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

47 minutes ago, Uriah said:

Acts 7:38- This is he, that was in the church ( ek-klā-sē'-ä in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Heb 11:40- God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.......They can NOT be resurrected before us.

Matt 27 is NOT a resurrection.

 

Whatever you say.  The guys who knew the Apostles or where closely associated with those who  know the Apostles wrote that they were resurrected and taken to the Father.   And nothing you  provided is definitive proof to the contrary. So I will have to go with the testimony of those guys  back then compared to folks 19 centuries later, totally removed from the events of  the time.  

Matthew 11:11 (NKJV) "Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Now, that means specifically that JB is greater than Moses, Aaron,  Adam,  Noah, Abraham, King  David, the  Prophets, and on  and on.  He is surely redeemed.   But  his position  in that redemption is not in the Ekklesia of Messiah.  JB is the last of the OT Prophets.  He will still be rewarded for faithful service, but he is not in the unique body called the Ekklesia of Messiah.  One cannot read the epistles of Paul, John, Peter and not see that the unique assembly  built around Messiah is different than any other  that preceded it.     Well, not unless  they have an agenda.

And I disagree with your interpretation of Hebrews 11:40,

Hebrews 11:39-40 (NKJV) And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

It does not say that no one is made perfect before or after as in a resurrection, it says apart from.... that means by no other means.  Just like if I get a flat tire on my pickup  truck, there is no way I am driving it down the road again "apart from" changing the tire.  The context of the passage of Hebrews 11 is our perfection made thru the promise of the Messiah by our faith in Him. It is not talking about  resurrections at all.  The entire chapter is talking about the faith that leads to redemption.  The Faith of the Patriarchs, the Faith of Moses, etc.  A redeeming faith, not a resurrecting faith...which sounds kinda weird as it seems to put the cart in front of the horse.  We need to have a faith that leads to redemption before we stand any chance of putting on perfection (resurrection).

Context is everything in hermeneutics just like location is everything in real estate.

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

5 hours ago, OldCoot said:

 

Quote

go with the testimony of those guys  back then 

 Indeed. It was written that "bodies" came out of the graves. (arose) The word for resurrection is not there. The ground had shook, able to make the "bodies" move out of their places, especially those kind that were "buried" as Jesus was- in a sheer face or slope. Are there any other places in scripture where people who were raised from the dead are called "bodies"? And what "went into the city", walking bodies? No. Because the passage says this happened "after the resurrection", the centurion watching the crucifixion wasn't seeing into the future, it was a separate quake. Therefore we are looking at a digression into future, parenthetically. So after the parentheses one would return to the narrative. Therefore it is the cracks (the rocks split) that went (a word that denotes location, not travel...as in-the traffic jam "went" all the way to the intersection). When combined with the author trying to stress a certain point, he may be speaking of something that his audience would understand /remember/know of- as in, you can still see the cracks and people know they weren't there before, they weren't something nobody knew about.

Quote

the unique body called the Ekklesia of Messiah.  One cannot read the epistles of Paul, John, Peter and not see that the unique assembly  built around Messiah is different than any other  that preceded it.

So you do not disagree that the word of God refers to those in the O.T. with the same word used for us. We are "grafted in" to those others, merged. There is One Lord, one body, One Spirit....one faith. Just as we look back in faith to the Messiah, they looked forward to the Messiah. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, Job did, Daniel did and on and on.  

  Well, not unless  they have an agenda.

Quote

And I disagree with your interpretation of Hebrews 11:40,

Just a few verses earlier it is talking about "resurrection". (v.35)  Now the previous verse (v.39) says they did NOT obtain..(what do you think the context is?) the promise. Just follow it back a few verses to see.

Quote

It does not say that no one is made perfect before or after as in a resurrection, it says apart from.... that means by no other means. 

Heb 5:9- and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him..........please check the context. It says they are not made so before us!

God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

For God had provided something better for us, so that they would be made perfect together with us.

since God had provided something better for us, so that they would not be made perfect without us.

since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

For God had something better in mind for us, so that they would not reach perfection without us.

Quote

It is not talking about  resurrections at all.    A redeeming faith, not a resurrecting faith...which sounds kinda weird as it seems to put the cart in front of the horse.

What is not weird is that "redemption" is used as a direct reference to the resurrection..........Rom. 8:23-  And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.  

Context is everything in hermeneutics 

 

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

11 hours ago, Uriah said:

So you do not disagree that the word of God refers to those in the O.T. with the same word used for us.

Sure, in the LXX it uses Ekklesia in the OT just like the NT, but they are different groups.  The ekklesia of Jacob/Israel is not the same group as the ekklesia of Messiah, where in the latter classifications break down so that, spiritually, there is neither Jew or Gentile.    In the OT ekklesia, if a gentile wanted to be part of that ekklesia they had to become a proselyte, embrace and adhere to the Mosaic Covenant, be circumcised and going thru the rituals to becoming technically a Jew.   There was no distinct righteous  ekklesia of the gentiles, nor a unified ekklesia of Jews and gentiles like in the present age under Messiah.  It is by not knowing this reality that leads to confusing the two groups.  

It is what caused the confusion in Acts that James and Paul had to address. Most of the early church was Jewish.  As gentiles started coming in, they were being told  they had  to go thru the OT requirements of being a proselyte to join the ekklesia.  Paul argued against that and James ruled at the Council of Jerusalem that gentiles did not have to be  proselytes and come under the Mosaic Covenant and become Jews.  Thereby confirming that the ekklesia of Messiah was a new and  unique ekklesia compared to the OT use of ekklesia that came to be the wording in the LXX 4 centuries  later.

Edited by OldCoot
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

11 hours ago, Uriah said:

What is not weird is that "redemption" is used as a direct reference to the resurrection..........Rom. 8:23-  And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.  

Context is everything in hermeneutics 

Only in some passages.  While some might hold the idea  that redemption is yet future  as it only applies to the resurrection,  I am confident that I am already redeemed, as the following shows.....

Galatians 3:13 (NKJV) Christ has redeemed [past tense] us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"),

Colossians 1:13-14 (NKJV) He has delivered us [past tense] from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption [present tense] through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

Ephesians 1:7 (NKJV) In Him we have redemption [present tense] through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

Romans 8:23 (NKJV) Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. [future tense]

We have been redeemed, we are redeemed, and we will be redeemed.  Think on an inter dimensional level. 

I Agree, it is context.

And back to Hebrews 11 which started this dialogue, the context is faith unto redemption.  Resurrection is not referred to or implied in the entire chapter.  And one has to be redeemed already thru faith in Messiah before their body can be redeemed.  It is not a all in one same occurrence as you implied by equating resurrection with redemption in your earlier post I responded to.

Edited by OldCoot
  • Well Said! 1
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

4 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Sure, in the LXX it uses Ekklesia in the OT just like the NT, but they are different groups.  The ekklesia of Jacob/Israel is not the same group as the ekklesia of Messiah, where in the latter classifications break down so that, spiritually, there is neither Jew or Gentile.    In the OT ekklesia, if a gentile wanted to be part of that ekklesia they had to become a proselyte, embrace and adhere to the Mosaic Covenant, be circumcised and going thru the rituals to becoming technically a Jew.   There was no distinct righteous  ekklesia of the gentiles, nor a unified ekklesia of Jews and gentiles like in the present age under Messiah.  It is by not knowing this reality that leads to confusing the two groups.  

It is what caused the confusion in Acts that James and Paul had to address. Most of the early church was Jewish.  As gentiles started coming in, they were being told  they had  to go thru the OT requirements of being a proselyte to join the ekklesia.  Paul argued against that and James ruled at the Council of Jerusalem that gentiles did not have to be  proselytes and come under the Mosaic Covenant and become Jews.  Thereby confirming that the ekklesia of Messiah was a new and  unique ekklesia compared to the OT use of ekklesia that came to be the wording in the LXX 4 centuries  later.

Sorry Coot, ya just can't get around the fact that they are called the church in the wilderness. You see, we are grafted in to them, not separated. We joined the remnant and God's promise was fulfilled.

  • Thumbs Up 3
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

4 hours ago, OldCoot said:
Quote

Only in some passages.

And those passages are there for a reason. "some passages" do not negate the others. We understand scriptures say that we were saved, are saved and will be saved. And yes, Heb. 11:40 shows us that they will not reach their perfected stat apart from us. we cannot pretend that we don't see that there is the redemption of "the body" yet to come. That is the subject.

 

Quote

And back to Hebrews 11 which started this dialogue, the context is faith unto redemption.  Resurrection is not referred to or implied in the entire chapter.  And one has to be redeemed already thru faith in Messiah before their body can be redeemed.  It is not a all in one same occurrence as you implied by equating resurrection with redemption in your earlier post I responded to.

 

 Heb 11:35- Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

 Heb 11:36- And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:

 Heb 11:37- They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

 Heb 11:38- (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

 Heb 11:39- And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

 Heb 11:40- God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

 Heb 5:9-  and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

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

3 hours ago, Uriah said:

Sorry Coot, ya just can't get around the fact that they are called the church in the wilderness.

They  were even called the congregation in Egypt (Genesis 12).  But Egyptians were not part of it.  It is forbidden either  before the Sinai Covenant or after for anyone not under the covenant to do the passover which is  the first of the Moedim to be established as  part of the Covenant.

Also,  as anyone  who has read of the account from Egypt onward, not everyone in Israel was redeemed / saved whereas the only way to be part of the ekklesia of Messiah is to be redeemed/saved.    Yet again, they  are  not  the  same entity.  

David even talks about a  congregation of  the wicked.  Well since they  are called an ekklesia also, does that mean the purposefully wicked / unredeemed are partakers in Messiah like the present day ekklesia of the redeemed in Messiah?  It is in psalm 22  and Yeshua speaking from the cross.  One of the greatest  visuals of the crucifixion from His perspective.  

If  one is  going to equate the ekklesia of  the  Messiah with the ekklesia of Israel, then one has to take  the curses as well  as the  promises.   Ahhh,  but no one wants the curses so those never seem to get mentioned by those that want  to now claim the ekklesia of Messiah is the same as the ekklesia of  Israel.  They will stumble all  over themselves like throwing a ham bone into a room with a pack of pit bull dogs claiming the  promises of Israel and now how the ekklesia of Messiah is no  different, but fail to realize there are curses that also go along with that Israel package.  And those are  corporate curses, not just individual.  When Israel in general deviated  from God, the entire nation suffered, even those who remained faithful.  They were taken captive and taken out of the land of the promise.   And in 2000  years, I see no historical evidence that the ekklesia of Messiah en masse has been cursed and kept  from its promise like is outlined in Leviticus 26. Yet there  are many examples in history  where the "church" collectively deserved it.

There is a physical people of the Lord (Jacob/Israel) that makes  up the ekklesia of Israel is to reside in the specific geographical property on the earth that the Lord claims for Himself, even during the Millennial Kingdom.  The ekklesia of Messiah inherits the entire earth after Messiah reclaims the title deed for the earth from the evil ones.  After the fall, the nations were divided based on the number of their Gods (elohim)  and the Lord established a portion of the land of the earth as His (Deuteronomy 32).  In Daniel, we see glimpses of that when an angel of Yahweh has to fight with the entity behind Persia and later the entity behind Greece. It is why the whole world has a problem with that same piece of land to this day.  It is the only geographical portion of the earth that is not  under the ownership of Satan.

One  needs to get a handle on what is going on behind  the scenes to have a firmer grasp on what we can see.   And while both the ekklesia of Israel  and the ekklesia of Messiah is a set apart people to Yahweh, they are distinct from each other  in composition, purpose, and destiny.

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

2 hours ago, OldCoot said:
Quote

They  were even called the congregation in Egypt (Genesis 12).  But Egyptians were not part of it.  It is forbidden either  before the Sinai Covenant or after for anyone not under the covenant to do the passover which is  the first of the Moedim to be established as  part of the Covenant.

Huh? Did I say that somewhere?

Quote

Also,  as anyone  who has read of the account from Egypt onward, not everyone in Israel was redeemed / saved whereas the only way to be part of the ekklesia of Messiah is to be redeemed/saved.    Yet again, they  are  not  the  same entity.

 Eph 2:11- Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

 Eph 2:12- That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

 Eph 2:13- But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 Eph 2:14- For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

 Eph 2:15- Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

 Eph 2:16- And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

 Eph 2:17- And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

 Eph 2:18- For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

 Eph 2:19- Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

John 10:16- And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Quote

David even talks about a  congregation of  the wicked.  Well since they  are called an ekklesia also, does that mean the purposefully wicked / unredeemed are partakers in Messiah like the present day ekklesia of the redeemed in Messiah?  It is in psalm 22  and Yeshua speaking from the cross.  One of the greatest  visuals of the crucifixion from His perspective.

 If you look carefully, the "faithful remnant" of Israel are the ones in focus.

If  one is  going to equate the ekklesia of  the  Messiah with the ekklesia of Israel, then one has to take  the curses as well  as the  promises.   Ahhh,  but no one wants the curses so those never seem to get mentioned by those that want  to now claim the ekklesia of Messiah is the same as the ekklesia of  Israel.  They will stumble all  over themselves like throwing a ham bone into a room with a pack of pit bull dogs claiming the  promises of Israel and now how the ekklesia of Messiah is no  different, but fail to realize there are curses that also go along with that Israel package.  And those are  corporate curses, not just individual.  When Israel in general deviated  from God, the entire nation suffered, even those who remained faithful.  They were taken captive and taken out of the land of the promise.   And in 2000  years, I see no historical evidence that the ekklesia of Messiah en masse has been cursed and kept  from its promise like is outlined in Leviticus 26. Yet there  are many examples in history  where the "church" collectively deserved it.

There is a physical people of the Lord (Jacob/Israel) that makes  up the ekklesia of Israel is to reside in the specific geographical property on the earth that the Lord claims for Himself, even during the Millennial Kingdom.  The ekklesia of Messiah inherits the entire earth after Messiah reclaims the title deed for the earth from the evil ones.  After the fall, the nations were divided based on the number of their Gods (elohim)  and the Lord established a portion of the land of the earth as His (Deuteronomy 32).  In Daniel, we see glimpses of that when an angel of Yahweh has to fight with the entity behind Persia and later the entity behind Greece. It is why the whole world has a problem with that same piece of land to this day.  It is the only geographical portion of the earth that is not  under the ownership of Satan.

Quote

One  needs to get a handle on what is going on behind  the scenes to have a firmer grasp on what we can see.   And while both the ekklesia of Israel  and the ekklesia of Messiah is a set apart people to Yahweh, they are distinct from each other  in composition, purpose, and destiny.

This merely introduces a division and contradicts what I quoted above.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Non-Conformist Theology
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  228
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/15/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 5/13/2003 at 5:37 AM, George said:

Hello brothers and sisters,

 

Since the forums got a little jumbled, I decided to go ahead and start a few new threads. This thread is the defense of the pre-trib rapture theological position.

 

Why do you believe in a pre trib rapture?

 

Your brother in Christ with much agape love,

 

George

I have taught and believed pre trib rapture for decades. Basically, it is inconceivable to expect the bride of Christ to face the open seals then the vials of wrath. 

Lot can be said about it, but the fact is. God will remove His church prior to that dreaded time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

19 hours ago, KJVOnly said:

I have taught and believed pre trib rapture for decades. Basically, it is inconceivable to expect the bride of Christ to face the open seals then the vials of wrath. 

Lot can be said about it, but the fact is. God will remove His church prior to that dreaded time 

Tis true; if one equates the entire 70th week with the wrath of God and the Lamb. This position is not justified based on Matt 24, but other scripture as well.

Matt 24:4-8 are are spoken of by Jesus;  "All these are the beginning of birth pains."

Matt 24:15 is the A of D:  ‘the abomination of desolation,’described by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand),

After that, Matt 24:21 says "For at that time there will be great tribulation"

Up to the period immediately after the A of D It's the beginning of sorrows, beginning of birth pangs, birth pangs, etc., whatever one wants to call them, but the period before the A of D is never called the "tribulation', 'tribulation period' or any other such. Well, by religious scholars it might be but they are generally unreliable especially in the consensus. Scripture is king and supersedes any word of mankind. Mankind is of the flesh and scripture is the Living Word of God. 

Then Jesus speaks about the great tribulation in Matt 24:19-22 and salient to the teaching is verse 22: "If those days had not been cut short, nobody would be saved." This speaks directly to "great tribulation, unmatched from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again." If this language in 19-22 sets apart this period following the A of D as a time that never happened before, never will again, and is responsible for the deaths of nearly all flesh that is to be saved, why doesn't this extend to Matt 24:4-8? Because the great tribulation only follows the A of D. Then it's cut short. Cut short from what? What time period is mentioned that's longer than the days of great tribulation? There isn't one in Matt 24. Popular belief as far back as I can remember is it's the last 7 years, the 70th week of Daniel. So even here we see the 'tribulation period' is not 7 years, it's short of that. Great tribulation, tribulation, is not mentioned in Matt 24:4-20 and is only mentioned as following the A of D which we know is the mid point of the week. [It could really be any time as 'midst' or 'middle' is not a precise moment. I tend to think exact midpoint as other prophecy seems to point to this.]

So then the only period of time that could be associated with tribulation, as spoken by the lips of the Savior, is a time after the midpoint and short of the end of the week.

Matt 24:29 tells us, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days:" which are only after the A of D and are cut short of the end of the week, Jesus return after the signs of Matt 24:29-30, "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven," 

It's only after this that, "all the tribes of the earth will mourn". Why here and not before? They are understanding something they did not prior to this. In fact up to this point Jesus is pointing out mankind has run amok. Now they mourn. Why now and not before? If mankind has free reign to do as they please we see all the terrible aspects: wars, terrestrial calamity that can all be brought about by the intervention of mankind, false christs, man making himself god and the extermination of all flesh that is destined to be saved. They clearly are not said to be mourning. A distinction is made about the mourning after the signs of the coming of the Son of man. They now mourn because a fundamental change is about to occur.

Rev 6 is a parallel event to Matt 24:29-30 described almost exactly the same:

Matt 24:29,"‘The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."

Rev 6:12-14, "and the sun became black like sackcloth of goat hair, and the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth...and every mountain and island was moved from its place."

And the people fear, mourn for themselves I suppose: "For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?”" So wrath doesn't even begin until after Matt 24:29-30

It's a stretch to assume mankind is under the wrath of God during the entire 70th week. Not only because the scriptures dispute this and the wrath of God as depicted in the vials is debilitating to all flesh, brings death and destruction is presaged by an earthquake that brings down all the cities on earth, and is a time where day and night have ceased and the glory of Jesus is the only illumination all of  which is diametrically opposed to Matt 24:4-28, but mainly because there cannot be any of the elect on earth during the wrath of God. Which would mean the great company of believers in Revelation that are said to have come out from within the great tribulation poses an insurmountable contradiction.

We see then that the whole of the 70th week cannot be wrath. The 70th week cannot be 'tribulation' or the 'tribulation period'. The 'great tribulation' cannot be wrath. This dooms the position of pretrib claiming that the whole of the last week is wrath and that since we are not appointed to wrath believers are not here during the 70th week.

 

  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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