Defense of the Pre Trib Rapture

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, Robtay7123 said:

Of course the apostles were part of the bride. Every saved person since the Holy Spirit came to mankind is part of the bride.

And the apostles suffered.

1 hour ago, Robtay7123 said:

HOWEVER there is a big difference between the general persecution by the world on Christians, and the divine judgement on the ungodly, which is what Revelation is talking about.

So is Peter wrong here? 

" 17For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, " 1 Peter 4

1 hour ago, Robtay7123 said:

Also,  I would say the wrath starts with the breaking of the first seal.

Even though the only place scripture records wrath beginning is at the 6th seal and the 7th trump?

1 hour ago, Robtay7123 said:

The judgements are all connected. You can't just say the wrath doesn't happen until you see the word.

True. But when the scripture witnesses wrath at the 6th seal as 'is come' and we see the same language at the 7th trump, 'is come' and both are 'erchomai' which is arrival, both of persons arriving and persons returning, we can't assume this means this arrival happened previous to the events coinciding and in conjunction with that particular wrath. 

1 hour ago, Robtay7123 said:

 

The action speaks for itself. Most commentators and scholars agree that the tribulation will be 7 years. This is based on the 70th week of Daniel and the 7 year pact with Israel.

Most scholars have to ignore Matt 24:15-21 in which Jesus says GT only comes after the A of D. The A of D only happens at the midpoint ergo, GT is only after the midpoint, not before.

1 hour ago, Robtay7123 said:

 

 If God were to allow his bride to be in the world during the most intense period of judgement in history,  he would have to supernaturally protect her from harm.

Exactly. That's what Rev 3:10 says.

1 hour ago, Robtay7123 said:

The bride is innocent. God CANNOT judge her. Does it make sense to you that the bride would be forced to witness the horrors brought on the world? That doesn't sound like the loving God I read about in scripture.

This is an emotional appeal. I get it's pretty horrific. How many innocent children of God died at the hands of 700 years of Muslim conquest? The Inquisition? The Salem Witch trials murdered innocent Christian girls. There must have been many innocent Jews witness the horrors of the concentration camps. Let's say none of those were truly innocent and the one who were God supernaturally protected, they still witnessed the terrible, horrific acts and God took no one out.

But this day God is still loving and good and kind. So maybe He wasn't then but He is now?

 

1 hour ago, Robtay7123 said:

Finally,  I'm glad you don't dismiss the rapture, even though you call it a different name. I think the word rapture has become an unnecessary stumbling block by believers who wish to nitpick and argue instead of build up and edify. Rapture is a proper word to use. It comes from the Latin and is an English translation word. But it means to " snatch up " which is what I see in the 1 Thessalonians passage. 

I know where it comes from. It's not in the Greek however. The connotations of the rapture are pretrib and hence, to me, it has become the buzzword of a specific doctrine and not an accurate portrayal of the intent of scripture. Popularity doesn't equal truth. I'm not nitpicking. It's a bastardization of a Latin idea and it's simply not in the Koine Greek.

 

[Last Daze]

3 hours ago, Robtay7123 said:

If God were to allow his bride to be in the world during the most intense period of judgement in history,  he would have to supernaturally protect her from harm.

Exactly.  The precedent was set during the plagues of Egypt when Israel sheltered in place.  The question is, is the blood of the Lamb on the doorposts of your heart?

[Joulre2abba]

On 4/24/2022 at 11:59 AM, Diaste said:

I know where it comes from. It's not in the Greek however. The connotations of the rapture are pretrib and hence, to me, it has become the buzzword of a specific doctrine and not an accurate portrayal of the intent of scripture. Popularity doesn't equal truth. I'm not nitpicking. It's a bastardization of a Latin idea and it's simply not in the Koine Greek.

"It's a bastardization of a Latin idea and it's simply not in the Koine Greek."

A. Insufficient and inaccurate response.

The Greek "harpazo" = to snatch or take away.. is translated in the KJV 1 Thes.4:17 as "caught up". The Latin translation of the Greek is "rapturo" from which we get the word "rapture". All of those words are sufficient to equally describe a Jewish moed - Rosh Hashana., ie Feast of Trumpets event of the body of Christ being collectively taken up by the Bridegroom Jesus Christ.    

[Diaste]

17 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

"It's a bastardization of a Latin idea and it's simply not in the Koine Greek."

A. Insufficient and inaccurate response.

The Greek "harpazo" = to snatch or take away.. is translated in the KJV 1 Thes.4:17 as "caught up". The Latin translation of the Greek is "rapturo" from which we get the word "rapture". All of those words are sufficient to equally describe a Jewish moed - Rosh Hashana., ie Feast of Trumpets event of the body of Christ being collectively taken up by the Bridegroom Jesus Christ.    

Well, the NT is in Koine Greek. So while 'rapture' is popular, it's not precise. Harpazo is precise according to Paul.

[Joulre2abba]

10 hours ago, Diaste said:

Well, the NT is in Koine Greek. So while 'rapture' is popular, it's not precise. Harpazo is precise according to Paul.

Harpazo is in the KJV translated "caught up". The Latin word "rapturo" means the same thing.. The Latin Bible translating from the Greek.

Your argument could also be applied to the English translation because English is not as precise as the Greek either.

The excuse of the Greek being more precise than the Latin is dodging the issue of where anyone gets the word 'rapture' from. Such a dodge comes from those who don't believe in any rapture event at all.. saying.. "It's not in the Bible, therefore the doctrine is false."

When you use your argument, you are demonstrating that you are not being precise in your objection, nor do you know where, or care to say where it comes from. You have simply generalized a popular excuse that is a common debate fallacy.

But if you want to hang onto your faulty tidbit that you can only repeat over and over, that is your prerogative.

[Diaste]

12 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

Harpazo is in the KJV translated "caught up". The Latin word "rapturo" means the same thing.. The Latin Bible translating from the Greek.

Your argument could also be applied to the English translation because English is not as precise as the Greek either.

The excuse of the Greek being more precise than the Latin is dodging the issue of where anyone gets the word 'rapture' from. Such a dodge comes from those who don't believe in any rapture event at all.. saying.. "It's not in the Bible, therefore the doctrine is false."

When you use your argument, you are demonstrating that you are not being precise in your objection, nor do you know where, or care to say where it comes from. You have simply generalized a popular excuse that is a common debate fallacy.

But if you want to hang onto your faulty tidbit that you can only repeat over and over, that is your prerogative.

In truth, the event is called the Gathering. Paul describes the nature of the gathering as being forcibly abducted.

 

726 harpázō – properly, seize by force; snatch up, suddenly and decisively – like someone seizing bounty (spoil, a prize); to take by an open display of force (i.e. not covertly or secretly).

The idea of 'rapture' isn't quite the same. Etymologically 'rapture' comes from

"c. 1600, "act of carrying off" as prey or plunder, from rapt + -ure, or else from French rapture, from Medieval Latin raptura "seizure, rape, kidnapping," from Latin raptus "a carrying off, abduction, snatching away; rape" (see rapt). The earliest attested use in English is with women as objects and in 17c. it sometimes meant rape (v.), which word is a cognate of this one."

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=rapture

Latin rapere is 'catch', rapiemur is 'caught up'. Niether do the gathering justice and the connotations of the origin of 'rapture' don't sit well with me either. As much as anything I think 'rapture' for many in this day and age means; 'a state of rapture, spiritual ecstasy'. Which isn't really what's happening at the gathering as the scripture doesn't say this.

It could be we are all in a state of profound and mind altering spiritual enlightenment at that very moment when we are gathered but I don't know that. 

Worse is the idea 'the rapture' is strictly a pretrib phenomenon. The 'rapture' has been taught as a pretrib secret gathering when the church, that organization of pure heart and unreproachable righteousness without spot or blemish, perfect in all her ways, is taken away before any uncomfortable conditions so as not to get her dress dirty.

So the definition of 'rapture' in the popular culture of the day is a secret pretribulation gathering of saints. That is a bastardization of the Latin term and holds no connection to the idea of harpazo.

Yes, there is a gathering where the prize with be taken in a great show of force, no there is not a secret gathering.

I forgive the accusations.

Blessings

 

 

[Joulre2abba]

On 4/30/2022 at 5:44 AM, Diaste said:

It could be we are all in a state of profound and mind altering spiritual enlightenment at that very moment when we are gathered but I don't know that. 

Worse is the idea 'the rapture' is strictly a pretrib phenomenon. The 'rapture' has been taught as a pretrib secret gathering when the church, that organization of pure heart and unreproachable righteousness without spot or blemish, perfect in all her ways, is taken away before any uncomfortable conditions so as not to get her dress dirty.

So the definition of 'rapture' in the popular culture of the day is a secret pretribulation gathering of saints. That is a bastardization of the Latin term and holds no connection to the idea of harpazo.

Yes, there is a gathering where the prize with be taken in a great show of force, no there is not a secret gathering.

I forgive the accusations.

Blessings

I appreciate you taking the time to post what I didn't take the time to post as I don't have it prepared on any wordpad folder to simply copy/paste. My postings are always what I think of at the moment so they aren't too lengthy.

Your comment above is an opinion concerning the pretrib rapture doctrine, it is not what is actually taught. For instance, it is not taught as being 'secret'. That is what those who don't accept it as biblical call it.

You seem to disagree with scripture that the church as the Bride should wear a white dress, and not have any spot or wrinkle when meeting the brilliantly white clothed Bridegroom Jesus Christ. 

I don't know about you but I'd say that Christians are experiencing uncomfortable things these days.. some more than others depending on where groups or individuals live. Jesus said that while we are in the world we would have tribulation. But then too the apostle Paul said that God has not destined us for wrath.."

orgé: impulse, wrath

Original Word: ὀργή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: orgé
Phonetic Spelling: (or-gay')
Definition: impulse, wrath
Usage: anger, wrath, passion; punishment, vengeance. {Strong's Greek from Biblehub}

".. but for obtaining of salvation through Jesus Christ."

That 'salvation' is in context of 1 Thes.4:13-18 concerning the church being 'caught up'.. The word salvation is 'soteria'  Cognate: 4991 sōtēría (from 4982 /sṓzō, "to save, rescue") – salvation, i.e. God's rescue which delivers believers out of destruction and into His safety. {Strong's Greek from Biblehub}

You have taken the definitions of harpazo and rapture in an attempt to make a difference.. but anyone who can read can see that there is no difference.. due to the variety of English words that a person can use to say the same thing but you do it in order to make fit into your interpretation based on your doctrinal bias.

You even seem to resent that the pretrib teaching is of the popular culture of current times. However you skirt around the fact that the Apostle Paul first taught it, which makes it biblical and not just popular.

You seem also to enjoy repeating the phrase "a bastardization of".. in your earlier post you used the phrase concerning the Latin word for harpazo.. and now you compare the English word 'rapture', saying that it is a bastardization of the Latin term.

You're trying so hard to impress and influence that anglicized words from another language is bastardization. Particularly because it's got the word 'bastard' in it.

Intending to shock someone into deciding not to use the word rapture. But I'm not and never was bothered to use an anglicized word.

In actuality the linguistic level is neither here nor there and therefore not a valid point to be continuing to make in your argument. 

Forgive what may perhaps seem to to be an accusation to you. We are each of us doing the best we can to communicate what we know which can at times override our awareness of courtesy.

[Diaste]

11 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

I appreciate you taking the time to post what I didn't take the time to post as I don't have it prepared on any wordpad folder to simply copy/paste. My postings are always what I think of at the moment so they aren't too lengthy.

Your comment above is an opinion concerning the pretrib rapture doctrine, it is not what is actually taught. For instance, it is not taught as being 'secret'. That is what those who don't accept it as biblical call it.

You seem to disagree with scripture that the church as the Bride should wear a white dress, and not have any spot or wrinkle when meeting the brilliantly white clothed Bridegroom Jesus Christ. 

I don't know about you but I'd say that Christians are experiencing uncomfortable things these days.. some more than others depending on where groups or individuals live. Jesus said that while we are in the world we would have tribulation. But then too the apostle Paul said that God has not destined us for wrath.."

orgé: impulse, wrath

Original Word: ὀργή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: orgé
Phonetic Spelling: (or-gay')
Definition: impulse, wrath
Usage: anger, wrath, passion; punishment, vengeance. {Strong's Greek from Biblehub}

".. but for obtaining of salvation through Jesus Christ."

That 'salvation' is in context of 1 Thes.4:13-18 concerning the church being 'caught up'.. The word salvation is 'soteria'  Cognate: 4991 sōtēría (from 4982 /sṓzō, "to save, rescue") – salvation, i.e. God's rescue which delivers believers out of destruction and into His safety. {Strong's Greek from Biblehub}

You have taken the definitions of harpazo and rapture in an attempt to make a difference.. but anyone who can read can see that there is no difference.. due to the variety of English words that a person can use to say the same thing but you do it in order to make fit into your interpretation based on your doctrinal bias.

You even seem to resent that the pretrib teaching is of the popular culture of current times. However you skirt around the fact that the Apostle Paul first taught it, which makes it biblical and not just popular.

You seem also to enjoy repeating the phrase "a bastardization of".. in your earlier post you used the phrase concerning the Latin word for harpazo.. and now you compare the English word 'rapture', saying that it is a bastardization of the Latin term.

You're trying so hard to impress and influence that anglicized words from another language is bastardization. Particularly because it's got the word 'bastard' in it.

Intending to shock someone into deciding not to use the word rapture. But I'm not and never was bothered to use an anglicized word.

In actuality the linguistic level is neither here nor there and therefore not a valid point to be continuing to make in your argument. 

Forgive what may perhaps seem to to be an accusation to you. We are each of us doing the best we can to communicate what we know which can at times override our awareness of courtesy.

I was raised in the pre trib doctrine beginning in the 70s. The main tenet of pre trib is imminence. It used to be defined as 'no prophetic events can occur before'. I suppose that's changed as the doctrine has morphed over the years.

The other main tenet is 'thief in the night'. This works together with imminence in accord with an unknown, unseen, sudden coming and gathering where disappearance of millions is only seen in the aftermath. 

Another is 'no man knows the day and the hour'. Pretrib uses this as the foundation of imminence but it's been misinterpreted to the point where it's equivalent to weeks, months and years and every end of the age prophetic event.

Millions just suddenly disappear and chaos ensues. That's the rapture.

Gathering the elect and the saints in a show of force at His arrival before defeating the enemy is harpazo.

If Paul taught the rapture where is the timing in relation to other events?

In Matt 24 we have timing in relation to a few events. The Matthew 24 timeline is:

A of D

GT

The Signs

The Appearance.

The angels gather the elect.

In 1 Thess 4, 1 Thess 5 and 1 Cor 15 we see the fact of the event and the herald of the trump preceding the event, but no evidence the event is occurring before or after other end of the age events except for one; when the Lord Himself descends from heaven. According to Matt 24 the Lord coming from heaven only happens after the A of D, GT and the Signs. 

Rapture has become synonymous with a sudden disappearance of millions with no warning when it's actual meaning in Latin is 'caught up'. That's it. It's imprecise as well as harpazo has the idea of a show of force as in a rescue or kidnapping. 

The idea here is Koine Greek is the language of the bible, not Latin. Pretrib has muddied the waters of prophecy concerning the gathering by substituting terms and definitions, notably rapiermur and dicessio. 

I suspect it's because the terms used by Paul are not sufficient proofs of the doctrine, in fact vigorously opposing the pretrib doctrine. I fail to understand why the Greek is not good enough and terms have to be pulled from the Vulgate, reinterpreted, redefined, and inserted into the Greek text in support of the pretrib position. 

One of the main issues I have with pretrib rapture doctrine is the false equivalence of the 70th week with wrath. This idea is nowhere to be found in scripture. When the text is examined faithfully we see the 70th week is not wrath at all but within that last week, and at the very last of the week, perhaps 6 months or so, is when wrath occurs. 

A pretrib catching away relies heavily on the equivalence of wrath with the whole of the last week and it just isn't factual. 

Given all that, pretrib isn't the answer.

 

 

 

[WilliamL]

10 hours ago, Diaste said:

The main tenet of pre trib is imminence. It used to be defined as 'no prophetic events can occur before'. I suppose that's changed as the doctrine has morphed over the years.

Has not changed a lick, so far as I hear from the many pre-trib preachers on the radio. All they concede is that things may get bad before the Rapture; but no biblical prophecy must precede it.

 

 

 

[Don19]

1 Thes 4:16: "¹⁶ For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:"

1 Cor 15:24: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."

Pay attention to the parts I've noted above. Who are those who are in Christ? Who are those in the kingdom? It's those who have believed in Christ and received the Spirit. It is NOT the elect who came before Christ. The kingdom of God was not established yet in their lifetimes. Nevertheless, some of them were already resurrected (Matt 27:52-53). That includes, for example, Moses, as Jude tell us that Michael the archangel contended with the devil over the body of Moses (Jude 1:9). Notice also that the dead rise at the voice of the archangel, so we know that the resurrection of the body of Moses is implied by Jude 1:9.

The kingdom of God is resurrected at the rapture, prior to the tribulation. This occurs when the "fullness of the Gentiles" (Rom 11:25) has been saved, which I am quite persuaded is not too far away. The Old Testament elect, who were not at any other time resurrected, will be resurrected after the 1000 year reign of Christ. They're not included among those in the first resurrection (Rev 20:4-6). You'll notice that those who are resurrected after the 1000 years come from three sources: death, hell, and the sea. Only death and hell are case into the lake of fire. Not the sea. Indeed, it is written there shall be no more sea (Rev 21:1). The dead in the sea are those whose names are in the book of life, so they are not cast into the lake of fire.

This second resurrection after the 1000 years is also depicted in Matthew 25:31-46. The sheep ask Jesus why they are apparently being rewarded for good works when they never saw Him hungry, thirsty, etc. That's because they never saw Him, period. These are the Old Testament elect who lived before the time of Jesus. The goats, in contract, did "see" Him, in a way. They are the resurrected false professors of Christ. Jesus gives the sheep eternal life because, as His elect, they are credited with the works of Jesus Himself. Every good work Jesus mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46, which was done unto the least of His brethren, can be understood spiritually as what He did for those of us who are believers in Him. And, notice, there are actually three groups of people in Matthew 25:31-46: Christ's brethren, whom He references, are not in the same group as the sheep. Because Christ's brethren are those in the kingdom, those in Christ, the saints who are judging the world (1 Cor 6:2). This just goes to show: Jesus Christ is my good works. On the other hand, the goats were doing ostensibly "good works" and were cognizant of the fact that whatever is done to Christ's brethren is the same as what is done to Him. But, as they are false professors, they are not given grace, are not credited with the works of Jesus, but are judged to the maximum extent of the law, and go off into eternal punishment.