PRE- OR POST-TRIB RAPTURE? (ORIGINAL)

The Berean Call ^ | Oct 1, 2003 | Dave Hunt

[Cronos]

bornToBeAmerican is correct - Jesus promised that the events of the destruction o f the earthly 2nd Temple and the coming of the spiritual temple (Jesus body) would occur within the 40 years of his sacrifice (c 30 AD) - and He was true to His word - Jerusalem was destroyed as we read in the Book of the apocalypse in 70 AD

And boatbums saying "Jesus didn't say the generation of people he was speaking to but the generation when Israel became a nation again" is again false for multiple reasons:

1. It ignores the text itself - Jesus explicitly says THIS generation
   
   
2. Even if you say it was for the generation of people living when Israel became a nation -
   1. israel never ceased being a "nation" - they remained in contact in dispersal.
   2. if you mean as a de facto and de jure country then Israel was a country in 1948 - and one generation is 40 years - so the rapture occured in 1988? Oh wait that was the year Blondie released "Rap ture" - but the real floating up to the cloudies didn't happen
   3. you want to change "generation" for your own meaning? Well most of those alive in 1948 in Israel are dead now. Sorry another failure

Jesus is explicit that it occurs in the 40 years after His crucifiction. And josephus confirms the very destruction of Jerusalem, the melting of the stones and the burning of the earth and the 10th legion cross the Euphrates

[Cronos]

bornToBeAmerican, your post #100 hits straight to the point -- Jesus repeats and repeats "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming" - there can be no clearer statement.

Pushing it 2000 years thanks to Scofield is just incorrect.

boatbums says that transfiguration is "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" is again incorrect.

[Cronos]

The book of the Apocalypse clearly clearly talks about the destruction of Jerusalem, the harlot-city (cf Hosea 1) the city where the Lord was killed (Revelations), the city that is devoured by the beat (the roman empire), the city that is under siege for 42 months, the same place that Jesus calls a nest of vipers that killed the prophets.

From Old Jerusalem, the Old Temple we have the New Jerusalem (Christianity) and the New Temple (Jesus body - His body was the Temple) coming in a spiritual sense to the world

[Cronos]

Apoc 21 - the introduction of the New Jerusalem parallels the vision of the harlot city, the Old Jerusalem. This also closely follows what we read in Ezekiel of his vision of the temple in the latter days (Ezek 40)

The New Temple has the “glory of God” - the cloud of the Spirit’s presence.

The city 21:12-14 is perfectly symmetrial with three gates on each of the 4 sides, like Ezekiel’s vision. The total number of gates, 12 is symbolically significant — as, just as in Ezekiel’s vision, each of the gates has the name of one of hte 12 tribes (Ezek 48:31-34; Apoc. 21:12).

This signifies that Israel was the gate through which God’s promises to entire humanity comes.

Note; a perfect cube is the city - the same length and breadth and height - refer 1 Kins 6:20 — the New Jerusalem is one giant temple where all who dwell within it live in the most sacred presence of God

Then in Apoc 21:22 we see AND I SAW NO TEMPLE IN THE CITY, FOR ITS TEMPLE IS THE LORD GOD THE ALMIGHTY AND THE LAMB — the Lord IS the Temple.

All of this is symbolic - talking of the church as the new Jerusalem - the book of the Apocalypse is the grand culmination of the story starting from teh book of Genesis

[Cronos]

there are two second comings. one suddenly for the Church and one exactly 7 years after the treaty is signed with the Church

A second and a third coming? that's false.

[Cronos]

Yes, winslow - the entire pre-trib nonsense dates to the 1800s.

The pre-trib proponents will draw out Montanis and Ireneus but they didn’t hold to the Pre-trib Darby fallacy that the first stage, the rapture of only the believers, with two future comings of the Christ.

Pre-Trib necessitates a split covenant — as was exemplified in a pre-Trib J Dwight Pentecost who wrote “There are two new covenants presented in the New Testament: the first with Israel in reaffirmation of the covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 and the second made with the church in this age. This would divide the references to the new covenant in the New Testament into two groups”

As Clarence Lakin wrote “the Sermon on the Mount has no application tot he christian, but only to those who are under the Law”

The pre-Trib idea fails especially when you consider the desperation in which it clings to pushing the dates — “oh, 40 years after the foundation of Israel - 1988 it will all end”, then “oh, until all of the folks living in 1948 are dead.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“the entire pre-trib nonsense dates to the 1800s.”

I disagree. It dates back to the Apostles and is found in scripture.

Even if we grant your argument about the date, the age of a doctrine means little and is only true if it derives from scripture.

Believing in a pre-trib rapture is not necessary for salvation. Only believing faith in Christ is necessary.

[Cronos]

I disagree. It dates back to the Apostles and is found in scripture.

Can you give any proof that it is found in scriptures to back your statement?

[Cronos]

Even if we grant your argument about the date, the age of a doctrine means little and is only true if it derives from scripture. -- and this is where I say it is not in any way in the books of the Bible, nor derived from it -- but I'm willing to hear your side of how it is with an open mind -- one can always learn

[dartuser]

A good defense of the pre-trib rapture position which is so much under attack today.

Yeah ... I don't understand it ...

I tell my peers that preterism is the easiest eschatological system to dispense with as it teeters on so much horrid theological method ... but because they scream the loudest ... we must be diligent.

[dartuser]

Good argument. Plenty of Bible scholars argue He came already. In 70 AD.

Retroactive date setting ...

[dartuser]

believers go through the tribulation.

I.e., Jesus is going to beat His bride ...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Cronos, May I speak candidly with you?

Your posts have never been characterized by seeking truth, in my reading.

I’m doubtful you are open to anything your church doesn’t teach.

I’m ok with that. You will believe as you choose.

And as I wrote above, believing in any view of end times chronology is not necessary for salvation.

I’d like you to be saved above all else.

[rebel25]

The Bible and the Truth are speaking of two events at the same time. Those two events are in 70 AD and the Rapture/ Tribulation. It is a complete work and does not contradict itself. We are not appointed to suffer the wrath of the trib. The new Heaven/ feast of tabernacles prophesied and described in revelation is a literal City with GOD dwelling there, that will measure 1500 miles cubed. And there all believers will dwell for eternity.

[Cronos]

That’s your perception - I seek truth in Jesus Christ and He gives it to me.

now the question was - Can you give any proof that it is found in scriptures to back your statement about pre-Trib being “in scriptures”?

You stated it was as such, so I request you to provide proofs instead of digressing.

[hoagy62]

If indeed believers go through the Tribulation, I daresay many won’t make it.
Speaking for myself, I can’t take pain. If I have to see my kids tortured or killed, if I am tortured and starved for my belief in Jesus, I have serious doubts I wouldn’t crack and renounce my faith for some relief, or to relieve others. Not to mention the things God Himself is going to do...boils, sores, scorching heat, water turned to blood, etc. Ad Infinitum. The thought of having to go through the Tribulation is depressing, and how a believer in Christ can look forward to it, much less tell others to look forward to it, is beyond me.

[rebel25]

Are we iur bodies not his temple, and those standing there not receive the Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost? The events described are twofold 70 ad and the rapture. Soon to GOD could be a million years.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“That’s your perception - I seek truth in Jesus Christ and He gives it to me.”

Sorry, but I’ve not seen it.

Are you willing to leave your church, if you find it is teaching a false gospel?

If not, that says a lot.

“You stated it was as such, so I request you to provide proofs instead of digressing.”

Frankly, I feel it would be a fruitless conversation.

Believe as you will.

But get saved now.

Best

[Cronos]

I’d like you to be saved as we have be promised in

1 Co 15:2...”ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.”
and Mt 10:22... “but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

We have been saved (Eph 2:8), we are being saved (2 Cor 4:16) and we will be saved (1 Cor 15:51).

[winslow]

We are called to follow the example of the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11. Let’s read about them..

“33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. 36 Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two,[a] they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— 38 of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth”.

I would quote the whole chapter as there is much enouragement there as well, but I wanted to show that it has always been the greatest honour to lay down one’s life for the kingdom. Furthermore God is wise and sovereign about what suffering He allows, but everything happens by His decree and according to His plan. Most of the apostles, those handpicked by Jesus laid down their lives for Him and the gospel. Throughout church history, many Christian groups and individuals suffered persecution, torture, death and their faithfulness has inspired many more to follow Christ, no matter what the cost. Why insult Jesus and His disciples and all those martyrs by saying that if Jesus lets the church go through the tribulation, it’s like Him beating His bride? Why did He let his own disciples get imprisoned, and beaten and killed in very painful ways? Was that wrong of Him to let them suffer? Your wife beating analogy is totally unbiblical and insults all those who made the ultimate sacrifice to remain faithful to Jesus until the end.