Two trbulations and the truth about them

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

No we don't.

Actually, what you are doing is called "poisoning the well."   You assign malicious motives to our argument and color it the way you want and that is both unfair and dishonest.   The pri-trib rapture states that the Church age ends with the rapture and the Church is taken out.  Nothing in that view holds the Chruch to be "elite" over either OT saints or Tribulation saints.   

Again, that is unfair and probably untrue characterizations of us.   You have to resort to stuff like that because you lack an honest, rational argument. 

 

No, rather it is your false accusations and mischaracterizations of us that fall into the category of slanderous speech.  

 

Since you are the one engaging in such behavior, you should check your own heart.

Proabably should follow your own advice, then. 

 

Unfortunately, casting unfair and untrue aspersions on us who don't see things your way is anything but acting with dignity, integrity, understanding or truth.  It is you that is acting in a manner that is nothing but heaping blanket, indiscriminate and undeserved condemnation and you are doing the very thing you are accusing  pre-tribbers of doing.

I realize the meaning of the pretrib doctrine is not understood by the advocates of pretrib. You are showing that in your reply. Indeed pretrib does hold to an elevated status. It has to based on the belief system. The only way you are taken to heaven is if you are righteous. This means every pretrib believer is right now, at this moment, righteous in God's eyes. This ascribes a characteristic to a group, because they belong to that group. What do you call that? 

Worse, pretrib claims some will be left behind to endure the wrath of God, when no believer is assigned to God's wrath. So we have a greater, righteous group of believers that do not experience wrath, and a lesser, unrighteous group of believers that do experience wrath. Isn't that the whole argument for pretrib, 'not appointed to wrath'? But apparently some believers are. This is why I say pretrib doctrine is elitist in their views. 

And I have seen the prejudice and bigotry right here on this forum. I have been the object of intolerance in rapture themed threads. And honestly the entire doctrine is prejudicial. How is it reasonable that pretrib allows for the departure of some believers to escape the wrath of God, yet assigns other believers to the very wrath they escape? This isn't based on rationale, it's wishful thinking.

"You have to resort to stuff like that because you lack an honest, rational argument. " Yes. You have never seen me present rational arguments in rapture discussions. I stand by what I said.

 

 

[Last Daze]

18 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Of course He is.  He is omnipresent.  How could an omnipresent God not be on the earth?

Nothing precludes that at all.  In fact Israel and the Church DO operate concurrently in terms of God's prophetic plan.

I agree.  It's just that I've heard about the hinderance being removed as being the Holy Spirit and wanted to know if you agreed with that or not.

If the church age ends with the pretrib rapture then how would you classify those who come to faith after that event?  What "age" are they in?

[Diaste]

23 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Like who?

You should keep up with the discussion instead of appearing out of the blue at the end, then you would know.

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, Cobalt1959 said:

When the only way you can try and give your own doctrine credence is by poisoning the well, and trying to assign bad motives to others without knowing what they believe or why they believe it, your own doctrine is shown to be lacking or you would not need to resort to such tactics.

 

Revelation 6:12-17  12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red,  13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.  14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.  15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains.  16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face 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 can stand?"

 you might want to check to see if you even have it right first, or all the angst in your last paragraph is a bunch of sanctimonious fluff.  You assign values to others that are lies, and false and then wring your hands about it.  Not exactly the kind of behavior we would see from someone dedicated to serving Christ.

Yes. it's now my fault the doctrine is false and filled with poor exegesis. If you took the time to understand instead of react you would see I'm pointing out behavior, not motives, I have no insight on the motive of any individual or group. 

"It is foolhardy to posit that believers have to go through the Tribulation to be "tested."  If this is what you actually believe, then you also believe that God is not omnipotent and has no way of knowing who actually belongs to Him, and who doesn't.  Believers taken at the Rapture and transformed in the twinkling of an eye are not "elite" and that is not what pre-tribulation believers believe.  People who are saved go, people who are not do not.  It's that simple.  I real-world terms, there is no such thing as an "elite" believer, although this actually is what mis-led people like the Sabbath Keepers and the Holiness crowd believe.

We don't "think" that the Tribulation is God's wrath, we know it is because that is exactly what the Bible states."

Lets examine the above quote and see if you can answer the question I have asked numerous times which is usually met by silence. The tribulation is God's wrath by your own words. 'Believers are not appointed to wrath' is the foundation of the pretrib doctrine. Two facts lead to this conclusion: No believers will go through the tribulation.  

 "What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation,"

So how is it that some believers go through the wrath of God and others do not? Pretrib advocates know this passage yet it's ignored. This smacks of an elite group ascribed particular characteristics other groups do not possess.

"Pre-trib believers do not believe that some kind of lower-rung believers have to be tested during the Tribulation.  That is a direct lie."

No it isn't. Pretrib knows Rev 7:13-14. You and I both understand that. You believe that some must go through tribulation as it is written, "These are they which came out of great tribulation" 

"There are believers, i.e. people saved after the Rapture"

I don't know why you don't see it. There cannot be believers AFTER the rapture as they would endure the wrath of God because, as you said, tribulation is equivalent to wrath, and all the believers got out before that, yet a great multitude that no man could number endure the very wrath which you are saved from. What do you call that?

"You have no other options since God also plainly tells us that anyone saved is not subject to God's wrath."

And the contradiction rears it's head again. Anyone saved is not subject to God's wrath? Then there cannot be any saved coming out of great tribulation as tribulation is equivalent to the wrath of God in your mind. Since God is not wrong on this, who is? 

"If you are going to spread dirt around about those who believe in a pre-trib Rapture" 

It's not dirt brother, it's the natural conclusion of a false doctrine and the empirical evidence of behaviors of the advocates.

And I don't have anything 'right' I read and repeat. I learn, I don't create.

[Guest shiloh357]

48 minutes ago, Diaste said:

You should keep up with the discussion instead of appearing out of the blue at the end, then you would know.

In other words, you can't really cite who said anything at all that you claim they said.  So you are really just speaking falsehood.

[Diaste]

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The 70th week of Daniel doesn't begin with the rapture.  It begins with the peace treaty confirmed by the Antichrist.  When he confirms the treaty the 70th week begins and the AC breaks the treaty  31/2 years in and that is when the latter half of the 70th week begins, what we call "the wrath of God. 

So the first half of the week is not the wrath of God? So the church will be here for the first half of the week? That's getting closer to reality. In fact the wrath of God does not occur until sometime later in the last half, perhaps the last 6 months. The beast has his moment in the last half as the persecutor of the church before the wrath of the Lamb.

[Guest shiloh357]

50 minutes ago, Last Daze said:

I agree.  It's just that I've heard about the hinderance being removed as being the Holy Spirit and wanted to know if you agreed with that or not.

If the church age ends with the pretrib rapture then how would you classify those who come to faith after that event?  What "age" are they in?

They are tribulation believers.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Diaste said:

So the first half of the week is not the wrath of God?

That's right,  It's not.

Quote

So the church will be here for the first half of the week? T

Nope.

Quote

 

That's getting closer to reality.

 

 

You don't get to unilaterally define, "reality."

Quote

In fact the wrath of God does not occuruntil sometime later in the last half, perhaps the last 6 months. T

No, the last 3 1/2 years or 42 months. 

Quote

The beast has his moment in the last half as the persecutor of the church before the wrath of the Lamb.

He doesn't persecute the Church.  The church is not there. 

[Diaste]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

In other words, you can't really cite who said anything at all that you claim they said.  So you are really just speaking falsehood.

I could but it's risky. You might defend the behavior and I don't want to get into that. If I felt it was a problem I would report it to the proper people, anything thing else would border on tattling or gossip. And again, you weren't part of the threads and I just have better things to do.

If you want to know be a part of the conversation.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Diaste said:

I could but it's risky. You might defend the behavior and I don't want to get into that. If I felt it was a problem I would report it to the proper people, anything thing else would border on tattling or gossip. And again, you weren't part of the threads and I just have better things to do.

If you want to know be a part of the conversation.

No, you don't have anyone.  All you did was just throw a lot of mud around.  It has nothing to do with this conversation. I have read the thread.  It was enough of a problem that you thought you had to impugn all pre-tribbers in the same way.  if anyone had said what you claim they said, you would not have any problem pointing them out.    All you did was engage in group-slander like you're some kind of victim.

It is all just falsehood.  You are worried about others demonstrating love, but you have no problem bearing false witness.   You need to check yourself.