write shows us your understanding is at the beginning stages. You THINK you know, but in fact, you don't.

In case you missed it: people have been trying to prove, unsuccessfully, for many years that Jesus' gathering in Matthew 24 is Paul's rapture gathering. It has NEVER been proven and never will, for they are different gatherings.

 

His understanding is logical, simple, uncomplicated, unfabricated, not pereverted.  You've fallen for and accepted one of the biggest lies that has ever entered the church....pre-trib.  You continually pervert God's Word and have turned it into Lamad's freak show. 

Perversion #1.  

Quote

"This gathering in Matthew 24 INCLUDES gathering in heaven. Paul's gathering gathers from earth. And there is a difference in the signs:"

Jesus records the event one way by answering the questions of his disciples.  "When will these things be, what will be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the world."

Paul's response is recorded different than Jesus' response because He's not responding to that same question. Paul's account of the gathering has fooled you and others.  His take on the gathering comes because the Thessalonians thought the Day of Christ had already come.  Two different authors speaking to two different classes of people WILL NOT record the future gathering the same way!  The way you interpret this one could turn this into four different gatherings!  

"Sudden destruction"...

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Why would people say, "peace and safety" if they were taken out of this 'destruction' 7 years prior?"  Sudden destruction comes at a troublesome time and its escape is attributed to salvation, not the removal by rapture.

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

In 1 Thes. 5 Paul says to the Thessalonians that he has no no need to tell them of the "times and seasons."

"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.  For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night."

In 2 Thes. 2, Paul doesn't tell them about "the times and seasons."  He tells them they already know what detains the man of sin.

Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?  And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

So when I interpret things the way you do I come up with three, maybe even four raptures!  1 Thes. 4-5 is different than 2 Thes. 2.  In 1 Thes. 4-5 we have "the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God," but those are not mentioned in 2 Thes. 2!  So between those and Mathew 24 that makes three rapturs!  So you made a mistake and didn't fabricate three raptures total out of this!  

Pre-trib....That's the way the devils wants it!

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

It's clear the only reason you are here is to cast doubt on the truth, discredit the truth, change the truth and advance a series of lies. 

I know you aren't a confessing believer but in case I'm wrong about that you have an opportunity to set the record straight right here and now.

It's really too bad Worthy lets dissemblers such as yourself on this site.

Well said is;

 

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when they will not endure sounddoctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Oh! Now - just because I don't agree with you - I am not even a believer? I was born again when I was 7, baptized in the Holy Spirit when I was 20. I spend time praying every day. I spend time praying for the lost nearly every day. I know Jesus can come any second, and probably will come very soon. I am both expecting His coming and watching for His coming.  Sound doctrine is believing the word of God as written, and IN CONTEXT. There is precious little of that here.  I am here so readers can get a correct viewpoint on scriptures.

[iamlamad]

51 minutes ago, fixerupper said:

His understanding is logical, simple, uncomplicated, unfabricated, not pereverted.  You've fallen for and accepted one of the biggest lies that has ever entered the church....pre-trib.  You continually pervert God's Word and have turned it into Lamad's freak show. 

You go right on ahead with your nonsense! I have rhino' skin. It won't bother me in the least. I will agree, it is very simple to read Matthew 24 and declare that Paul's rapture will come after the tribulation. Beginners in the study of God's word do this all the time. And when they teach it, some will know immediately that they are beginners. Beginners see a "gathering" and immediately jump on it like a bulldog on a bone, and imagine that any gathering in the New Testament must then be Paul's gathering.

In case you missed it, any theory of the end times must fit EVERY end time scripture, not just a few. The truth is, it IS complicated. There are many end times scriptures. At first reading, some seem to say one thing, when indeed, upon a close examination, say something entirely different.

Mat. 24:³¹ And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mark 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

Did you ever consider WHERE this gathering gathers from?  Now stop and think: the dead in Christ rise......so where are they before they rise? Under the ground on the earth: so no "heaven" involved. The body rises up and the spirit that came with Jesus meets the body and the dead in Christ are whole again - and it happens on the earth. Then those alive and in Christ rise up: from WHERE? From the earth.  My point is, the word "heaven" is not required to explain Paul's rapture which is gathered from earth.  It would seem then that this must be a DIFFERENT gathering. Is God not allowed to have any other? Why don't you tell HIM that?

Next, consider what it will be like on earth when Jesus comes, as shown in Rev. 19. It will be DARK. Neither the sun nor the moon will give their light, and the stars will be dark. It will be darker than midnight in a coal mine around the earth. The vials of God's wrath will have been poured out. All men will be scared out of their wits. The world's worst earthquake will have happened, and earthquake so violent the mountains and Islands disappear.

Get the picture? They KNOW Christ is coming. All will be shaking in their boots. Now, again pause for effect: think: does this really sound like what Paul described: people will be saying "peace and safety?" I don't think so.

Now, let's consider a scripture in its context:

Rev. 19: 19 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:

⁶ And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

There are people in heaven. Imagine that. John SAW a huge group of people years before around the throne. He also saw some martyrs. Rev. 15 tells of the 70th week martyrs. Then the voice of a great multitude (presumable the same people in verse 6) said:

⁷ Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

⁸ And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Now we read that the marriage of the Lamb has come. Picture it! Some kind of ceremony takes place. The church has become the Bride of Christ! Now see what comes next, after the marriage: it is time for the marriage supper - probably the kind of thing where Jesus turned water into wine.

⁹ And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

John apparently did not see either the marriage or the supper. It seems God is rushing through these things and just giving John a bare bones outline. The fact remains, the marrage came in verse 7, and the marriage supper in verse 9.

¹¹ And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

WOW! John made a change: suddenly a different scene.  Thoughts of the marriage and supper or over. I think we can conclude they happened (or will happen when the time comes) IN HEAVEN right where and when John saw them. To think anything else is to pull these verses out of their context. John is showing us very clearly that the marriage and supper are concluded before Jesus gets on His white horse.

Therefore, please tell us, you that know so clearly when someone else is wrong, HOW will you get to the marriage without rearranging John's great book?

1 hour ago, fixerupper said:

Paul's response is recorded different than Jesus' response because He's not responding to that same question. Paul's account of the gathering has fooled you and others.  His take on the gathering comes because the Thessalonians thought the Day of Christ had already come.  Two different authors speaking to two different classes of people WILL NOT record the future gathering the same way!  The way you interpret this one could turn this into four different gatherings!  

No, not four. But clearly there will be two. Paul's gathering will gather the church from the earth while people are saying "peace and safety." When Jesus comes, He will gather all of Israel from both heaven and earth, back to Israel, just has He has promised them. So two gatherings, for two different people groups and for two different reasons. 

1 hour ago, fixerupper said:

"Sudden destruction"...

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Why would people say, "peace and safety" if they were taken out of this 'destruction' 7 years prior?"  Sudden destruction comes at a troublesome time and its escape is attributed to salvation, not the removal by rapture.

People say "peace and safety" when they are dwelling in peace and safety and thinking peace and safety. In fact, there was a news headline a while ago that said this very thing.  I cannot even imagine people saying "peace and safety" after the terrible vials of God's wrath have finished and the world's population has decreased by perhaps 90%.

Again, you pull a word out of its context and have no idea the intent of either Paul or the Holy Spirit. In context, "salvation" here means rapture. Indeed, it can mean nothing else. You see, after these people get "salvation" they get to "live together with Him." Previously Paul wrote, "so shall we ever be with the Lord" and that will happen when people are raptured. 

Understand it: two groups of people get two different results when this sudden destruction comes: those living in Christ get raptured. Paul already said that. But those living in darkness WILL NOT GET RAPTURED, so they must live through this sudden destruction. If there is a worldwide earthquake, EVERYONE on the earth will quake. Perhaps the only exception will be those in airplanes at that moment. I am convinced when God raises the dead in Christ, that will cause a worldwide earthquake, for the dead in Christ will be around the world. When God raised those Old Testament elders seen in Matthew 27, that event caused a great earthquake. I am convinced Paul's "sudden destruction" is the very same earthquake seen at the 6th seal, for in both instances, the Day of the Lord begins.

Bottom line? It is MUCH MORE likely people will be saying "peace and safety" on a day like today, versus a day of darkness, wondering what terrible event will come next, as the world will be when Jesus comes as shown in Rev. 19.

1 hour ago, fixerupper said:

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

Right! HOW do we get from earth to "live together with Him?" It happens by way of rapture or catching up. Those left behind face "wrath" but those caught up escape the wrath, for the wrath is in the sudden destruction.

1 hour ago, fixerupper said:

"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.  For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night."

Paul had already taught them of the timing, and what the season would be. But here is Paul, talking about the rapture and the timing of the rapture, and ties the rapture to the Day of the Lord that comes as a thief in the night. This ties Paul's rapture to the 6th seal where John begins the day of the Lord.  It is very simple: when the dead in Christ are raised, that raising will cause a worldwide earthquake, shown by John at the 6th seal. And John then tells us that earthquake is the start of the wrath of God. Isaiah 2 tells us the same thing.

Try as you might, the 6th seal will happen over 7 years before Christ's coming in Rev. 19.

1 hour ago, fixerupper said:

So when I interpret things the way you do I come up with three, maybe even four raptures!  1 Thes. 4-5 is different than 2 Thes. 2.  In 1 Thes. 4-5 we have "the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God," but those are not mentioned in 2 Thes. 2!  So between those and Mathew 24 that makes three rapturs!  So you made a mistake and didn't fabricate three raptures total out of this!  

All you are telling us is that you have little understanding of these scriptures.

[fixerupper]

1 hour ago, iamlamad said:

Oh! Now - just because I don't agree with you - I am not even a believer? I was born again when I was 7, baptized in the Holy Spirit when I was 20. I spend time praying every day. I spend time praying for the lost nearly every day. I know Jesus can come any second, and probably will come very soon. I am both expecting His coming and watching for His coming.  Sound doctrine is believing the word of God as written, and IN CONTEXT. There is precious little of that here.  I am here so readers can get a correct viewpoint on scriptures.

No.  You believe the Word of God as written by your pre-trib mentors who have deceived you, and which you attribute to your "Pentecostal" spiritual superiority, and going camping.  You're mentors have complicated the rapture so much that the endless contradictions can only be overcome by more "pre-trib fabrications." More and more of these contradictions continue to surface every year, and that's why more fabrications come along.  It's truly amazing. In your case, being a Pentecostal Christian doesn't make you the sharpest tool in the drawer.

I'm sure the readers who come here don't convert to pre-trib.  Pre-trib is losing ground like crazy.  You are perpetually deceived.