Defense of the Pre Trib Rapture

[Uriah]

13 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

I see it as an absolute bulls-eye for the pre-trib position.  Those righteous dead and living in Isaiah 26 are hidden prior to the indignation or wrath.  Daniel 8 says that the man of sin / antichrist / lawless one is not revealed until the final period of the indignation or wrath.  So I see a pre not post trib removal.

There are a number of other issues I have with post trib also that do not fit much of the scripture.  About the only one of these positions that I can even entertain to some degree is mid trib.  Everything else doesn't measure up.

If the righteous are changed and removed at the end of the tribulation period, then who is left that is righteous to enter into the kingdom and repopulate the earth under Messiah?  And the scripture does say, in both OT and NT, that there will be sin, death, etc even in the kingdom.  So much so that when Satan is released at the end of the 1000 years, he is able to foment a  world rebellion against Messiah one last time.   Messiah will have to rule with a rod of iron which implies some will get out of line and have to be dealt with.  What then, do the righteous even after being changed and raptured go on sinning and rebelling against Yeshua?  On these things the post trib position fails miserably.

Is 17:1 says "in that day"...(at that time) What day what time. The time when the dead people are raised to life-THAT is when the dragon is punished, at the END.

Also, Zech 14 says, "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."

So there will be survivors from the nations that will repopulate the earth. To suggest that it is believers from the great tribulation repopulating the earth  who are denied the promises of the Gospel they had believed in would make it another gospel. 

[Montana Marv]

11 hours ago, OldCoot said:

That is a position held by many, but there is no scripture support of it.  I concede that there is not detailed scripture "proof" that they were taken to the Father, but there is circumstantial evidence of it when we see how Yeshua, our High Priest, told Mary to not touch Him since He had not yet ascended to the Father and had to remain ceremonially pure to present the first fruits in accordance with Leviticus 23, then there is more support for them being taken to the Father than there is that they died again.  And the day of this event is the Day of First Fruits in the biblical calendar.  

And if you read the text closely, they arose AFTER Yeshua arose.

Matthew 27:53 (NASB) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Nowhere in scripture does it say they continued to hang out and party with those in Jerusalem and then took another dirt nap.  

 Matt 27:51 -If one looks.  At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.  The earth shook and the rocks split.  The tombs broke open, and bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.  Now After Jesus was resurrected, they went into the holy city.  Lazarus also arose from the dead at Jesus' command, did he later die?  When did their transformation take place, bringing mortality into immortality.  In essence are you saying that the Bride is not the first to go and receive their new glorified bodies, like Christs Body.  Daniel was instructed that at the end of days he would arise and receive his inheritance.  Jesus did not take captives, captive until He ascended on High.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[OldCoot]

35 minutes ago, Uriah said:

Is 17:1 says "in that day"...(at that time) What day what time. The time when the dead people are raised to life-THAT is when the dragon is punished, at the END.

Also, Zech 14 says, "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."

So there will be survivors from the nations that will repopulate the earth. To suggest that it is believers from the great tribulation repopulating the earth  who are denied the promises of the Gospel they had believed in would make it another gospel. 

It may be another eschatology but not another Gospel.  You are placing eschatology as a condition of salvation.  That is a no-no.

[Uriah]

1 hour ago, OldCoot said:

 You are placing eschatology as a condition of salvation.  

How so, bro?

[OldCoot]

3 hours ago, Uriah said:

How so, bro?

I might have read what you were stating too quickly and misapplied what I was thinking.

But back on point, "in that day" almost always refers to the totally of the Day of the Lord which is more than a literal day.   

Edited June 22, 2019 by OldCoot

[Uriah]

38 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

I might have read what you were stating too quickly and misapplied what I was thinking.

But back on point, "in that day" almost always refers to the totally of the Day of the Lord which is more than a literal day.   

Hi Coot

I consider redemption and the work on the cross to be the CORE of the Gospel. Everything Jesus taught is the "good news" including the good news of His second coming and the redemption of the earth as well. My point is, how can believers who ONLY knew the same Gospel as we know with its promise of the rapture (Matt. 24) and the wedding/marriage to the groom and on and on be told NO not for you!? So what if you loved not your live even unto death-and kept the words of Jesus, that was for yesterday! Not you people. These things are for all believers, ONE body, ONE faith, ONE Lord, etc, etc, etc. (rapture too)

Yet we see in Rev. 20 people who resisted the mark of the beast in heaven before the 1,000 yr. reign of Christ. How do they get in? The pre trib SECOND rapture? All are martyred? It doesn't say that anywhere. It cannot be.

I also said "in that day"/at that time (interchangeable). So it can be more than a single day. But we cannot dismiss the fact there will be a great DAY. (ever notice how just about everything happens on a day?) So even the totality of days for the serpent being punished and the trumpet  being heard would be at the END rather than a Pre trib scenario, and all of it being in one long passage includes the dead men living again. 

[OldCoot]

41 minutes ago, Uriah said:

Yet we see in Rev. 20 people who resisted the mark of the beast in heaven before the 1,000 yr. reign of Christ. How do they get in? The pre trib SECOND rapture? All are martyred? It doesn't say that anywhere. It cannot be.

So how do the OT saints get in?  Not by a rapture either!   How do those who come to the Lord during the millennial reign?  They are not raptured either!  But they are resurrected at a later time.

Just because there is a pre-trib removal of the righteous dead and living who constitute the body of Messiah now, does not negate any other group of people in any other time frame from being redeemed.  There is only one redemption... thru Yeshua.  But even John the Baptist, Yeshua said that he was the greatest of all ever born, and that would include Moses, Elijah, David, etc.  But Yeshua also said that he who is least in the kingdom is greater than JB.  That has a reference to those who are joined in the body of Messiah.   JB was one of the OT saints.  There are differing groups, though each individual is redeemed the same way.  Just like there are different parts within the body of Messiah, but not all are the same part.   Yet, all are redeemed in the same way.

But it is hard to escape that Isaiah 26 says both the dead and living righteous are hidden in their rooms (see John 14 about this also), and that occurs before the wrath begins, and Daniel 8 elaborates that the final world ruler is not revealed until the later period of the wrath.  And likewise, Paul writes that the day of the Lord will not start and the man of sin will not be revealed until the departure happens which seems to refer back to the "our gathering to the Lord", which is the context of the same passage in 2 Thessalonians.

There will be those that go into that period initially in unbelief and later will turn to Yeshua and most will be killed, but not all.  Matthew 25 shows first a separation of the Hebrew people who are still alive at the end of the tribulation, which corresponds to Ezekiel 20, then Matthew 25 also shows the separation of those of the nations who are alive at the end of the tribulation period also, in accordance with Joel 3.

The key requirement of any matter being established is support of at least two witnesses.  The Bereans in Acts 17 showed us who those two witnesses are.... the OT and the NT.  For any matter to be established it must have support in both OT and NT.  Only exception is something Yeshua teaches or is a "mystery" (something not revealed previously).   And the pre-trib is fully supported in both OT and NT.

 

 

[Uriah]

3 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Quote

So how do the OT saints get in?  Not by a rapture either!   How do those who come to the Lord during the millennial reign?  They are not raptured either!  But they are resurrected at a later time.

But we're not talking about those people or resurrections.

Quote

Just because there is a pre-trib removal of the righteous dead and living who constitute the body of Messiah now, does not negate any other group of people in any other time frame from being redeemed.

Never made such a claim.

 There is only one redemption... thru Yeshua.  But even John the Baptist, Yeshua said that he was the greatest of all ever born, and that would include Moses, Elijah, David, etc.  But Yeshua also said that he who is least in the kingdom is greater than JB.  That has a reference to those who are joined in the body of Messiah.   JB was one of the OT saints.  There are differing groups, though each individual is redeemed the same way.  Just like there are different parts within the body of Messiah, but not all are the same part.   Yet, all are redeemed in the same way.

Quote

But it is hard to escape that Isaiah 26 says both the dead and living righteous are hidden in their rooms

This is where I think you are forcing a pre trib interpretation into it. Paul said the rapture was a mystery, as in NOT revealed in the O.T., so this NOT a rapture reference. It is about the wrath coming down that destroys the Israelis' enemies when they are overrun. No need to hide if you are in heaven. And again it is thoroughly connected to the time when the trumpet is heard and the serpent punished. Impossible to escape that. The passage in John 14 has NO connection whatsoever to His coming in a pre trib rapture, or snatching away before wrath etc., just that He WILL return.

 

Quote

see John 14 about this also), and that occurs before the wrath begins, and Daniel 8 elaborates that the final world ruler is not revealed until the later period of the wrath.  And likewise, Paul writes that the day of the Lord will not start and the man of sin will not be revealed until the departure happens which seems to refer back to the "our gathering to the Lord", which is the context of the same passage in 2 Thessalonians.

You mean this?...:Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Pretty much says the opposite of what you said.....2Thes. 2:3, is followed by v. 8, which says He will destroy this man by the brightness of His coming and the Spirit of His mouth (see Rev. 19)....definitely at the END, not 3.5 yrs before the end. 

Quote

There will be those that go into that period initially in unbelief and later will turn to Yeshua and most will be killed, but not all

Ahh, here we go, how many? there will be a great multitude. By linguistics alone this is likely over a billion. Those who are alive and remain...NO RAPTURE for them like the Gospel they had been believing teaches? Were they believing a different gospel? Is there ANOTHER rapture not found in scripture?

.  Matthew 25 shows first a separation of the Hebrew people who are still alive at the end of the tribulation, which corresponds to Ezekiel 20, then Matthew 25 also shows the separation of those of the nations who are alive at the end of the tribulation period also, in accordance with Joel 3.

Quote

The key requirement of any matter being established is support of at least two witnesses.  The Bereans in Acts 17 showed us who those two witnesses are.... the OT and the NT.  For any matter to be established it must have support in both OT and NT.  Only exception is something Yeshua teaches or is a "mystery" (something not revealed previously).   And the pre-trib is fully supported in both OT and NT.

I totally agree, let's see a few verses with multiple raptures, or verses that say not all Christians (and they are) receive all the things promised to them by God in scripture because of a secret deadline.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Uriah

[OldCoot]

2 hours ago, Uriah said:

This is where I think you are forcing a pre trib interpretation into it. Paul said the rapture was a mystery, as in NOT revealed in the O.T., so this NOT a rapture reference.

No, Paul said the mystery was that we shall not all sleep, but all will be changed.  He was not writing specifically of the Rapture in that passage. Even if he was, that was in 1 Corinthians.  The letters to the Thessalonians were the earliest of his letters.  And in those letters, the departure / gathering to Yeshua was told to be prior to the revealing of the man of sin / lawless one / antichrist.  Just like Isaiah in conjunction with Daniel.

Edited June 23, 2019 by OldCoot

[OldCoot]

3 hours ago, Uriah said:

Pretty much says the opposite of what you said.....2Thes. 2:3,

Nope.  

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 (1599 Geneva Bible) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him,
2 That ye be not suddenly moved from your mind, nor troubled neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as it were from us, as though the day of Christ were at hand.
3 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.

The context of the passage is our gathering or assembling to Yeshua.  The Thessalonians by either a word or fake letter had been persuaded they were in the day of the Lord.   Paul reassures them that it will not happen until the departure takes place which refers back to the gathering or assembling of us to the Lord.

Many Greek scholars concur that apostasia is literally "departure".  Only when there is a specific subject to suggest what is being departed from can one make the assertion that a falling away in implied.  The only other use of apostasia is in Acts 21:21 where it is specifically said what is being departed from... Moses / The Torah.    The LV uses dicessio which also has in mind a departure, more specifically a spatial departure over a spiritual one.

Dr. Kenneth Wuest (1893 - 1961), professor of NT Greek, Moody Bible Institute, contributor to the NASB translation, did the Wuest Expanded Translation of the NT, etc concurs in his writings that apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, in the use of the word there, can only mean "departure".  Nothing else.  He wrote at length about this.

Dr. Andy Woods, Lawyer, Theologian, President of Chafer Theological Seminary, Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary has recently put out a small book on this very issue.  He goes to show that apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2 simply means departure and it is taking liberties with the translation to suggest a "falling away" or apostasy.  It is disingenuous to apply the English word apostasy to the Greek aspostasia.  They sound similar but have different meanings.

So no, I would not agree that they are the opposite.  The context of the passage of 2 Thessalonians 2 is stated in the first verse... the day of the Lord and our gathering to Him.  Not our departing from Him as a translation of "falling away" would suggest.  Every English translation prior to the KJV and Douay Rheims used "departure".  Only after the KJV did "falling away" come into common usage.  There is no literary basis for that change.

What would be grammatically opposite is to state in the first verse that the topic is about our gathering to Him, then state the focus is our falling away / departing from Him.  We surrender our lives to Yeshua, we do not park our brain at the bus stop.

Edited June 23, 2019 by OldCoot
Spelling. Stupid spell checker!