Defense for the Mass-Transit System Rapture

[missmuffet]

39 minutes ago, Last Daze said:

Arguing may be a waste of time but discussions where the truth is sought are not a waste.  I'm thankful for those who patiently expounded on the Word and showed me how baseless the pretrib fallacy is.  Even so, its our faith that will sustain us, not our eschatology.

Everyone has a different interpretation of what the truth is. People are trying to get the last word in and claiming that their interpretation is the only interpretation. That is where the trouble comes in.

[Last Daze]

16 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

People are trying to get the last word in and claiming that their interpretation is the only interpretation. That is where the trouble comes in.

Only when they're arguing, not discussing.  Reasoned discussions are beneficial.

[Guest 1Th417]

1 hour ago, missmuffet said:

Arguing over the belief of pre-trib,mid-trib or post-trib is a waste of time. It is not something we should divide over. Time will tell.

Hi missmuffet, thank you for taking time to reply. Here are my thoughts on what you have said.

Fighting over such things, is unfruitful, no good can come of it. However, debating such things, is a way to teach, learn and discover truths. If you are not wanting to be around it, why do you hover over these topics? If you do not want to argue, or enjoy reading such things, then don't, and the problem is solved. Making little stabs at a topic, or being critical of how others conduct themselves, does little if anything to help others.

I see people on these threads discussing different ideas. I think they all likely have good intentions and that is what I choose to see, the substance, not the attitude or presentation Sometimes they get a little heated maybe, but I can deal with that, and look past how they are saying things, to what they are saying.

Those among us who believe arguing is such a bad thing, maybe should spend some time wagging there fingers at Jesus and the apostle, Paul. Certainly there are things worthy of debate. This may or may not be  one of them. 

I look at people here in this thread and others, disagreeing with each other. I imagine if you took a poll, and asked them if the considered others who disagree with them, to be brothers in the Lord, if they would be willing to share a meal with them, or things of that nature, I would guess they would answer with a "Yes". If that is the case, where then is the so called division?

I will not typically debate with a person, for whom I have little respect. Fortunately, I respect most everyone. To me, correcting another, can be a sign that you care for them. I do not debate with an Atheist (even knowing that he is an enemy of God like we all were) because he is a foe, I debate with him, because I have hope, that he will see the light, that he/she will understand something, that has escaped them to that point.

I myself would much rather have people expressing disbelief with what I have to say, that to tell me that I am not worth the trouble. Where is the love in withholding information? People who will not engage others and share what they believe, demonstrate that the are willing for the other to remain in ignorance. May we never be like that!

Time will tell? Sure, time will tell. Someone might have had a clue, 2000 years ago, that the Messiah was about to appear. I can just here someone saying: "Well no one really knows where or when, time will tell." Of course time will tell. However, those serious about the Bible, want to know what it says. God gives us instruction on these matters. Should we not study diligently? Should we not let others know, what we have learned in those studies? If these instructions are not for our benefit and learning, why did the Holy Spirit see to it, that these things are in out Bibles?

I am not a fan of the practice of those who choose to bite the tongue and keep knowledge a secret. Now, if one does not have anything to contribute to a topic, that is fine. However, just dashing into a conversation with an "Amen", or a "yes" or an "I agree" is just casting a vote as if truth is determined by a democracy. I too often, do little to add to a conversation myself, but if it made me feel more like my opinion mattered, then I suppose I would join those who just agree without explaining why.

I offer as an example, Ezra (the user) because he really adds a lot to these topics, with reasons for why he believes what he believes. It is refreshing to see, that some people take the time to study (and not just repeat what they heard or read somewhere) and then are willing to share with us, the fruit of their labor. Would that more were like that!

Be Blessed!

[missmuffet]

5 minutes ago, Last Daze said:

Only when they're arguing, not discussing.  Reasoned discussions are beneficial.

What is the point of going back and forth and back and forth. What is a person trying to accomplish? That they are the only one who is right? Doesn't pride come in there?

[Guest 1Th417]

56 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

Everyone has a different interpretation of what the truth is. People are trying to get the last word in and claiming that their interpretation is the only interpretation. That is where the trouble comes in.

"Everyone" is a bit of an exaggeration I think. There are many opinions, certainly, but not so many that they cannot all be explored. I am not enthusiastic, however, in knowing what interpretations are, I would rather learn what the Bible has to say. 

If I jump in, and say:

"I believe in a pretrib rapture!", I have offered an opinion, but I have not contributed to anyone's understanding.

If I say:

"The rapture is Jesus coming for His church, and the 2nd coming is Jesus coming with His church!", I have offered an interpretation, but I have again, not shed any light from scripture.

If I say:

"For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first." Then, I am not offering and opinion, nor an interpretation. This contributes to the topic, and then I might explain, what I think it means, and why I think it means what I think it means. Then others can offer their understandings and their differences of understandings, and the topic can be expanded upon, and readers and participants can grow. Shouldn't that be what it is about?

Paul said there their have to be differences among us. If we do not express those differences, how will we ever have a dialog that leads to better understanding?

You said: "That is where the trouble comes in." That people insist that their interpretation is the only one. I know you are aware, that there are different understandings. If memory serves me correctly though, you make frequent statements expressing that "the rapture is before the tribulation", or words to that effect. Is that not a declaration of your understanding, the pretrib is the only "right" understanding? You champion that cause, I do not believe I have ever seen you say, anything like "the rapture follows the great tribulation". Why wouldn't you, unless you think that your opinon, is 'more right' than others? So, where does the trouble come in again?

32 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

What is the point of going back and forth and back and forth. What is a person trying to accomplish? That they are the only one who is right? Doesn't pride come in there?

I am not able to judge the heart, but I can examine the words, so I do that! No, you and I, have already gone back and forth on this topic just a little, in a matter of a few hours. Clearly, you think you are right, and I think I am right. So, I feel compelled to ask:

Are you hoping to convince me that I am wrong, or to convince me that you are right? If so, doesn't pride come in there? Is it possible, that you and/or I are expressing what we believe, in the hope that we an others will gain insight into what is going on, not just on the topic itself, but on how people interact here?

As I said, I cannot judge the heart, I will give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume, that you are not just being prideful. Maybe you can extend that benefit of a doubt, to the others in these threads who choose to converse on these topics, and perhaps even enjoy the fact that they have each other to bounce ideas off of, and learn from, and that some of us also, enjoy learning from these exchanges.

I shall continue to observe them, without accusing them of pride, and division, but that is just how I am made I suppose, not everyone is made the same way.

[Last Daze]

1 hour ago, missmuffet said:

What is the point of going back and forth and back and forth. What is a person trying to accomplish? That they are the only one who is right? Doesn't pride come in there?

The key is knowing when to let it be.

[RustyAngeL]

On 9/9/2016 at 0:38 AM, RobertS said:

None of the seals have begun yet. This planet hasn't seen the kind of Tribulation mention in Scripture: what we're seeing now is nothing compared to what the tribulation will hold.

Concerning your comment of suffering "to death": no, but then, not every saint who ever died did so in martyrdom either. Are they disqualified in your book? Was the thief on the Cross disqualified because he was suffering for his own crimes and not suffering as a martyr?

As for your interpretation of Revelation: then you are breaking Scripture, claiming that Christ's sacrifice was not enough. And you are breaking Scripture in Ephesians 2 where we are told by FAITH and not by works are we saved. Either Christ's blood was enough to save completely, or not at all; otherwise, how do you explain Jesus' words to the thief who was also crucified with him? He wasn't suffering for the Lord, but for his own crimes.

Concerning the word thilipsis: the word meaning depends upon how it is used in the sentence; all you're doing is just looking up the root word for it without regard in how it is used in the Greek, which is a major mistake. The meaning needs to be pulled from the actual word used in the sentence and not merely the root word, which can alter depending upon usage and intent in Koine Greek. And in this usage, the way is narrow not because it is a "birth canal" (Christ says "born again" not "being born again" in scripture of believers), but because the way is made that difficult by sin and our own nature.

Also, your comment "The church is destined to die" directly contradicts Scripture:

"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, NASB, emphasis mine)

As long as even one member of the Church is alive, the Church is alive. And the term "we" is used, meaning more than just one.

Concerning your last comment: Revelation 19 tells of the wedding of the Lamb, then the return of Christ and the church from Heaven. I already covered this in a previous post, so no: I do not need you to explain the Hebrew wedding ceremony to me, thanks.  Scripture clearly states we will not be here for the wrath:

1) 1 Thessalonians states that Jesus will deliver us "from the wrath to come", not "protect us through it": " For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come. " (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, NASB, emphasis mine)

2) Revelation 3 states that "Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." (Rev. 3:10, NASB, emphasis mine)

3) Revelation 6 clearly states after the seals are broken: "and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”  (Revelation 6:16-17, NASB, emphasis mine)

4) 1 Thessalonians 5 not only states we are not appointed to wrath, but is in the discussion about the time of the Tribulation:

"Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober. For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and those who get drunk get drunk at night. But since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing." (1 Thessalonians 5:1-11, NASB, emphasis mine)

The "Day of the Lord" has always been a reference to an extensive time of judgment on this planet (references: Isaiah 2:12-21; 13:9-16; Joel 1:15-2:11; 28-32; 3:9-12; Amos 5:18-20; Obadiah 15-17 and Zephaniah 1:7-8). Paul knew these references very well, and was calling back to them in mentioning the Day of the Lord. Which brings another problem: if we are "children of the light" and will not be overtaken by that day (taken by surprise), then how can you say we will be here for it? Not to mention that we are told that we would "not know the day or the hour", yet at some point, were we to be on Earth for the Tribulation, we would know exactly when Jesus would arrive for us. So, why would Paul mention about us begin "not destined to wrath to wrath" if it had nothing to do with the question the Thessalonians had asked to begin with?

 

I'm sorry, but God's not a sadist. When people suffered for the faith in the past, it wasn't God hurting them. It was man.

 

 

 

I agree with RobertS, know when to quit is the key.  Sometimes silence really is golden.

[Retrobyter]

On September 19, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

There is God's word, as it is written, and there is God's word that has had the ideas of men added to it. I will let others figure out, what is going on in that sense. However I am curious about what you think you are seeing and why, from the quoted comment above.

You seem to imply, that Rev 6 declares the entire tribulation, to be the time of His wrath. Oddly, the word tribulation, is not in Rev 6. The word tribulation, is also trouble, it is pressure, etc. The word tribulation, is not a measurement of any length of time, it is something that happens within time. So, for any one to say, the tribulation is 7 years, or it is 3.5 years, etc. is to make a declaration that I do not think is scriptural.

For Example, when Jesus says in Matt 24 "Then there will be great tribulation", He is not saying that then IS the great tribulation, He is stating something that occurs then. Furthermore, when that great tribulation happens, it is said by Jesus:

15“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.17 “Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 “Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 “But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 “For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

Our idea of the so called "great tribulation" comes from this discourse by Jesus. It is not equated to a specific period of time, but it is given as one thing in a sequence of events, that occur with a specific marker event within the period of time that Daniel described. Daniel speaks to a week of years (7 years). This abomination of desolation, is in the middle of those 7 years. So (according to Jesus) at that point IN time, there will occur a great tribulation. So, there is nothing ambiguous here, in the middle of Daniels 70th week, an abomination will be SEEN. At THAT time, we can expect a great tribulation, and it is not (here at least) equated with any wrath of God.

So, not being described as the wrath of God (a theory of men), what is it described as?

22 “Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. 24 “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 “Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 “So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them.  

Now, there we see that the times will be very perilous for the elect (we can debate who they are, but there is no need of the purpose of what we are talking about). What we do understand here, is that in order to preserve life, that the period of time in which this tribulation is occurring, will be shortened. That would seem to mean that it is either limited to 3.5 years, or, possibly, even the 3.5 years is shortened, but that would take further exegesis to discover, not my intention here.

Now, as a cross reference, Rev 12 has some things to say,

 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Again, not my intent to get side tracked into different topic, but readers would find that passage interesting to draw their own conclusions from. What I think I see there, is a picture of a woman (Israel I believe) giving birth to a son (Jesus). He is a ruler (true) and is caught up to God (also true) to be at His throne (true again). She (Israel) is protected by God in the wilderness from the persecution of the dragon (mentioned in the chapter). She is protected for 1260 days. Coincidentally, 3.5 years! This dragon (the devil I believe) pursues the woman, but she is protected by God.

Rev 12 also says:

 “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. 11 “And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. 12 “For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.”

That denotes, does it not, that the accuser of the brethren (Satan, the Devil) is present in this Rev 12 scene, and that there are those who overcome him, those who overcome, by the blood of Jesus, they testify of Him, and the are willing to die. This is like Rev 20, were Christians are described as being killed during the tribulation. 

As we saw, during this time that Israel is being protected by God in the wilderness, the devil is described as having great wrath. Students of eschatology might do well to note that God is not the only source of wrath. In fact, I do not think that God's wrath is identified with the tribulation, though Satan's wrath certainly is, Satan's wrath is directed at who?

He is really ticked of, that He cannot pursue the woman (Israel) into the wilderness. So, what does he do?"

 Rev 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

I know I am simple minded at times, but if this is during the 3.5 years as we say, and the tribulation is during the 3.5 years, and Israel is protected in the wilderness, for 3.5 years, who are these people, who are left, that the devil goes after? The are called the rest of Israel's children. As you know, Christians, the Church, are called children of Abraham, and spiritual Israel, the true Israel etc. The people here, that Satan is persecuting, directing his wrath at, are said to be people who obey God, and keep to the testimony of Jesus. Now, assuming that it is fair so say there are three type of people:

1. unbeleivers
2. Jews
3. Christians

What can we conclude? Satan is not interested in the persecution of unbeleivers, they already belong to him, they are of the world and not God's elect. The Jews are under God's protection in  the wilderness, and Satan cannot reach them. Those who are left, and are enemies of Satan, are those who obey God, keep to their Christian testimony, in short, they sure sound like Christians to me!

So what do we have?

A three and one half period of time, in the second half of Daniels 70th week. A time frame the Jesus said, will have great tribulation. Satan, pouring out his wrath on Christians present during this time of trubulation, and it is described with  the word "wrath". In this context, it sure looks fair to say that the time where great tribulation occurs, is a time of wrath against the church, by Satan, not by God.

Sorry that this little side trip went on so long, it is just what happens when I run in free thought mode, without a plan of what I am going to say.

Let's see, what was I even adressing . . . 

"First off, I'm taking God at His word; God's word 1) declares the entire Tribulation the time of his wrath (Rev 6) and 2) promises we will not be subjected to it (Rev 3). God is not rescuing us from the world's wrath, but His."

Okay, you said the Rev 6 declares that the entire Trib is the time of His wrath. We looked, and the trib is not mentioned, and wrath it scarcely mentioned, and we will look at that part in a minute. In any case, it does not say that the entire time of tribulation is Gods wrath, as anyone who reads the chapter will immediately see. In light of this, I fail to see hos that is "taking God at His word". To me it looks like adding imagination and creativity, to God's word, though I realize that no harm is meant by that, it was done with good intentions. You pointed out also, that Rev 3 says we will not be subjected to God's wrath, so let's examine that claim as well:

Not sure what version of the Bible you are reading, but I do not see the word wrath (or anger, or vengeance, etc) mentioned. Perhaps in the future, you should provide quotes for us, instead of assuming we will understand what you are referring to, out of memory, then we can see if what your are saying is actually in the word, or just in your assumptions.

There is a pattern among many pre-trib rapture advocates, of making assumptions, presumptions, inferences, conclusions, what ever you want to call them, and then redefining things to be equal to each other.I have seen it claimed, that the tribulation is equal to God's wrath. I have seen it claimed, that the tribulation is 7 years long. I have seen a lot of things like this, but I have never seen anyone offer scriptural proof of these claims. Remarkably, it is often claimed my many pre-trib rapture faithful, that they stick to the literal truth of God, while in the same breath, ignore the literal, in favor of personal interpretation. Now, I am not directing that description at you, not even attempting to imply that, it is just an observation that I think that all should keep in mind whenever that claim is made, and not just by pre-trib believers. I know that people who say such things, actually believe they are being faithful to the literal word of God, I would suggest though, that anyone that claims than, might want to check themselves out to see whether that claim is REALLY true, or if it is just something that they have come to believe about themselves.

Back to Rev 3. Since you failed to be specific, I am forced to make some conclusions on my own, if I am mistaken, please correct me. Rev 3:10, is sometimes (frequently) claimed to me a promise of protection of Christians from God's wrath. One person in this thread said in part:

Now, I am not addressing this claim above, just using is for illustrative purposes.

People may not always come to the most thorough conclusions. For example, are there only two possible conclusions? What about:

C. They are not the object nor target of said wrath, therefore need no protection

D. Wrath has nothing to do with time, it is a state of emotion of a expression of the  state. Therefore, since Jesus took Gods' wrath, God is not angry with beleivers

E. God's wrath might refer to something other that what people imply it is, in the context of verses they cite.

Relating this to to Rev 3:10

10 Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

There, we see the world testing, no mention of wrath. What is the justification for equating this with wrath? Furthermore, this is from a section of Revelation, that is letters written to 7 churches, Whether one believes that these at 7 historical churches, whether one believes that these represent 7 periods in the history of the church (dispensationalism), whether one believes that these represent types of churches or characteristics of churches today, or some combination thereof, we are left with one glaring issue:

What gives us a right or a justification to claim the this promise to only one of the 7 churches, should be applied to us or to the church at the time if Daniel's 70th week?

I am waiting to hear from someone:

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of My mouth. ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,"

or

"I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. 2‘Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. 3‘So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you."

or

"But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21‘I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.22‘Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds."

or

 4‘But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent.

Isn't it amazing, that God has these messages for the churches, but the message we here is:

"I will keep you from the time of testing"

Even that promise is conditioned on:

"and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary."

Does that even ring true of us? No wonder some see pre-trib rapturism, as a form of easy beleiverism, or escapism, optimism, or a variation of positive confessionism. Sometimes, some of us, like the blessings, ignore the warnings, and put our fingers in our ears, click our ruby slippers together and chant "There's no place like home"!

Returning to one little thing that I meant to get to while I was examining Matt 24 was that Jesus said, after telling us that there would be a time containing great tribulation, to not be fooled by those who say to look for Jesus before the end of that time, Jesus says is coming will be visible, not secret, it will not be missed, so regarding those who say otherwise, He say of their claims of His coming:

Do NOT believe it

27“For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28“Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

When Luke describes this event, he implies that Jesus is saying that those who are taken (just is it was in the days of Noah) are taken to thier destruction, certainly no pre-trib rapture pictured in this clearest of part in the Bible, about the end times. Why do those who want to preach a pre-trib rapture, inevitibly get most of their doctrine from a non-sequential, non-literal, often confusing book (Revelation), instead of applying their value of literal understanding, from the most sequential and complete, and in plain language, description of the end time? For almost 40 years I have pondered that question, and while I have heard explanations and excuses, none of them are satisfying in terms of what is normal under rules and principles of sound exegesis. It is as it, exegesis is valid, EXCEPT when studying eschatology, we have special rules for that. 

Rereading this, I see that I never got to the part where wrath is actually mentioned in Rev 6, so:

 12 I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. 14 The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; 16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”

Wrath there, is mentioned twice. The first thing we should notice, is that this wrath is during the 6th seal, and not expressed as the whole of Rev 6. We also note, that the wrath is called the wrath of the Lamb (Jesus) and the second instance of the word, says that "the great day of their wrath, has come.

I do not think I am going out on a limb here to suggest, that the first instance, the word is describing wrath coming from Jesus, and the second use is describing those upon whom, that wrath is visited. The observant Bible student will notice, that there is a sequence here.

Described here is:

The sun becoming black, the moon became like blood; and the stars falling to the earth. This is a description also found in the book of Joel, called the day of the Lord, and it is very similar to the words of Jesus in Matt 24:

 29“But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30“And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. 31“And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

the emphasis in that passage, is part of the NASB, not made by me. What I would emphasize is a few features

The whole thing about the sun, moon and stars, just before the visible coming of the Lord. What was the sequence specified?

1. Immediately after the tribulation
2. celestial phenomenon
3. the sign of the Son of Man Jesus coming on the clouds
4. Angels, trumpet, and a gathering of the elect

Call me stupid, but that sure looks like after the trib which we saw was during the second 3-1/2 years of Daniel's 70th week, the sun goes dark, etc, THEN Jesus comes, and after that, the rapture happens (the gathering of the elect). More to the point though, how many times do we think, that the Sun will go dark, the moon will turn red, and the stars will fall from heaven? I am thinking that will probably only happen once!

If THAT assumption is true, then we have just placed the wrath in the sixth seal of Rev 6, AFTER the Tribulation, making the whole tribulation NOT the wrath of God as you have concluded.

I believe that what I have just stated, is actually taking God at His word and therefore it is impossible to hold that the entire Tribulation is the time of his wrath. If this is not the case, the best we can conclude perhaps is that neither of us is correct, but this certainly this certainly demonstrates that the trib is not the equal of God's wrath that you claim Rev 6 declares.

 

Shalom, Omegaman 3.0.

Have you even considered that we might already be IN the Tribulation, as it was described in the Olivet Discourse?

Check out this website: Jewish expulsions over the last 2000 years. ALL THESE CONSTITUTE the "pressure" that was started in the first century and has continued for the last 2000 years, and this doesn't even include the persecutions of true believers throughout that time, who are PART of those who constitute the future subjects of the Messiah's Kingdom. [One can find many of these in Foxe's Book of Martyrs (Marie Gentert King, Ed., Pyramid Publications for Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, NJ, May 1975, copyright 1968 by Pyramid Publications, Inc.) and The Trail of Blood publication by J. M. Carroll (Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, Lexington, KY, 1931).]

Again, the reason why these various expulsions and persecutions can be individually known and named is because these days of persecution were SHORTENED or LIMITED so that the entire family of Israel would not be eliminated.

We are told that this "tribulation" - this "pressure" - will continue until the sun, moon, and stars sign is experienced in the Return of Yeshua` the Messiah, and Yeshua` said that they would not see Him again until they could say, "Baruwkh haba' b-shem YHWH," translated as "Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the LORD." This phrase translates to "Welcome, Comer in the authority of YHWH."

The "tribulation" is NOT the same thing as the 70th Seven of Daniel. That's a popular misconception thanks in large part to the three (or four) premillennial positions usually chosen by many, well-intentioned Christians. But, where's the proof?

Edited September 21, 2016 by Retrobyter
Including publications.

[Retrobyter]

On September 20, 2016 at 2:42 PM, missmuffet said:

What is the point of going back and forth and back and forth. What is a person trying to accomplish? That they are the only one who is right? Doesn't pride come in there?

Shalom, missmuffet.

I'm simply trying to expose someone to the truth. Repetition is important to memory. The more one hears the truth, even if foreign sounding, the more likely one will remember it. Whether one accepts that information or not, at the very least that person has been exposed to it. And, the more times that one is exposed to it, the more likely he or she will remember it. And, who knows? God may lead him or her to the point where it makes sense and he or she learns to embrace it!

How long, for instance, did one have to be exposed to the truth of sin and its consequences before one realized that he or she was a sinner? That's a FUNDAMENTAL step to receiving God's justification (aka "salvation")! How long did one have to be exposed to the possibility that Yeshua` ("Jesus") could be the sacrificial substitution for his or her sin?

Now, I know that what I've been sharing doesn't come close to comparing with one's justification by God, but there ARE significant contributions to one's knowledge of prophecy.

[RustyAngeL]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, missmuffet.

I'm simply trying to expose someone to the truth. Repetition is important to memory. The more one hears the truth, even if foreign sounding, the more likely one will remember it. Whether one accepts that information or not, at the very least that person has been exposed to it. And, the more times that one is exposed to it, the more likely he or she will remember it. And, who knows? God may lead him or her to the point where it makes sense and he or she learns to embrace it!

How long, for instance, did one have to be exposed to the truth of sin and its consequences before one realized that he or she was a sinner? That's a FUNDAMENTAL step to receiving God's justification (aka "salvation")! How long did one have to be exposed to the possibility that Yeshua` ("Jesus") could be the sacrificial substitution for his or her sin?

Now, I know that what I've been sharing doesn't come close to comparing with one's justification by God, but there ARE significant contributions to one's knowledge of prophecy.

The truth according to whom?