Scriptural proof for the pre-trib rapture of the Church

[inchrist]

2 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

 

Your attempt to argue away the fact that Jesus used John to represent the Church, symbolically 

You havnt proven that fact at all, youve been avoiding it.

What contextual evidence in Rev 4 do you have that establishes John was meant to be seen as the raptured church, with the same so called rapture "symbolism" of Rev 1:10

On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,

Is John now John or is john the raptured church?

What body of evidence do you have outside of Revelation, John has been seen as the raptured church?

Simply stating john is symbolic of the raptured church and retro-fitting this with other scriptures isnt good enough.

 

[Psalms37:4]

5 hours ago, inchrist said:

You havnt proven that fact at all, youve been avoiding it.

What contextual evidence in Rev 4 do you have that establishes John was meant to be seen as the raptured church, with the same so called rapture "symbolism" of Rev 1:10

On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,

Is John now John or is john the raptured church?

What body of evidence do you have outside of Revelation, John has been seen as the raptured church?

Simply stating john is symbolic of the raptured church and retro-fitting this with other scriptures isnt good enough.

inchrist just loves to lecture others about how wrong their version of the rapture is yet inchrist believes the rapture happens at the time when the two witnesses are resurrected.

You haven't proven your point either. 

Jesus said no one knows the day and hour of the rapture. The 2 witnesses testify for 1260 days plus 3.5 days dead on the floor. Your rapture falls on the 1263.5th day. I just figured out the day of your rapture.  

Good luck trying to figure out what day the Pre-Trib rapture falls on inchrist. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Justin Adams]

Do you not know history? That all the rapture stuff is Jesuit in origin? So much of Rome's early stuff is practiced today by an unknowing 'reformed' so-called 'protestant' faith. It just boggles my mind!

[Justin Adams]

Seventieth Week Last Legacy

    The very first scholar to take Daniel's seventieth week away from the sixty-nine weeks was Francisco Ribera. His primary apparatus was the seventy weeks. He taught that Daniel's 70th week already fulfilled was still in the future. … It has opened the floodgate of Jesuit futurism that denies history. Many good Christian people are being deceived by a Jesuit conspiracy that closes their eyes to the true Antichrist. "This is exactly the scenario used by Hal Lindsey and a multitude of other current prophecy teachers" (Robert Caringola, Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative, p. 35). It seems that the Evangelical movement has taken the Jesuit bait and now features the Jesuit concepts in placing the seventieth week in a future tribulation. Why have they laid aside all the teachings of the Founding Fathers of Protestantism that the Papacy is the Antichrist? Why have they become bewitched with the Jesuit siren song causing the world to look for a literal man Antichrist instead of recognizing the historic Antichrist? Many Evangelicals fail to recognize they are perpetuating a Jesuit begotten error in the "left behind" deception and leaving many Christians unprepared for the last time deceptions of the true Antichrist.

"In 1590, Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter-interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants that identified the Papacy as the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end time rather than to the history of the Papacy. Antichrist would be a single person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem" (George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956, pp. 37-38).

"Ribera denied the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thess. 2) as seated in the church of God—asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther and many reformers. He set on an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God." (Ralph Thompson, Champions of Christianity in Search of Truth, p. 89).

"The result of his work [Ribera's] was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth" (Robert Caringola,Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative, p. 32).
Subsequently, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) followed Ribera's teaching.

"The futurist teachings of Ribera were further popularized by an Italian cardinal and the most renowned of all Jesuit controversialists. His writings claimed that Paul, Daniel, and John had nothing whatsoever to say about the Papal power. The futurists' school won general acceptance among Catholics. They were taught that antichrist was a single individual who would not rule until the very end of time" (Great Prophecies of the Bible, by Ralph Woodrow, p. 198).

[Quasar93]

9 hours ago, inchrist said:

You havnt proven that fact at all, youve been avoiding it.

What contextual evidence in Rev 4 do you have that establishes John was meant to be seen as the raptured church, with the same so called rapture "symbolism" of Rev 1:10

On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,

Is John now John or is john the raptured church?

What body of evidence do you have outside of Revelation, John has been seen as the raptured church?

Simply stating john is symbolic of the raptured church and retro-fitting this with other scriptures isnt good enough.

 

 

FYI, Jesus used John only one time symbolically, but many other issues in Rev., that He revealed to John, that are symbolically wxpressed.  What do you think you have proven \n, when the views I have expressed are fully supported by Scripture, in  2 Thess.2:3 and 7-8.  The Scripture are clear, in Jn.14:2-3, 28; 1 Thess.3:16-17, as well as 2 Thess.2:3 and 7-8, together with Rev.7-8.  Where the Church is seen in heaven for the marriage, in addition to returnin to earth, from heaven, with Jesus, in His second coming, in verse 14.  Let me see you try to prove the Scriptures are saying something else.

Your only argument is trying to prove Jesus was not using John symbolically as the Church, in Rev.4:-2, when the Scriptures clearly reveal that He was.  You have no argument of any kind about it.

 

Quasar93 

 

 

[Montana Marv]

10 hours ago, inchrist said:

Is John now John or is john the raptured church?

What body of evidence do you have outside of Revelation, John has been seen as the raptured church?

Simply stating john is symbolic of the raptured church and retro-fitting this with other scriptures isnt good enough.

In Christ

This is me speaking; 

John was always John, he has never been a symbol of the Raptured Church.  Looking at 2 Cor 12:2 - Paul says, I know a man in Christ who 14 years ago was caught up to the third heaven,  Whether it was in the body or out of the body, I do not know - God knows.  And I know that this man, whether in the body or apart from the body, but God knows, was caught up to Paradise.  He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.

Could this individual be considered a symbol of the Raptured Church?  The thing is he returned.  The Raptured Church stays.

John was caught up into Heaven in the Spirit.  This other man was caught up bodily or in the Spirit (not known).  Was he also symbolic of the Raptured Church, I believe neither.  He was one without reproach.

Now back to Rev 4:1 - After this I looked.. Come up here. Now John is in the Spirit in Heaven.  "Then I saw or then I heard", is throughout many of the chapters of Revelation.  This is the part of Rev 1:19 - Write, therefore, what you have seen (the letters to the 7 Churches), what is now, and what will take place later.

Now Christ is/was the "first fruits",  We as the Body of Christ (Church) are considered the second fruits, But will also partake in the glorification of our bodies, as Christ did.  We shall be like Him.

Now since John was called up into Heaven in the Spirit, this is different that those who will go up in the Rapture,  those who remain go up Bodily and in the Spirit.  John's body is still in the grave waiting to be Raptured up to be joined with his spirit.  John was a messenger to us.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[inchrist]

2 hours ago, Montana Marv said:

In Christ

This is me speaking; 

John was always John, he has never been a symbol of the Raptured Church.  Looking at 2 Cor 12:2 - Paul says, I know a man in Christ who 14 years ago was caught up to the third heaven,  Whether it was in the body or out of the body, I do not know - God knows.  And I know that this man, whether in the body or apart from the body, but God knows, was caught up to Paradise.  He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.

Could this individual be considered a symbol of the Raptured Church?  The thing is he returned.  The Raptured Church stays.

John was caught up into Heaven in the Spirit.  This other man was caught up bodily or in the Spirit (not known).  Was he also symbolic of the Raptured Church, I believe neither.  He was one without reproach.

Now back to Rev 4:1 - After this I looked.. Come up here. Now John is in the Spirit in Heaven.  "Then I saw or then I heard", is throughout many of the chapters of Revelation.  This is the part of Rev 1:19 - Write, therefore, what you have seen (the letters to the 7 Churches), what is now, and what will take place later.

Now Christ is/was the "first fruits",  We as the Body of Christ (Church) are considered the second fruits, But will also partake in the glorification of our bodies, as Christ did.  We shall be like Him.

Now since John was called up into Heaven in the Spirit, this is different that those who will go up in the Rapture,  those who remain go up Bodily and in the Spirit.  John's body is still in the grave waiting to be Raptured up to be joined with his spirit.  John was a messenger to us.

In Christ

Montana Marv

Montana Marv, correct me if I'm wrong, memory serving here...youre pre trib? If you are thank you for the honest look at the scripture....If not pre trib, again nevertheless it was a fantastic read.

......

Back to the rapture, correct John was only carried away in the spirit and not with the body, further we know John is taken to heaven, then taken back to earth, then taken to heaven again, then taken back to earth again through out Revelation as he depicts of what is occuring during the entire Revelation. 

If John is to be a symbol of the raptured church, we seem to have a yo-yo rapture.

[Montana Marv]

14 minutes ago, inchrist said:

If John is to be a symbol of the raptured church, we seem to have a yo-yo rapture.

If you read me, I am Pre-Trib.  I do not think anyone of the Church is a symbol to the Raptured Church.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[inchrist]

3 hours ago, Quasar93 said:

.

Your only argument is trying to prove Jesus was not using John symbolically as the Church, in Rev.4:-2, when the Scriptures clearly reveal that He was.  You have no argument of any kind about it.

 

Quasar93 

 

 

Correct it is my only argument as I'm only focusing on Rev 4. 

I am not interested in other raptured verses apart from Rev 4 can contextually be satisfied. Im happy to treat Rev 4 as unanswered and we can move on to 2Th2:3 and only focuse on 2th 2:3, while I await actual contextual prove for Rev 4

Please understand I wish to treat every verse that is going to be used with due diligence. Currently as it stands you have not provided actual facts that Rev 4 is symbolic. I do not accept retro-fitting of verses, thats simply my own approach and methodology with scripture. 

 

 

[inchrist]

8 minutes ago, Montana Marv said:

If you read me, I am Pre-Trib.  I do not think anyone of the Church is a symbol to the Raptured Church.

In Christ

Montana Marv

Ok my memory ant so bad after all, again Marv thank you for your honesty.