Jump to content
IGNORED

Defense of the Pre Trib Rapture


George

Recommended Posts


  • 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

52 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Jesus replied,

 

 

 

 

Mark 13:32, But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

 

Except that application Yeshua was referring to was in the preceding verse.....

Mark 13:31 (NKJV) Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

The antecedent is "Heaven and earth will pass away".  That is what "that day" in verse 32 is referring to.  Basic grammar.  

While I do agree that we may not know the day or the hour of the removal of the righteous, using that verse to support the argument doesn't work.  And we are told of many signs that point to that day approaching and to be watching.  

But the overall post was good.

 

52 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

There have been tribes found deep in South America, Papua New Guinea, and other parts of the Earth that have not yet even heard of God, the gospel, or Jesus.

And who will deliver it to them?  It won't be believers or one of the Christian radio or TV shows.  An angel will fulfill the totality of the word of God that the Gospel will be preached to all the earth......

Revelation 14:6-7 (NKJV) Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

No one will have an  excuse.

Edited by OldCoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

OldCoot. 

Except that application Yeshua was referring to was in the preceding verse.....

Mark 13:31 (NKJV) Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

The antecedent is "Heaven and earth will pass away".  That is what "that day" in verse 32 is referring to.  Basic grammar.[/quote].

___________________________________________________________

Pass away; Gr. parerchomai, to change from one condition or state to another, or as old things pass away at the new berth (2 Cor. 5:17). It never means annihiliation, but to change only The heavens and the earth are eternal (Ps. 72:5-17; 89:3:37; 104:5; Eccl. 1:4) and cannot pass out of existence.

They will be changed (Heb.1:10-12; 12:25-28; Rom. 8:21-23), be renovated by fire (2 Pet. 5:5-13 and be renewed (Rev. 2;1) but never pass out of existence. They will be changed but "My Words will not be changed."

.

Edited by HAZARD
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  11
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,364
  • Content Per Day:  0.59
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

11 minutes ago, OldCoot said:
Quote

 

But this judgement of the sheep and goats is not the GWTJ.  That is later after the millennial kingdom period.  The S&G judgement is at the end of the GT period and the discourse in Matthew 25 regarding this is an exposition on Joel 3.  And in the case, only the gentiles are referred to as the 'nations' or goyim.  It really is just that simple if one reads the scripture. 

 

The sheep/goat judgment has common elements in it as the GWT judgment: such as it is a judgment, not a battle, eternal destruction awaits those who are not righteous/in the book. Two different descriptions of the same things.

Quote

There is no resurrection at the S&G judgement.  The redeemed that make up the church were already taken out before the GT period kicked into gear.  The S&G judgement is to determine who is cast off and who goes into the kingdom.  No different rapture or resurrection.   If you can find where the resurrection is mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46, please let us know.  But since this discourse is on Joel 3, you would have to also provide proof from Joel of that also.

C'mon Coot--No resurrection at the S& G judgment? The judgment that condemns people eternally and declares the righteous passage to eternal life can ONLY take place after resurrection!

Rev. 11:18- And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth

Rewards to prophets/servants and dead being judged requires resurrection.

Quote

By golly, you actually got something right in this discussion!   Well done!   Except where does it say in Joel 3 or Matthew 25 about people "being cast into eternal life".  But both are a judgement of how the Goyim (nations) treated the Hebrew people.  Goes allllll the way back to Genesis 12:3.  Yeshua did expand on Joel 3.  That is what is done in an expository discourse.  He did add elements that weren't stated by the HS to Joel. But Joel 3 still remains as the base text Yeshua was teaching from. 

Hmmm, a misplaced word....yeah. Well they are two different contexts you are mashing together. One scenario is of people that are standing before the throne of Jesus and the other is of Gentile nations attacking Jerusalem  being dealt with by the Lord in battle. Can't miss it.  

Quote

And that is a slanderous lie.  Where have I refused to acknowledge that Yeshua is the Son of Yahweh and the promised Messiah?  Since you have decided to use character assassination as a tactic here, you will have to proceed on your own.  I have no reason to consider anything more you have to say.

 No need to be so hyper, I never said such a thing, you are creating a distortion or cannot follow meanings. I repeatedly brought before you the words of Jesus about Noah and Lot (and other verses). You wouldn't so much as acknowledge this teaching but tole me that-- I -- was falling short of a requirement to provide certain O.T./N.T examples you wanted. Jesus wasn't enough for you. I predict you still won't admit He is right. (looking for a way out?) I told no lie.

My brother, there are no hard feelings on my part. You don't have to reply if you feel the need to drop it. I consider the common pre trib dogma something that should looked at as the Bereans  practiced. I understand the theory and have pointed out immovable contradictions, but nothing I say is meant in any way to hurt you. I am clumsy and very direct at times but never is there anything but brotherly love for you and all the family of God.  

  • Thumbs Up 1
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

19 minutes ago, Uriah said:

I consider the common pre trib dogma something that should looked at as the Bereans  practiced.

Then practice it as they practiced it.  They confirmed all that Paul taught them from the OT.   What Paul taught them now makes up a significant portion of the NT, along with the writings of the other Apostles.   The Torah teaches us that a matter can only be established on the testimony of two witnesses.   The Bereans showed us how to put that in to action in Acts 17.  Every matter must be established from both the OT and NT.  I followed the prescription.  I showed equivalency in both OT and NT for my position.

And likewise, the pre-trib position is in the OT just as much as it is in the NT.  And just as Matthew 23-25 the focus is on the Hebrew people. The OT makes it very clear that Yeshua will not return again until Jacob (Israel) acknowledges the offense of rejecting Him and repents of that.  Nothing else can cause Yeshua to return and set foot on this planet. And Yeshua affirmed that in Matthew 23, which is part of the discussion of Matthew 24-25.

Edited by OldCoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  11
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,364
  • Content Per Day:  0.59
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 7/16/2019 at 10:49 PM, OldCoot said:

Then practice it as they practiced it.  They confirmed all that Paul taught them from the OT.   What Paul taught them now makes up a significant portion of the NT, along with the writings of the other Apostles.   The Torah teaches us that a matter can only be established on the testimony of two witnesses.   The Bereans showed us how to put that in to action in Acts 17.  Every matter must be established from both the OT and NT.  I followed the prescription.  I showed equivalency in both OT and NT for my position.

And likewise, the pre-trib position is in the OT just as much as it is in the NT.  And just as Matthew 23-25 the focus is on the Hebrew people. The OT makes it very clear that Yeshua will not return again until Jacob (Israel) acknowledges the offense of rejecting Him and repents of that.  Nothing else can cause Yeshua to return and set foot on this planet. And Yeshua affirmed that in Matthew 23, which is part of the discussion of Matthew 24-25.

Hi Coot

I'd like to go back to 2 Thes. 2, since I am quite sure Paul's teaching here is Berean approved. Paul talks about "our gathering together unto Him". In the same sentence is, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". Paul goes on to say that the son of perdition must be revealed first. Then he declares that the Lord will destroy him, "with the brightness of His coming".

Yet doesn't pre trib teach that the rapture/gathering together unto him will take place BEFORE the Day when Jesus destroys this enemy?

  • Thumbs Up 1
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

2 hours ago, Uriah said:

Hi Coot

I'd like to go back to 2 Thes. 2, since I am quite sure Paul's teaching here is Berean approved. Paul talks about "our gathering together unto Him". In the same sentence is, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". Paul goes on to say that the son of perdition must be revealed first. Then he declares that the Lord will destroy him, "with the brightness of His coming".

Yet doesn't pre trib teach that the rapture/gathering together unto him will take place BEFORE the Day when Jesus destroys this enemy?

Indeed. Aposrasia in verse 3 simply means “departure”.  Without a reference to what is being departed from, as opposed to the use of apostasia in Acts 21:21 where departing from Moses (the Torah) is shown.

Every English translation prior to KJV and DRV used “departure”.   In the context laid out in verse one, our gathering to the Lord,  departure gives the idea of the removal or rapture before the man of sin is revealed

Isaiah 26:19-21 supports that concept as does Psalms 27:5.  And these are in lock step with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  11
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,364
  • Content Per Day:  0.59
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

13 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

Indeed. Aposrasia in verse 3 simply means “departure”.  Without a reference to what is being departed from, as opposed to the use of apostasia in Acts 21:21 where departing from Moses (the Torah) is shown.

Every English translation prior to KJV and DRV used “departure”.   In the context laid out in verse one, our gathering to the Lord,  departure gives the idea of the removal or rapture before the man of sin is revealed

Isaiah 26:19-21 supports that concept as does Psalms 27:5.  And these are in lock step with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

From Strongs Exhaustive Concordance:

Apostia ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah; feminine of the same as G647

G647-

  1. divorce, repudiation

  2. a bill of divorce

  3. ἀποστάσιον, -ου, τό, very seldom in native Greek writings, defection, of a freedman from his patron, Demosthenes 35, 48 [940, 16]; in the Bible:
    1. divorce, repudiation: Matthew 19:7; Mark 10:4 (βιβλίον ἀποστασίου, equivalent to סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת book or bill of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1, 3; [Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8]).
    2. a bill of divorce: Matthew 5:31. Grotius at the passage and Lightfoot, Horae Hebrew at the passage, give a copy of one.

  4. So it is easy to see through the sleight used by some pre trib sites/books to find the GREEK meaning AND the intent of those English translators. Nothing to do with the rapture. 

  5. So as I was saying, (and let's stick to what I pointed out , please), the passage shows "our gathering together unto Him" in connection with His coming. And it shows the man of sin's destruction in connection with "the brightness of His coming". In between these verses it says the man of sin must be revealed and make a blasphemous appearance to mock God which would be included in that man being revealed. He must do the mocking abomination first as well.

  • Thumbs Up 2
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

51 minutes ago, Uriah said:

From Strongs Exhaustive Concordance:

Apostia ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah; feminine of the same as G647

G647-

  1. divorce, repudiation

  2. a bill of divorce

  3. ἀποστάσιον, -ου, τό, very seldom in native Greek writings, defection, of a freedman from his patron, Demosthenes 35, 48 [940, 16]; in the Bible:
    1. divorce, repudiation: Matthew 19:7; Mark 10:4 (βιβλίον ἀποστασίου, equivalent to סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת book or bill of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1, 3; [Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8]).
    2. a bill of divorce: Matthew 5:31. Grotius at the passage and Lightfoot, Horae Hebrew at the passage, give a copy of one.

  4. So it is easy to see through the sleight used by some pre trib sites/books to find the GREEK meaning AND the intent of those English translators. Nothing to do with the rapture. 

  5. So as I was saying, (and let's stick to what I pointed out , please), the passage shows "our gathering together unto Him" in connection with His coming. And it shows the man of sin's destruction in connection with "the brightness of His coming". In between these verses it says the man of sin must be revealed and make a blasphemous appearance to mock God which would be included in that man being revealed. He must do the mocking abomination first as well.

Don’t place James Strong’s concordance on the level of scripture.  Many Greek scholars both before and after JS made the same assertion I am, including the translators of every English translation prior to the KJV.  And many modern reputable scholars like Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Ed Hindsen, Dr. Andy Woods, etc.  all of which were/are heads of theology departments or presidents of Seminaries.  Irregardless of that, James Strong offers his interpretation which is worthy to be noted, but it is just one interpretation by one man who was a fallen person saved by grace like the rest of us.  JS was not an apostle or such that his work should be considered the final authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  11
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,364
  • Content Per Day:  0.59
  • Reputation:   277
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

57 minutes ago, OldCoot said:
Quote

Don’t place James Strong’s concordance on the level of scripture.

I have done no such thing. We need not fear a mere dictionary. And as anyone can readily see for themselves in the partial list provided (largely excludes non biblical references) the word usage and context cannot be denied. Whereas modern authors need to shuffle the cups on the table and take it to Latin on its way to a way NOT used in SCRIPTURE. Dictionaries/lexicons cannot get away with forcing 2nd or 3rd meanings to the top. The "interpretation" as you call it (but really isn't) is laid out by adhering to the rules used by all interpreters. It is clear that M, Strong stuck with scriptural usage as a guide. You will not be able to refute that. 

Quote

 Many Greek scholars both before and after JS made the same assertion I am, including the translators of every English translation prior to the KJV.  And many modern reputable scholars like Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Ed Hindsen, Dr. Andy Woods, etc.  all of which were/are heads of theology departments or presidents of Seminaries.  Irregardless of that, James Strong offers his interpretation which is worthy to be noted, but it is just one interpretation by one man who was a fallen person saved by grace like the rest of us.  JS was not an apostle or such that his work should be considered the final authority.

The truth does not need an appeal to authority, (on the list of logical fallacies) but is, in its purest form plain for even the lowly to see.

So enough diversion, Paul said in that passage we will be gathered unto Him when He destroys the man of sin!

 

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

You seem to be focused on my reference to modern scholars.  I also referenced every English translation prior to the KJV.  I didn’t reference the LV in that last post, but the use of discessio in that translation also has a meaning of a physical, spatial departure.

There is ample internal and external evidence that supports the passage of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as simply “departure” comes first and within the context of of our gathering together to Him of the first verse, it is a reasoned assertion that the passage is speaking of the removal before the revealing.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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