Jump to content
IGNORED

Why Pretrib Logic Fails


JoeCanada

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  74
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  1,238
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   669
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/26/2018
  • Status:  Offline

2 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

I know, you like to think that John saw the Father on the throne, and saw the one who is to come seated at the Father's right hand.  I guess you WANT it to say that, but the truth is, it does not.

One sat on the throne. 3And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald. Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back.

Sorry, not Jesus seen at the right hand of the Father. Over a dozen verses tell us that is where John should have seen Him - in the throne room of 95 AD - but John did not see Him. Strange, for Stephen saw Him.

In 95 AD Jesus had left the throne, to be born of a virgin. God prepared a body for Him. He grew up, did His ministry, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended back into heaven. What further "coming" is there? Yes, in due time He will come to earth again - but is that the meaning of "was, is and is to come?" I think this is just a way of saying that God our Father is forever.

I know, you like to think that John didn't see Jesus on the throne.

I guess you want to say that, but the truth is, it does not.

Scripture refutes your logic. (or lack of)

Rev 22:7....."I am coming quickly"

Rev 22:12....."Behold, I am coming quickly"

Rev 22:20....."Yes, I am coming quickly"

John 14:3...."I will come again"

Is it not the Church who is waiting for the "Coming" of our Lord? Is this not our great hope?

"I think this is just a way of saying that God our Father is forever."....... Sure, you can think any way you like. You can put any meaning into any scripture to make it say what you want. Me, I'll stick with the plain meaning of what scripture DOES say.

"In 95 AD Jesus had left the throne, to be born of a virgin. God prepared a body for Him.".......Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,272
  • Content Per Day:  2.10
  • Reputation:   688
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  06/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

I know, you like to think that John didn't see Jesus on the throne.

I guess you want to say that, but the truth is, it does not.

Scripture refutes your logic. (or lack of)

Rev 22:7....."I am coming quickly"

Rev 22:12....."Behold, I am coming quickly"

Rev 22:20....."Yes, I am coming quickly"

John 14:3...."I will come again"

Is it not the Church who is waiting for the "Coming" of our Lord? Is this not our great hope?

"I think this is just a way of saying that God our Father is forever."....... Sure, you can think any way you like. You can put any meaning into any scripture to make it say what you want. Me, I'll stick with the plain meaning of what scripture DOES say.

"In 95 AD Jesus had left the throne, to be born of a virgin. God prepared a body for Him.".......Seriously?

"I am coming quickly"  True. But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter .

"Behold, I am coming quickly"  True. But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter .

"Yes, I am coming quickly"     True. But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter .

"I will come again"   True. But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter .

Yes, His coming is our "blessed hope."  But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter.

Of course Jesus did not leave His throne in 95 AD. That is why what John saw in 95 AD was a VISION and not the real 95 AD throne room. If John had seen the real 95 AD throne room, Jesus would have BEEN there and John would have SEEN Him at the right hand of the FAther.

And the search for one worthy (IF it had been done in 95 AD would have been successful. 

In 95 AD Jesus had left the throne, to be born of a virgin  I should have written it like this:

By 95 AD Jesus had LONG SINCE left the throne room, to come to earth and be born of a virgin - like 95 years previous. Understand my meaning now? 

This  is my whole point: there is proof in the words written that John was seeing a VISION and it was a vision of the past: a time before Jesus ascended. Then in chapter 5, Jesus did ascend. Jesus was not seen in the throne room because He was NOT THERE: He was on the earth.  Or under the earth. 

However, I don't think you will ever see this.

By the way, " who is to come" is no proof that Jesus was there.

Edited by iamlamad
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  74
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  1,238
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   669
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/26/2018
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, iamlamad said:

"I am coming quickly"  True. But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter .

"Behold, I am coming quickly"  True. But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter .

"Yes, I am coming quickly"     True. But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter .

"I will come again"   True. But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter .

Yes, His coming is our "blessed hope."  But has nothing to do with John not seeing Him in the throne room in chapter.

Of course Jesus did not leave His throne in 95 AD. That is why what John saw in 95 AD was a VISION and not the real 95 AD throne room. If John had seen the real 95 AD throne room, Jesus would have BEEN there and John would have SEEN Him at the right hand of the FAther.

And the search for one worthy (IF it had been done in 95 AD would have been successful. 

In 95 AD Jesus had left the throne, to be born of a virgin  I should have written it like this:

By 95 AD Jesus had LONG SINCE left the throne room, to come to earth and be born of a virgin - like 95 years previous. Understand my meaning now? 

This  is my whole point: there is proof in the words written that John was seeing a VISION and it was a vision of the past: a time before Jesus ascended. Then in chapter 5, Jesus did ascend. Jesus was not seen in the throne room because He was NOT THERE: He was on the earth.  Or under the earth. 

However, I don't think you will ever see this.

By the way, " who is to come" is no proof that Jesus was there.

LA,

"By the way, " who is to come" is no proof that Jesus was there."

The following commentaries show that Jesus was there.

 The exalted monarch is said to be like a jasper and a sardine stone. I find the soberest commentators agreed in declaring that what is here called jasper must be the diamond, and the sardine is only what we call a carnelian, that is, a flesh-coloured gem in hue, as the name signifies. And hence these expositors  believe that this personage, with a Divine brightness and a human expression, is none other than the Lamb in the midst of the throne.

Revelation 4:3......" And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald."

" And he that sat"

to sit upon a throne, doth signify, first, to make laws and constitutions for all his subjects, his churches, ministers and saints, how they should walk and worship God, { James 4:12} There is one law-giver. { Isaiah 33:22} The Lord is our law-giver-The Lord is our King, and HE will save us.

" Was to look upon like a jasper"

our Lord Jesus Christ, the king, priest, and prophet of his church, is here resembled by three precious stones in Aaron's breast plate; the jasper, the sardine, and the emerald, { Exodus 28:20-39} which were also three of the foundation stones of the holy city, the new Jerusalem. { Revelation 21:11-20} This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of JEHOVAH, Jesus, in Ezekiel's vision. { Ezekiel 1:26-28} The other jasper is a precious stone, which shineth so bright, that no color can darken it; hereby it figured forth the shining glory of Jesus Christ, who is the brightest of his father's glory. { Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 4:6} The sardine, or sardius, is a precious stone of a clear carnation color; hereby is represented the spiritual beauty, and loveliness of Jesus Christ, Song of Solomon 5:10-16 who is white and ruddy, and altogether lovely; made so precious to sanctified believers by his sufferings. { 1 Peter 2:4-7} A crucified Jesus is a precious Jesus, { Isaiah 63:1-3} glorious in his red apparel; his bloody garments of redemption and salvation. { Ephesians 1:7; Isaiah 61:10} The emerald is a lively lovely green stone, mixed with shining rays, and sparklings of other excellent and pleasant colors, which make that precious stone very desirable for its worth, beauty, and lustre. So is our precious Lord Jesus Christ ten thousand thousand times more worth, more glorious, and more desirable for the variety of his spiritual gifts and graces.

Ver. 3. Like a jasper and a sardine] God is here resembled  by three precious stones, holding forth the three persons in Trinity. A jasper having (as they say) a white circle round about it, representing the eternity of the Father. A sardine stone of a fleshy colour representing Jesus Christ, who took our flesh upon him. An emerald, being of a green colour, refreshing the eyes of them that look upon it, representing the Spirit, who is (as the rainbow) a token of fair weather, and is a comfortable refresher, wheresoever he cometh.

" And there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald"

And Christ is said to have a rainbow upon his head, { Revelation 10:1} The rainbow was a token of Gods covenant with Noah, { Genesis 9:11-16} and was applied by the prophet for the everlasting comfort of the church of God, { Isaiah 54:5-10} and signifies that God and Christ is ever mindful of the new covenant, and will perform his word to a thousand generations. {Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 111:5} God will not break his covenant, { Psalm 89:30-35} and Christ is the mediator of the new convenant between God and his people. { 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 8:6}

As the rainbow was first reflected on the waters of the world‘s ruin, and continues to be seen only when a cloud is brought over the earth, so another deluge, namely, of fire, shall precede the new heavens and earth: the Lord, as here, on His throne, whence (Revelation 4:5) proceed “lightnings and thunderings,” shall issue the commission to rid the earth of its oppressors: but then, amidst judgment, when other men‘s hearts fail them for fear, the believer shall be reassured by the rainbow, the covenant token, round the throne (compare De Burgh, Exposition of Revelation)

Brother, you will never SEE this because of your spiritual blinders. 

You don't want to see Jesus there because you have already decided that He is not there. It won't "fit" with your theory.

You must preserve your doctrine.

John describes what he saw on the throne.  All the descriptions fit Jesus to a tee. It's the same descriptions of the Angel in Rev 10. That Angel is the Lord Jesus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  907
  • Content Per Day:  0.20
  • Reputation:   382
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/03/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/07/1866

But Jesus told him 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,272
  • Content Per Day:  2.10
  • Reputation:   688
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  06/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline

24 minutes ago, JoeCanada said:

LA,

"By the way, " who is to come" is no proof that Jesus was there."

The following commentaries show that Jesus was there.

 The exalted monarch is said to be like a jasper and a sardine stone. I find the soberest commentators agreed in declaring that what is here called jasper must be the diamond, and the sardine is only what we call a carnelian, that is, a flesh-coloured gem in hue, as the name signifies. And hence these expositors  believe that this personage, with a Divine brightness and a human expression, is none other than the Lamb in the midst of the throne.

Revelation 4:3......" And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald."

" And he that sat"

to sit upon a throne, doth signify, first, to make laws and constitutions for all his subjects, his churches, ministers and saints, how they should walk and worship God, { James 4:12} There is one law-giver. { Isaiah 33:22} The Lord is our law-giver-The Lord is our King, and HE will save us.

" Was to look upon like a jasper"

our Lord Jesus Christ, the king, priest, and prophet of his church, is here resembled by three precious stones in Aaron's breast plate; the jasper, the sardine, and the emerald, { Exodus 28:20-39} which were also three of the foundation stones of the holy city, the new Jerusalem. { Revelation 21:11-20} This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of JEHOVAH, Jesus, in Ezekiel's vision. { Ezekiel 1:26-28} The other jasper is a precious stone, which shineth so bright, that no color can darken it; hereby it figured forth the shining glory of Jesus Christ, who is the brightest of his father's glory. { Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 4:6} The sardine, or sardius, is a precious stone of a clear carnation color; hereby is represented the spiritual beauty, and loveliness of Jesus Christ, Song of Solomon 5:10-16 who is white and ruddy, and altogether lovely; made so precious to sanctified believers by his sufferings. { 1 Peter 2:4-7} A crucified Jesus is a precious Jesus, { Isaiah 63:1-3} glorious in his red apparel; his bloody garments of redemption and salvation. { Ephesians 1:7; Isaiah 61:10} The emerald is a lively lovely green stone, mixed with shining rays, and sparklings of other excellent and pleasant colors, which make that precious stone very desirable for its worth, beauty, and lustre. So is our precious Lord Jesus Christ ten thousand thousand times more worth, more glorious, and more desirable for the variety of his spiritual gifts and graces.

Ver. 3. Like a jasper and a sardine] God is here resembled  by three precious stones, holding forth the three persons in Trinity. A jasper having (as they say) a white circle round about it, representing the eternity of the Father. A sardine stone of a fleshy colour representing Jesus Christ, who took our flesh upon him. An emerald, being of a green colour, refreshing the eyes of them that look upon it, representing the Spirit, who is (as the rainbow) a token of fair weather, and is a comfortable refresher, wheresoever he cometh.

" And there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald"

And Christ is said to have a rainbow upon his head, { Revelation 10:1} The rainbow was a token of Gods covenant with Noah, { Genesis 9:11-16} and was applied by the prophet for the everlasting comfort of the church of God, { Isaiah 54:5-10} and signifies that God and Christ is ever mindful of the new covenant, and will perform his word to a thousand generations. {Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 111:5} God will not break his covenant, { Psalm 89:30-35} and Christ is the mediator of the new convenant between God and his people. { 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 8:6}

As the rainbow was first reflected on the waters of the world‘s ruin, and continues to be seen only when a cloud is brought over the earth, so another deluge, namely, of fire, shall precede the new heavens and earth: the Lord, as here, on His throne, whence (Revelation 4:5) proceed “lightnings and thunderings,” shall issue the commission to rid the earth of its oppressors: but then, amidst judgment, when other men‘s hearts fail them for fear, the believer shall be reassured by the rainbow, the covenant token, round the throne (compare De Burgh, Exposition of Revelation)

Brother, you will never SEE this because of your spiritual blinders. 

You don't want to see Jesus there because you have already decided that He is not there. It won't "fit" with your theory.

You must preserve your doctrine.

John describes what he saw on the throne.  All the descriptions fit Jesus to a tee. It's the same descriptions of the Angel in Rev 10. That Angel is the Lord Jesus. 

And here I was going to say all those things about you! 

If it was Jesus on the throne, then I guess it must have been the Father that suddenly appeared as a lamb having been slain!  You are just too funny!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,600
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 3/13/2019 at 6:19 PM, JoeCanada said:

"In 95 AD Jesus had left the throne, to be born of a virgin. God prepared a body for Him.".......Seriously?

I have pointed this out to iamlamad as well, it just gets ignored. It's a serious paradox, a space/time distortion unresolvable for his doctrine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,272
  • Content Per Day:  2.10
  • Reputation:   688
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  06/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline

20 hours ago, Diaste said:

I have pointed this out to iamlamad as well, it just gets ignored. It's a serious paradox, a space/time distortion unresolvable for his doctrine. 

"In 95 AD Jesus had left the throne, to be born of a virgin. God prepared a body for Him."

I have explained this before. You don't think that by 95 AD Jesus had NOT already came to earth?  Some argue it was as early as 7 BC that He came. Other's say 2 or 3 BC.  I think we can all agree He came CLOSE to the changing of the calendar. They started over with year 1.  By 95 AD when John was called up to heaven, Jesus had already come to earth, born of a virgin, finished His ministry, was nailed to a cross, died, was buried, rose from the dead, and ascended back to His place at the Father's right hand. You all KNOW this to be true. 

Perhaps if I had changed one word, you would have understood:

"BY 95 AD Jesus had left [already] the throne, to be born of a virgin. God prepared a body for Him."

This is the entire argument that has eluded you all to date: By the time John saw the vision, Jesus had ascended some 60 years previous! Yet in the throne room vision, John DID NOT SEE the Christ at the right hand of the Father. And in a search for one worthy, NO MAN was found. 

God, using John's pen, is showing us TIMING: a point in time before Christ rose from the dead. then later the exact time He ascended. Maybe you all need to watch "Back the the Future" a few times to better understand TIME.

Edited by iamlamad
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,192
  • Content Per Day:  0.48
  • Reputation:   429
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/12/1957

Well, I could show, and have shown, a lot of passages from both OT and NT that support a pre-trib removal of the righteous.  They all make a pretty solid case.  But the one thing that sealed the deal for me was 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is laid out on Verse 1.... the Day of the Lord and our gathering to Him. 

Verse 2, it would seem that someone had upset the apple cart and forged a letter to these folks that they were already in the Day of the Lord.  Why would the be upset if for some reason they thought they missed something important?

Dr. Kenneth Wuest (1893 - 1961), head of NT Greek at Moody Bible Institute from 1929 thru to his death.  He wrote extensively on Greek words used in the NT and had much to say about 2 Thessalonians 2:3.  His contention was that the verse is better translated "the departure" as opposed to "Falling Away", and that a physical departure to "rapture" is in view.

Most English translations up to the KJV had also done the same, translating the passage as "a departure", "a departing", "the departure", or simply "departure".   The Latin Vulgate uses "dicessio" which is a physical or spatial departure, not a doctrinal departure or apostasy.

And given that the context is our gathering to the Lord and not our departing from the Lord, a physical departure fits the context rather than a departing from the Lord.

Dr. Andy Woods, doctorates in Law and Theology, president of Chafer Theological Seminary, did a publication in February 2018 where he shows that Kennth Wuest was correct, and Woods expands on it and solidifies the case.   To quote Dr. Woods.... "2 Thessalonians 2:3 establishes the pre-trib... game, set, match"

And the 1599 Geneva Bible seemed to agree. Long, long before J N Darby was even born.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (1599 Geneva Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

So, while it can be argued that some pre-trib "logic" fails, one is going to have an impossible time convincing me that 2 Thessalonians 2:3 fails.  

OOPS!  Forgot Dr. Ken Johnson, a respected expert on early church documents, also concurs with the guys above.  Lot's of heavy hitters seem to agree.

Edited by OldCoot
Spelling
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,272
  • Content Per Day:  2.10
  • Reputation:   688
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  06/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Well, I could show, and have shown, a lot of passages from both OT and NT that support a pre-trib removal of the righteous.  They all make a pretty solid case.  But the one thing that sealed the deal for me was 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is laid out on Verse 1.... the Day of the Lord and our gathering to Him. 

Verse 2, it would seem that someone had upset the apple cart and forged a letter to these folks that they were already in the Day of the Lord.  Why would the be upset if for some reason they thought they missed something important?

Dr. Kenneth Wuest (1893 - 1961), head of NT Greek at Moody Bible Institute from 1929 thru to his death.  He wrote extensively on Greek words used in the NT and had much to say about 2 Thessalonians 2:3.  His contention was that the verse is better translated "the departure" as opposed to "Falling Away", and that a physical departure to "rapture" is in view.

Most English translations up to the KJV had also done the same, translating the passage as "a departure", "a departing", "the departure", or simply "departure".   The Latin Vulgate uses "dicessio" which is a physical or spatial departure, not a doctrinal departure or apostasy.

And given that the context is our gathering to the Lord and not our departing from the Lord, a physical departure fits the context rather than a departing from the Lord.

Dr. Andy Woods, doctorates in Law and Theology, president of Chafer Theological Seminary, did a publication in February 2018 where he shows that Kennth Wuest was correct, and Woods expands on it and solidifies the case.   To quote Dr. Woods.... "2 Thessalonians 2:3 establishes the pre-trib... game, set, match"

And the 1599 Geneva Bible seemed to agree. Long, long before J N Darby was even born.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (1599 Geneva Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

So, while it can be argued that some pre-trib "logic" fails, one is going to have an impossible time convincing me that 2 Thessalonians 2:3 fails.  

OOPS!  Forgot Dr. Ken Johnson, a respected expert on early church documents, also concurs with the guys above.  Lot's of heavy hitters seem to agree.

Great post, Old Timer - I mean Oldcoot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  277
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   270
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/13/2008
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/23/1967

I am not a theologian by any means but I know how amazingly detailed God's prophecies are in Ezekiel (especially in today's geopolitical climate). Regardless of your stance regarding the Rapture...I urge you to read straight through Ezekiel 36-39. God gave very specific detail about what He will do for Israel in the last days...and so many of those things are in the works right now. Very exciting.

Personally, I think these chapters support a pre-Trib stance, but my main point here is to just read Ezekiel and think about current events regarding Israel, Russia, Iran, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...