Why Pretrib Logic Fails

[Retrobyter]

21 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

Well, in the Tanakh, Yahweh clearly says that Israel is His wife and that He would give her a bill of divorce and then reunite with her in the future.  The Prophets speak extensively on this.

Yeshua has a bride, the redeemed He is betrothed to.  There is never even the remote idea in all of scripture that Yeshua divorces the Church, His bride.  

And who is it that brought forth the Son on earth?  Israel.  Does the Bride (Church) bring forth the Messiah?  How ridiculous.  Just basic, simple thought, one can figure out that there are two entities here.  And one is the wife of Yahweh and the other is the Bride of Yeshua.  While they are the One God, they also are distinct entities within the Godhead.  Scripture is quite clear that the Father knows things the Son does not.   

Shabbat shalom, OldCoot.

Well, OF COURSE! This is why analogies BREAK DOWN! We can't push them (legitimately) past their intended use! They make no sense when we do! Think about WHERE in Scripture these analogies are used and for what PURPOSE! Beyond those uses, the analogies are out of their elements and DEFUNCT! In the Second Coming, there are DIFFERENT analogies that were applied!

And, there you go using the word "Church," as Janet Parshall puts it, "with a capital C!" THERE'S NO SUCH ENTITY!!!

 

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Retrobyter
to separate thoughts.

[OldCoot]

20 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

there you go using the word "Church," as Janet Parshall puts it, "with a capital C!" THERE'S NO SUCH ENTITY!!!

Well, technically it is called the Ekklesia, which is distinct from Israel or Gentiles even though it includes both,  but the translators used the word Church.  Is this discussion falling into a trap of straining at a gnat?

There also is no word Trinity in the Bible either.  Nor is there the word Rapture... oh wait! There is the root word Rapier in the Latin Vulgate as a translation of the Greek Harpazo, and Rapier is the root from which Rapture comes.  So I guess Rapture is in the Bible after all, just happens to be the Latin Bible.

How about we dispense with the semantic word games.  They look childish to those who are trying to actually learn.  We should know pretty much what the other means without resorting to that sort of nonsense.

Edited February 16, 2019 by OldCoot

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Da Puppers said:

It is the little horn that will bring the unexpected tribulation upon you and the rest of the world because you will never see it coming.  It will begin without any warning to those not looking for it, just a mere few days before the glorious appearing(epiphanea) of our great God and savior.   The curse that you try to put on others will come back as a curse upon yourself (it is immutable laws of blessing and cursing).

Blessings

The PuP 

Wake up from your sleep! the church is not going to be here. I hope you know, Daniel includes the 70th week in one verse in chapter 9, and a few verses in chapters 11 & 12. But Revelation takes 9 chapters on the 70th week!  Therefore wise people form their doctrine from Revelation - and only use the Old Testament to fill in missing pieces. 

Yes, it is written that THE DAY comes as a thief in the night - and that is so because JESUS comes as a thief in the night.  But the rapture happens first, which will trigger the start of the DAY, and His wrath. Then the 70th week still start - probably 10 days later.

You are mistaken on the "mere few days" too. The wrath of God begins at the 6th seal, and over 7 year later Jesus will descend as a "glorious appearing" where every eye will see Him. 

Sorry, but I live under the blessing. Jesus took the curse for me, so I could live under the blessing.  

Why do you imagine I am trying to put a curse on others? Is it only because I don't agree with you?  There is good reason I don't agree with you. I follow the written word. 

Don't take my word for these things: STUDY! Go and read 1 thes. 5 where Paul tells us the Day of the Lord will come three verse after the rapture. That those in Christ get raptured, while those in the darkness get sudden destruction - the start of God's wrath.

It will be those left behind that experience God's wrath.  Are you going to meet Christ in the air or will you choose to remain behind? It is your choice: you can choose to escape or you can choose to remain behind and face the Beast.

[iamlamad]

57 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, OldCoot.

Well, OF COURSE! This is why analogies BREAK DOWN! We can't push them (legitimately) past their intended use! They make no sense when we do! Think about WHERE in Scripture these analogies are used and for what PURPOSE! Beyond those uses, the analogies are out of their elements and DEFUNCT! In the Second Coming, there are DIFFERENT analogies that were applied!

And, there you go using the word "Church," as Janet Parshall puts it, "with a capital C!" THERE'S NO SUCH ENTITY!!!

"Church" is mentioned 111 times in the New Testament! I wonder what version you are reading?

Hebrews 12:23

To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

"Church" is mentioned 111 times in the New Testament! I wonder what version you are reading?

Hebrews 12:23

To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Shalom, iamlamad.

As a believer in the pre-trib position, I'm surprised that you use THIS verse which is about the "general gathering" that's supposed to be in "Heaven!" I learned this verse is about the "Rapture" day! That's the ONE time that we are all gathered together into ONE called-out assembly! I must have learned that over 50 years ago!

And, all the other 110 are talking about individual, LOCAL churches, NOT a UNIVERSAL (or Catholic) "Church!"

I got to thinking, maybe it's because you're not ... let me just ask you, ARE you an independent Baptist (or a Baptist at all), as I was? It's always been important to Baptists to be sure our children understood that we aren't part of the "Catholic (universal) Church," and never were. Therefore, Baptists are technically NOT "protestant" since Baptists never were part of the Catholic Church to protest against it and come out of it, as other denominations were.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Retrobyter
fix my typing ... and my lack of math!

[OakWood]

On 2/1/2019 at 1:15 AM, Montana Marv said:

Why do you contest God the Father.  God the Father is the only one who knows this time, Not the Son, nor the Angels.  Yet you say pre-wrath, others say mid-trib, and yet others say post-trib.  I never see you attacking these illogical fallacies.  You only attack pre-trib, Why because you are afraid of it. You must do something to show your worthiness. I must go through one more test to show my love for God.

But once the 70th Week begins, the clock starts ticking towards Armageddon and the 2nd Coming, which are both known dates and can be figured out.

In Christ

Montana Marv

Why would anyone be afraid of Pre-Trib? It sounds too good to be true. A free pass from all the suffering.

No, in reality it's the Post-Trib that's the scary one, and Biblically it's also the correct one.

The false prophet enters the temple, then Christians are persecuted for 3 and a half-years and then at the end of all this Jesus comes to rescue us (the rapture), defeat the Devil and then set up the Millennial reign. This fits in perfectly with what the Bible says.

The pre-Trib has to add all sorts of stuff to scripture that simply isn't there. 'Jesus comes back, then he leaves, then he comes back again', all that sort of nonsense. If you simply read scripture word for word without adding your own pre-conceptions (and wishful thinking) to it, you'll find the truth.

Always read scripture without pre-conceived ideas. I read scripture without any bias, neither accepting nor rejecting either pre-Trib or Post-Trib doctrine. In fact the first time I started reading the Bible I was completely unaware of either rapture theory so I had no bias to overcome either way.

The pre-Retrib rapture is essentially popular doctrine in the U.S.A. but is almost unheard of among Christians outside of North America. It was never even considered by early Christians, nor by subsequent ones. It became popular because of teachers such as John Nelson Derby and Hal Lindsey who brainwashed thousands of Americans with the idea, so that from an early age these churchgoers were taught to believe in it. It is so comforting to them, that they can't let go of it, no matter how much they are shown the error of their ways. The truth sometimes is too painful to deal with.

Pre-Trib is simply un-Biblical and many times this has been explained on Worthy forums, yet the pre-Tribbers simply won't let go!

Instead, they don their Sherlock Holmes outfits, pull out their huge magnifying glasses, pick up their pocket calculators and go to work trying desperately to find the needle in the haystack that simply isn't there. Then when they've subtracted Daniel's 70th week from this, and added it to that, then divided it by something else, they yell "Eureka", here it is... I've found it."

But it's just an exercise in puzzle-solving and riddles - and has little to do with  understanding the simple truth of God's word. I don't doubt the intelligence or integrity of pre-Tribbers. Many are smart people who are clever at analysis, and have an admirable patience and dedication when it comes to trying to solve Biblical conundrums, but they are motivated by a false premise. They are motivated by a desire to justify something that they already believe in, rather than being motivated by the humility of understanding that they know nothing, but simply want to ask God questions that will give them knowledge.

But why try to complicate the simple truth of God's teachings? Why make His word more complicated than it already is?

It's possible to convince anybody  that they've found just about anything in scripture if they desperately want to, but only if they add 'this', assume 'that', and deceive themselves into believing God has said something that he never actually said.

For example: Homosexuals can convince themselves that God is okay with Gay marriage if they assume beforehand that he is (and want him to be so) just by twisting scripture, adding what they desire, and deleting what they don't like. The same goes for anybody who wishes to believe in something that their heart's desire. But in the end it's all about the truth. Jesus tells us to come to him as a small child. Small children know nothing, yet their curiosity leads them to ask questions. They don't have pre-assumptions. That's how we should be.

Post-Trib, Mid-Trib, Pre-Trib, or even no Trib at all.... who knows? Who cares? Who is willing to accept whatever God tells them (even if it hurts at first and they don't like the answer that God gives them)?

At the end of the day, Post-Trib (and even possibly Mid-Trib) fits the Biblical narrative. Pre-Trib only works if you add your own bias to scripture and look for stuff that isn't actually there in the first place.

Edited February 16, 2019 by OakWood

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, OldCoot said:

  And the a Woman of Revelation 12 doesn’t get to hold her child, as it is caught up (harpazo-rapture-forcibly snatched away) as soon as it is born.

 

Pardon me for interjecting here but that is totally incorrect as Rev 12 says no such thing. Let me post the actual words from which you concoct your personal narrative.

"5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and his throne."

No where here does it say the child is caught up immediately upon birth. A man child is the child of his mother till the day of the man child's death, so this child in Rev 12:5 could be any age. There is no timing language in this verse. I know to what you are alluding, that the church is the man child born of Israel and will be caught up before the bad stuff happens. But your own logic betrays you. If the man child is the church and is caught up as soon as it is born, then the man child, according to your logic, should have been caught up in the first century, as soon as it was born.

Further, man child in Rev 12:5 is not a collective, it's singular and particular; a male son. Again faulty logic, and coupled with lazy research.

"Does not get to hold her child"... Do you just make it all up as you go along?

Pretrib rapture is a made up concept, with not just a dearth of evidence in support, but fully lacking even a single exculpatory speck.

You'll see. I hope you call on the Lord in your need in that day.

[Diaste]

On 2/15/2019 at 7:55 AM, OldCoot said:

The "church" is the Body of messiah and His bride.  The Church just happens to meet in buildings often that uneducated people call churches. True enough that, in Messiah, both gentile and Hebrew are one.   But outside the Messiah, they are still distinct entities.  And those in the Messiah that are one, are also distinct.   There are those who are in Messiah (both Hebrew and Gentile), there are those who are Gentile, and there are those who are Hebrew.  3 distinct groups.   The groups that is in the Messiah are are the ekklesia and the bride and body of Messiah.  They are redeemed. There is no need for them to be driven to repentance via the tribulation period. The other two groups are the focus of the Tribulation period, especially the Hebrews.

Only two groups, saved and unsaved. Abraham's seed are the saved of which is included every nation, language, tribe and tongue in Christ; and those in rebellion against God our Father are the unsaved.

"There is no need for them to be driven to repentance via the tribulation period." Can I assume you mean they have no sin from which to repent? They are perfect in their ways and have a direct path to heaven?

Well... " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." -  1 John 1

Is this just lazy research? "There are those who are in Messiah (both Hebrew and Gentile)" Paul disputes this concisely and unequivocally.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3

Edited February 16, 2019 by George
Removed: And the pretrib garbage hits the trash heap again. Let's just discuss the topic without these kind of remarks. :)

[Last Daze]

9 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Well, in the Tanakh, Yahweh clearly says that Israel is His wife and that He would give her a bill of divorce and then reunite with her in the future.  The Prophets speak extensively on this.

Yeshua has a bride, the redeemed He is betrothed to.  There is never even the remote idea in all of scripture that Yeshua divorces the Church, His bride.  

And who is it that brought forth the Son on earth?  Israel.  Does the Bride (Church) bring forth the Messiah?  How ridiculous.  Just basic, simple thought, one can figure out that there are two entities here.  And one is the wife of Yahweh and the other is the Bride of Yeshua.  While they are the One God, they also are distinct entities within the Godhead.  Scripture is quite clear that the Father knows things the Son does not.   

The singular bride is described in Revelation 21.  It is comprised of both OT and NT saints.

[OldCoot]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

 

Pardon me for interjecting here but that is totally incorrect as Rev 12 says no such thing. Let me post the actual words from which you concoct your personal narrative.

"5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and his throne."

No where here does it say the child is caught up immediately upon birth. A man child is the child of his mother till the day of the man child's death, so this child in Rev 12:5 could be any age. There is no timing language in this verse. I know to what you are alluding, that the church is the man child born of Israel and will be caught up before the bad stuff happens. But your own logic betrays you. If the man child is the church and is caught up as soon as it is born, then the man child, according to your logic, should have been caught up in the first century, as soon as it was born.

Further, man child in Rev 12:5 is not a collective, it's singular and particular; a male son. Again faulty logic, and coupled with lazy research.

"Does not get to hold her child"... Do you just make it all up as you go along?

Pretrib rapture is a made up concept, with not just a dearth of evidence in support, but fully lacking even a single exculpatory speck.

You'll see. I hope you call on the Lord in your need in that day.

But the implication is there, because the dragon is waiting to devour the child as soon as it is born the verse preceding.  The idea of the child being caught up as it is born is there.

Revelation 12:4 ........And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.

And being a collective is not faulty logic.  Are not the redeemed (plural) the Body of Messiah (singular)?   Does not the Redeemed (plural) in the Body (singular) refer to Yahweh as the Father?   

Well, I am not certain if the pre-trib camp invented this idea. It was espoused by many Bible expositors and scholars long before Darby showed up, that is, if Darby is the source of the pre-trib movement as many content.   I have found this idea in the writings of Theodore Beza (Bena Bible and Geneva Bible contributor) in the 1500's.  Darby didn't get his theological motor in gear till almost 3 centuries later.

It is a somewhat of a weird idea that the Body of Messiah has to go thru the tribulation period though.   Is not Yeshua the perfect Son of Yahweh?  And by extension, would not His body also be perfect?   After all, the only people that make up the Body of Messiah are those that have been justified and made righteous by the Blood of the Lamb.  What is it about the Body of the Son of God that needs to go thru that period?

It really is simple.  Israel is the wife of Yahweh as expounded on throughout the scripture.  She is the mother of Yeshua The Body of Yeshua (Church / Ekklesia) was conceived at Shavuot in Jerusalem (Israel) by the Holy Spirit who also overshadowed Mary who gave birth to Yeshua.   The Son is both Yeshua (the head) and His Body (the redeemed).  He is the perfect Son of Yahweh.    And the Body will reign with a rod fo iron just as Yeshua has been given that authority from the Father.  The Head and the Body are one.  Just like when the bride and the groom exit the marriage chamber (Chupah), they are one flesh.

It would seem that there is a focus problem going on.  Paul stated that there is a crown of righteousness for those that are looking for Yeshua's appearing.  But it seems that many supposed Christians are focused more on looking for the Antichrist.   That's ok.  All in the redeemed get the same bus ride out of here.  And all this debate will fall away behind us as we celebrate the redemption and deliverance of the Messiah face to face.