Replies

There were two Ephraem's, the true one, Ephraem the Syrian, his writings clearly showing no hint of any pretrib belief, and a "Pseudo" Ephraem, writing hundreds of years later, writing falsely under the name of the "true" Ephraem, plagarizing the "true" Ephraem. Pseudonyomous, in other words.

The writings of this "Pseudo-Ephraem" are a stark contrast to what the true Ephraem wrote. The true Ephraem was very coherent and scholarly, false Ephraem just the opposite, utterly incoherent. If ever there was a unreliable document from ancient history, it is this one by false Ephraem. Modern Pretribs prove themselves as unscrupulous as false Ephraem by using such an unscrupulous plagarizer for their alleged "proof."

Trying to mimic the true Ephraem, this plagarizer is all over the board. In one place in his document he says things that "sound" to a modern pretrib ears as if he was pretrib, which modern pretribs pounce on to use as "proof," but, when you read on, you find him saying things which no pretrib would ever say.

This is what Bob Gundry, professor at Westmont College, Calif., says of the two Ephraems:

“In Pseudo-Ephraem’s sermon, Christians lie buried during the tribulation. They are raised from the dead, meet the Lord after the tribulation, so that their ‘meeting of the Lord Christ’ in the first supposedly pretrib passage, can hardly refer to a pretrib meeting without contradicting a good deal else in the sermon. Since Pseudo-Ephraem draws from true Ephraem, a look at true Ephraem offers guidelines for understanding Pseudo-Ephraem’s sermon. The guidelines turn out to be post – rather than pretrib.”

Gundry then proceeds to provide proof from the true Ephraem’s works, that the true Ephraem believed the same as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc., virtually the same belief (singular 2nd coming, post-trib rapture) as every individual who wrote in those ancient times.