Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[toknowthetruth]

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. 

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.

Edited September 21, 2015 by toknowthetruth

[ghtan]

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. 

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?

[toknowthetruth]

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. 

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. 

[WilliamL]

• Christ appears in the clouds - resurrection / rapture
• He descends with His army
• Christ alone executes judgment on the winepress and carries out God's wrath on them.
• He then touches down on the Mount of Olives.

There's no reason at all to think that those are two separate events being described. 

Rev. 19:11 I [the Apostle John] saw heaven having been opened, and behold, a white horse, and the one sitting on him being called faithful and true... 13 he having been clothed with a robe covered in blood... 14 And the armies in heaven follow him... 15 and out of his mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it he should strike the nations.

This is a literal translation of the Greek. The verb forms “having been clothed” and “having been covered” are both perfect participles: the perfect tense means completed/fulfilled action.

“Should strike”: subjunctive tense, meaning it is something yet to occur when John sees this.

The armies who follow him are “in heaven,” as he is at this point: if he had already descended to kill the Edomites, then his armies could not be said to be following him when John see this. (Unless he had already descended alone, killed the Edomites, and then re-ascended to lead his armies back down, which your eschatology says is impossible.)

Therefore, the passage unavoidably testifies that at this time when heaven is opened, Jesus' clothing has already been covered in blood.

Where did it come from? Blood only comes from bodies of flesh. Bodies of flesh-and-blood only dwell upon the face of the earth. Therefore, the only possible explanation for this blood is that Jesus' clothing obtained it while on earth sometime before his descent in Rev. 19 to fight the Beast and gathered kings of the earth.

You say:

There is no indication that the blood on Christ's robe in Rev 19 got there as a result from treading the winepress.  Speculation.[/unquote]

Not speculation at all: the treading of the Lord's blood-gushing winepress is foretold in Is. 63 – “I have trodden the winepress alone...their blood is sprinkled upon my garments” – and Rev. 14. Two witnesses is not speculation: speculation is no legitimate witness.

Blood being splashed on garments is something that is done up close and personal and earthly, just as described in Is. 63.

The following prophecy proves that the Lord will be upon the earth before his wrath is fulfilled at the culminating battle of Rev. 19:

Ezekiel 20:33-38, 42 [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury [or, wrath] being poured out will I rule over you: And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury [or, wrath] being poured out. And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there I will plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord GOD. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD. … Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for which I raised my hand in an oath to give to your fathers.

Now compare these passages from the Exodus era:

Ex. 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

Deut. 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.

Deut. 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.

Just like in the Exodus era, the Lord will be upon the earth, shepherding his people Israel before the culminating battle of the End of the Age. The Lord's shepherding “in the Last Days” (Gen. 49:1) is also witnessed in Jacob's prophecy of his son Joseph's descendants:

Gen. 49:23 The masters of arrows/missiles will bitterly grieve him [Joseph] and will have shot him and will hate him: But his bow shall remain/abide in strength, and the arms of his hands shall be refined (as gold)/made strong by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob; (from thence will be shepherding the Stone of Israel), 25 from the God of thy Father who shall help thee...

“From thence will be shepherding”: Qal predicative active participle. This is a verb, not a noun. “The Stone of Israel” is Christ – “the Stone which the builders rejected” – who will shepherd his people of Israel when they come under attack in the Last Days.

All who narrow down their eschatology to a limited set of proof-texts – and that is the vast majority of people these days – and close their minds to the whole prophetic Word of God, will never be able to perceive the length and breadth of the coming End Time events throughout the heavens and earth.

[WilliamL]

Maybe you should lay out your sequence of events clearly.

I have already provided the basic outline of the sequence in my post of Aug. 13, page 1 of this string. A more detailed sequence is provided here:

http://www.ourchurch.com/member/d/dummies/index.php?p=1_6_Second-Witness

This is a very brief summary of that article:

Near the beginning of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt, the Egyptian armies were slaughtered. Ex. 14

When Moses' and Aaron's Israelite brethren rebelled against them during the Exodus, there was a second great slaughter, this time of Israelite kinfolk. Num. 16

After the Exodus, there was another, final great slaughter of all the nations that gathered to destroy Israel, in which battle “the Lord fought for Israel.” Josh. 10:14

So will it be in the End Times with the various foes of God's people. The second End Time slaughter – the one of the Edomites, the brethren of the Israelites, being fellow children of Abraham and Isaac – is the slaughter spoken of in Isaiah 63 and 34, Joel 3:19, and Rev. 14:17-20. This is the commencement of the trampling of the “grapes” (Is. 63:2-3, 6; Rev. 14:18-20), wherein the Lord “alone” tramples the Edomites, covering and staining his garments with their blood. “The commencement of the trampling,” because the aorist tense is used in Rev. 14:20. The trampling in God's winevat is apparently completed in Rev. 19:15f.; although the Greek text allows that the statement there might refer back to Rev. 14.

When the Lord descends in Rev. 19 (not alone but with the armies of heaven) to slaughter the assembled nations from the north (whereas Edom is from the south), His garments are already stained/covered with blood. From where did this blood come? Most likely from his previous slaughtering of the Edomites, because he says his garments are soaked in their blood, Is. 63:1-3.

You say that after the Lord descends in Rev. 19, he slaughters the Edomites, staining his clothes with their blood. Your interpretation denies the straightforward testimony of the Apostle John.

[WilliamL]

You can't be serious.  How many times did Christ ascend?  This is bordering on the absurd. 

There have been at least three ascents from earth to heaven that we know of: right after his resurrection (John 20:17-18), then again after 40 days (Acts 1:9), and then again after he “stood by” Paul the prisoner (Acts 23:11).

Exactly how many times does Christ come back? … There is zero support for more than one return of Christ.[/unquote]

He has already come back at least four times: the same day of his resurrection ascent; then when he appeared from heaven and blinded Paul (Acts 9:3ff.); then when he came to Paul the prisoner; and once more when John saw him (Rev. 1:9ff.). In the last instance, it is unclear whether he showed himself from heaven or upon earth.

Considering these precedents, there is no legitimate reason for you to say that the Lord cannot come once “in the air” (1 Thes. 4:17) when he raptures his Church, and then come a later time when he descends to earth to fight the Beast and the kings of the earth.

Ezekiel 20 already establishes that before the Rev. 19 descent, he will shepherd his people Israel face-to-face "with fury/wrath" in the wilderness. The period of God's Wrath is fulfilled with the Rev. 19 defeat of the Beast and the kings of the earth, so the events of Ezek. 20 and Deut. 49:23-24 must come before this.

It is you that has provided zero support for your teaching that Christ is not able to return more than once. You continually ignore the many scriptures that won't fit within your eschatology.

 

[Last Daze]

 

It is you that has provided zero support for your teaching that Christ is not able to return more than once.

The "returns" of Christ are never mentioned, just the "return" of Christ.  But, believe what seems good to you.

You continually ignore the many scriptures that won't fit within your eschatology.

Psychological projection is an interesting study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[WilliamL]

 

It is you that has provided zero support for your teaching that Christ is not able to return more than once.

The "returns" of Christ are never mentioned, just the "return" of Christ.  But, believe what seems good to you.

You continually ignore the many scriptures that won't fit within your eschatology.

Psychological projection is an interesting study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

When the LORD came down to the Israelites in the wilderness, and called up some into his Presence, did he then leave? No, his Presence continued among them for 40 years. Thereafter, the Presence appeared among them no more, until he came to destroy the nations assembled to fight against Israel.

There is utterly no biblical evidence to say that after he takes up his elect in the Rapture, he won't still show himself among his earthly people in the wilderness. On the contrary, the passages I quoted above out of Ezekiel 20 and Deut. 49-- which passages you have entirely ignored in your post, like you ignore so many other scriptures -- tell us he once again will manifest himself among his earthly people before the final battle against the assembled nations.

You failed to mention the psychological study of denial.

[Last Daze]

 

It is you that has provided zero support for your teaching that Christ is not able to return more than once.

The "returns" of Christ are never mentioned, just the "return" of Christ.  But, believe what seems good to you.

You continually ignore the many scriptures that won't fit within your eschatology.

Psychological projection is an interesting study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

When the LORD came down to the Israelites in the wilderness, and called up some into his Presence, did he then leave? No, his Presence continued among them for 40 years. Thereafter, the Presence appeared among them no more, until he came to destroy the nations assembled to fight against Israel.

There is utterly no biblical evidence to say that after he takes up his elect in the Rapture, he won't still show himself among his earthly people in the wilderness. On the contrary, the passages I quoted above out of Ezekiel 20 and Deut. 49-- which passages you have entirely ignored in your post, like you ignore so many other scriptures -- tell us he once again will manifest himself among his earthly people before the final battle against the assembled nations.

You failed to mention the psychological study of denial.

Again, believe what seems good to you.  It is our hearts that will be tested.  Good day.

[WilliamL]

Hello saints, ...If you are a post-tribulation / pre-wrath advocate, use this thread to defend your position.

Before the seven final trumpet judgments denoting WRATH on earth, He will take His Church directly to Heaven

 in ultimate salvation, resurrection, transformation, glorification and perfection. 

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ

(1 Thess 5:9).

...The seventh (last) trumpet is when ... He raises immortal those who belong to Him (resurrection / rapture). ...

Good day.

And good day to you. I pray you come to understand and appreciate the pre-wrath teaching.