BIG, BIG NEWS: RESURRECTION AND RAPTURE ON MARCH 14, 2023?

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Birth Pangs. RAPTURE. A of D. Great Tribulation. The Signs. The Coming of Jesus. The Gathering of the Elect.  In that order, in no other order, and only this once. 

See?  Just a tiny change and we would agree. 

That change you made is by the hand of man. It's not in Jesus words. You inserted an idea based solely on fleshy desire and not scriptural evidence. I would very much like to agree on this if there was solid evidence for such a thing.  

Yes, true, I made the change and ADDED "rapture." It is a man made name for Paul's catching up. No, it is not in Jesus words per-say.  But without a doubt Jesus was behind Paul's writings. The catching up is most certainly a part of scripture and in timing will happen exactly where I placed it you or series of events. This has NOTHING TO DO with flesh or desire: it is SCRIPTURE rightly understood.  If you wish to agree, then throw your theories into the trash and just camp out on 1 & 2 thes. for a year or two. I guarantee, if you do, God will bring supernatural revelation of HIS intent in those scriptures. 

Then, understand that when someone mentions the abomination of Desolation, they are speaking of DANIEL'S 70th week. Daniel himself said it was for HIS PEOPLE: the descendants of Jacob. That is why this time is also called the time of JACOB'S trouble. Why in the world would ANYONE want to make it THEIR trouble, if they are not a descendant of Jacob? My scriptural evidence is found in Paul's writing. You have been looking in the WRONG PLACE for rapture information. Jesus only VERY SLIGHTLY hinted at the rapture of the church in John 14.  He made NO REFERENCE to it at all in the Olivet discourse. He was talking to Jews about the end of THEIR age: the 70th week, and the times leading up to it. 

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

 It seems pretrib has the idea Jesus didn't exist before he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.

There is NO DIFFERENCE in pretrib vs posttrib (in general) in all other areas of scripture. Our only difference (in general) is when Paul's rapture will take place. Posttrib seems to imagine Jesus should have mentioned Paul's rapture in the Olivet Discourse. They see the word "gathering" and IMAGINE it must be Paul's gathering. They will have to take that up with Him when we all arrive home. When Jesus mentioned the abomination, that is PROOF POSITIVE He is talking to Jews about the end of THEIR age. Don't take my word for it: go back to Daniel 9 and read it with your own eyes: that period of judgment is for JACOB's descendants, NOT GENTILES. 
 

Jesus was a JEW and saw sent to the JEWS and the lost sheep of Israel. He did not come (primarily) for Gentiles. It was the JEWS that turned Him over to be crucified. It was the JEWS and the nation of Israel that at that time REJECTED him. Their problem is, they are STILL rejecting Him. God's purpose in the 70th week is to completely SHATTER their power (think IDF that they trust in) until they have one last hope: ONLY GOD can save them now, as perhaps 70 nations will have sent their armies to wipe Israel off the maps forever.

Is it also God's purpose to completely SHATTER the power of His church? NEVER! Just common sense outside of scripture should tell you that. Perhaps you should read over Daniel 12 again: that is for DANIEL'S people, the descendants of Jacob. 

Why ANYONE would choose to remain behind in Jacob's trouble when God has made a way of escape amazes me. 

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

PRECONCEPTIONS. It IS supported by scripture - but scripture your preconceptions are not allowing you to see. MILLIONS see it - you don't.

Wisdom of the crowd? Appeal to the consensus? Both logically untenable. Evidence, evidence, evidence.

What is POSTTRIB "evidence? A gathering that has nothing to do with Paul's gathering?  No way to get to the Marriage and supper?

The evidence is very plain for all to read: go back and study 1 Thes. 5 with a blank slate: take off ALL preconceived glasses and see WHEN in Paul's mind this was to take place.  Add to that, Luke 21:36: the escape plan. Add to that the great crowd too large to number seen in heaven before ANY wrath. 

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

No, they did not understand it from Paul's first letter. "Do you not remember that I told you these things while I was still with you?" 2 Thess 2:5 Just another example of reading what isn't there. Since you have this incorrect you should see your position weaken.

OF COURSE they had His first letter AFTER He came in person. Where do we get the very idea of the rapture? In Paul's FIRST letter. OF COURSE He taught them in person, but then CONFIRMED what He taught them in His first letter. You know: "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout..." 

So they had TWO points of reference: what Paul told them in person (which we all know fades away with time: people forget words spoken) but they also had WRITTEN evidence. An Ancient Chinese proverb: "faintest of is more powerful that strongest of memory." My position is stronger than ever!

[iamlamad]

6 hours ago, Diaste said:

Author intent is determined by what is written. Paul is persuading, informing, explaining and describing. That's most of the intent of 2 Thess 2:1-8. You cannot add elements to the story or you are editing.

As has been shown many times it's rebellion, revolt, defection; it's not 'forcibly abducted from one place and taken to another'. 

It's the coming of the Lord and the gathering that is held back until the beast is revealed and the rebellion occurs. In other words there is no Coming of our Lord or a gathering before the beast emerges and the people of God rebel and join the camp of the beast. 

We have been over this before. We have what Paul has given us. So we take in apart, verse by verse or thought be thought and try to understand what Paul was thinking. 

Let's start with "and NOW you know...." Sorry, but that does NOT FIT what He taught them in person. No one would write it like that if that was their intent. The ONLY reason one would write  "and now you know" is because they just TOLD someone. What was Paul talking about? Who the restrainer was or is.  He said "and now you know what is restraining..." 

So, do YOU know? Do YOU know who are what is restraining the man of sin and preventing him from manifesting himself before God's intended time?  According to you, the Restrainer has to be some kind of falling away, revolt, defection - from what we don't know because Paul did not inform us....UNLESS we refer back to Paul's theme.

Here is what Paul did: He TOLD us in a cloaked way who or what was restraining and what was taken out of the way and that the man of sin was revealed (not in reality but in his argument); then next Paul wrote "and now you know what is restraining..." so we would all know,  then next Paul explains that the one restraining will be taken out of the way.

Paul could have written: "no, you are not in the Day of the Lord yet because the Day has not yet come." But it seems they had asked him not only about the day of the Lord but about the catching away too - so Paul has to include that; in fact, he makes the catching away as his theme.  He wrote, "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him," Therefore they MUST have asked him about both the DAY and the rapture. 

Now can we use some logic?

Points: they were VERY upset.  (why?)

They had been told that the Day of the Lord was already started and they were IN IT. 

Now stop and think: if Paul had told them the rapture was at the end, why would they be upset? They would have known that they would have to go through the day of the Lord, and it had started, so they had only to wait it out. That theory makes very little sense.

On the other hand, since in His first letter (which I am sure they were studying) he told them rapture first, they Day of the Lord - and then someone told them the DAY had come and they were IN IT (and apparently left behind) OF COURSE they were be upset. 

Paul then ends up this passage telling then that the departing (shown earlier to be the restrainer taken out of the way) must come FIRST, then the man of sin revealed, and then, finally, people will KNOW  that the DAY has started. 

See how simply this passage is when you take it a piece at a time?

What people MISS: that in verse 3, at the end of the verse, the man of sin IS REVEALED.  then Paul explains HOW he got revealed: the one restraining had to first be taken out of the way.

It is very obvious then that someone in the first part of verse 3 is the restrainer taken out of the way. 

The truth then is:  apostasia is a departing: from WHAT Paul did not come right out and say, like departing from Moses.  And in truth, Paul did not have to say, for when we understand Paul's meaning, it is the great departing of the church as in Paul's rapture / gathering. Once the church has been taken out of the way, then the man of sin will be free to be revealed. But God is not going to allow that until the proper time. 

[iamlamad]

6 hours ago, Diaste said:

I guess if one looks at Rev 2-3 we see the idea "...the one who overcomes..." written 7 times. Since there is no victory without the threat of defeat these overcomers must overcome something.  What has to be determined is what is the condition that is "...overcome...". Pretrib must imagine Jesus is speaking to overcoming the psycho boss, the overbearing assistants, traffic jams, unruly kids and the neighbors dog that just won't stop barking at 2 am.

In each of the excerpts to the existing church Jesus speaks to the condition of the church at present; first lauding them for any virtue they hold and then pleads for them to repent of any spiritual or physical immorality. But then there is this warning that appears in five of the excerpts:

I agree, if we just read it as John wrote it, of course it would seem very much that what they will overcome will be the Day of the Lord and 70th week events. (Which at first glance seems silly because those churches died out long ago.) However, we both know that God sees the future like we see today, so it could well be chapters 2 & 3 describe people living today.  These are warnings that can be taken personally for every reader. I have always taken them as personal warnings. 

I don't think God was wasting words: He knew ahead of time those churches were disappear.  One possibility: those churches were under severe persecution: perhaps many were persuaded to go back under Judaism. Perhaps many DID, rather than overcome. 

So was God talking about GENTILE churches of today? Or was He talking to any PEOPLE who read? If He was talking to THE CHURCH of today, I can see your point: they would be raptured out before anything serious to overcome. Since a great deal of the entire book is about the 70th week of Daniel, I think the main point of the book is pointed more to the Jews than to the Gentile church of today. Again I think it is more pointed to individuals, not groups of people that gather. If so, each individual who reads and is not born again will certainly have to overcome. This is probably the beast argument you have made.  Does it PROVE pretrib wrong? No.

[iamlamad]

It seems pretribbers are always answered questions posed by posttribbers. 
As  pretribber, I will ask a question: 

In Rev. 19, it seems masses of people are ALREADY THERE in heaven for the marriage and supper. 

1. Who are they and how did they get there?

2. How will those believers still alive on earth make it to heaven for the marriage and supper?

[Diaste]

13 hours ago, iamlamad said:

I agree, if we just read it as John wrote it, of course it would seem very much that what they will overcome will be the Day of the Lord and 70th week events. (Which at first glance seems silly because those churches died out long ago.) However, we both know that God sees the future like we see today, so it could well be chapters 2 & 3 describe people living today.  These are warnings that can be taken personally for every reader. I have always taken them as personal warnings. 

I don't think God was wasting words: He knew ahead of time those churches were disappear.  One possibility: those churches were under severe persecution: perhaps many were persuaded to go back under Judaism. Perhaps many DID, rather than overcome. 

So was God talking about GENTILE churches of today? Or was He talking to any PEOPLE who read? If He was talking to THE CHURCH of today, I can see your point: they would be raptured out before anything serious to overcome. Since a great deal of the entire book is about the 70th week of Daniel, I think the main point of the book is pointed more to the Jews than to the Gentile church of today. Again I think it is more pointed to individuals, not groups of people that gather. If so, each individual who reads and is not born again will certainly have to overcome. This is probably the beast argument you have made.  Does it PROVE pretrib wrong? No.

I think it's to individuals as well. The letters are to churches that did exist and probably existed at the time. What I see is not the location but the body of Christ as a whole and Jesus speaking to important issues within the body. Perhaps the locations only serve to point out the issues prevalent at the time and it's not meant to single out a group. Jesus is nondenominational.

I really wish you would abandon dispensationalism. It only serves as a barrier. "If you are in Christ then you are the seed of Abraham and heirs according to the promise." - Gal 3

Abraham was the father of Isaac and Jacob. Jacob was renamed Israel by God. The faith of Abraham comes to us through this line, he is our 'faith father', as it were. In fact we don't even have the gospel unless Jesus is born of the Jews, recruits Jews, sends the Spirit to the Jews and sends the Jews out to preach the gospel, and inspires the letters written by Jews in what is called the New Testament.

If not for the Jews there is no faith and no scripture. Paul makes it clear there is only believer and unbelievers. No Jew or Greek, no free or bond, all are one in Christ. No church age distinct from another age.

Please cite the scripture that shows there is a Gentile church. 

[Diaste]

12 hours ago, iamlamad said:

It seems pretribbers are always answered questions posed by posttribbers. 
As  pretribber, I will ask a question: 

In Rev. 19, it seems masses of people are ALREADY THERE in heaven for the marriage and supper. 

1. Who are they and how did they get there?

2. How will those believers still alive on earth make it to heaven for the marriage and supper?

You don't think this makes an assumption that some time has passed? How do you determine time has passed? How do you know it hasn't been just a few ticks of the clock? Or instantaneous?

We know who they are and they were caught up, the dead in Christ first, then the living.

Still alive on earth at what point? At the beginning of wrath there would be no believers alive on earth. If wrath is occurring there cannot be any of the children of the Most High in that wrath, per 1 Thess 5:9

 

 

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, iamlamad said:

What is POSTTRIB "evidence? A gathering that has nothing to do with Paul's gathering?  No way to get to the Marriage and supper?

The evidence is very plain for all to read: go back and study 1 Thes. 5 with a blank slate: take off ALL preconceived glasses and see WHEN in Paul's mind this was to take place.  Add to that, Luke 21:36: the escape plan. Add to that the great crowd too large to number seen in heaven before ANY wrath. 

There is no escape plan that involves harpazo mentioned in Luke. You are equating an action by an outside force with a personal flight. 

Of course the great multitude is in heaven before wrath, that's the whole idea of 1 Thess 5:9. 

Matt has the order of things. The week begins, then the A of D, then great tribulation, then Jesus comes and gathers His friends, only then does wrath fall. This is what Paul is referring to 1 and 2 Thess, and 1 Cor.

Noah entered the ark the same day wrath began. Lot was removed from the city a moment before wrath fell. It will be the same at the end.