Preaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Weakens the Church

However, untold thousands believe in the "secret rapture of the church" prior to the tribulation period. This is because untold thousands don't want to have to think of suffering through a tribulation time frame. The late Corrie ten Boom called this pre-trib rapture teaching the "American doctrine." Go figure.

The belief in a secret rapture of believers before the tribulation is also because of a best-seller, "The Late, Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey which was set loose in the l960s. It has been a paperback aggressively pushed by practically every evangelical / fundamentalist engine going.

Theologians, videos, films and preachers bolster up this myth with their earnest preachings and teachings.

Yet this is nothing but a myth, accented as much by certain theologically conservative Protestant segments similar unto the Roman Catholic underlining of the immaculate conception of Mary. Nevertheless, if there is no biblical support for such a Mariology teaching, it is bogus. Likewise, the pre-tribulation rapture teaching is bogus.

The pre-trib rapture concept was manufactured in the 1800s in an 18 year old Plymouth Brethren girl's dream, told to her Pastor, John Darby, and then relayed to C. I. Scofield who bought into the dream as revealed truth. Scofield placed this pre-tribulation rapture notion as a footnote in his popular Bible, hence the spread of the myth.

However, just the opposite is biblical truth. In Matthew 24:29-3l, for instance, the rapture ("gathering together") is placed in the same time frame as the open second coming of Jesus Christ. And all of this is "after the tribulation" (verse 29). That is it in a nutshell!

Yet pre-tribulation rapturists sidestep this clear passage for more oblique passages. The latter are twisted and turned in order to fit into the "American doctrine." Yet such twisting is not sound exegesis. And for biblically-riveted evangelicals and fundamentalists to commit this drastic error is bordering on the horrific.

All other passages in Scripture relating to the "gathering together unto Him" must refer back to the literal time line provided by Jesus in Matthew 24.

One must not use a symbolic passage in the Book of Revelation or any other symbolically-based section of the Bible by which to draw a pre-tribulation rapture doctrine.

Further, one must not take words of the apostle Paul so as to insert them opportunistically into a conjured pre-tribulation string of Scripture references. Yet this has been done ad infinitum.

Instead, Jesus' literalism of Matthew 24 must be used as the benchmark for all other "gathering together" themes of Scripture.

One starts with literalism and moves into symbolism when seeking to understand Scripture; it is not the other way around.

During the 1970s and 1980s there was much written and preached about a pre-tribulation rapture. This has wound down some in the last decade or so. Why?

Today, with the world situation being what it is, there is not that much risk-taking in preaching dogmatically the pre-tribulation rapture. Why?

Is it because there are many who are beginning to question its validity? Is it because the world state is so uncertain that to go out on a limb with a false hope may ricochet?

One wonders, with world events progressively becoming more and more anti-Christian, why the pre-tribulation rapture persons are not celebrating each dawn as the day when Jesus may return to earth.

Such is not the phenomenon on a large scale. Furthermore, it may be because the next generation has not bought into this notion.

In any case, it is a myth, a legend of conservative Protestantism's own conjuring and has no base in the Holy Scriptures.

Yet these very Protestants are the ones who ardently point out the myths of Catholicism while holding to some of their own myths. Both segments of Christendom need to do some serious housecleaning of manufactured legends in order to return to the simple Bible truths; otherwise, the church suffers from severe lack of knowledge.

What is so frightening about holding to a pre-tribulation rapture? It is more than mere academic quibbling. Holding to such a notion is drastically weakening the church worldwide.

The church should be preparing for spiritual battle against the most evil forces arrayed by hell.

Instead, the church is languishing with a false hope. This is all orchestrated by the demonic powers in order to eventuate in a limp army of believers. And to see that through in this age of laxity in religion does not take much on the part of the dark powers. In addition, the apostate segment of religion is doing its fair share of blackening truth.

Does it take much intelligence to realize that there are awesomely wretched days yet ahead for the righteous remnant?

Those who are not strong will drop--fall away, as biblically predicted. They will be too numerous to contemplate. But for those who are truly into carrying the daily cross there will be nothing able to thwart their zeal for Christ.

Already the remnant is being strengthened by the Spirit of light. He is gathering His own together in the power of the resurrection and the might of the revealed Word. There numbers are few; but their ardor before the Father is lovingly honored.

Set your vision upon the difficulties yet to be. They are but the trials permitted by the coming Christ.

At the close of the tribulation period, then there will be the gathering together of the believers from the four corners of the earth. They will greet Jesus in the clouds as He descends through space, having left the right hand of the Father in heaven.

The gathering together ("rapture") and the second advent then will be realized as one and the same event occurring at the end of the tribulation time frame. Jesus' declaration in Matthew 24:29-3l states it clearly.

But there does seem to be evidence of Israel heading toward Turkey, according to those Assyrian writings and drawings. I've argued this evidence myself a number of time on this forum.

There seems to be evidence of Israel heading toward Turkey?

And you take that as some historical evidence that the Israelites are the Royal families of Britain!

There is no historical evidence of any migration by the ten lost tribes.

Of the side against it, I've seen anger and outrage, but little else.

Well, you haven't been looking to hard.

My question is now, and was then, and continues to be, why is it considered bad? I can't claim to be a BI, but I see some of the evidence presented as valid. It would seem that, in past debates, the sum argument against the notion that th e 10 tribes migrated to Europe has been to simply accuse the proponents of "British Israelism". So, I ask, why is that bad? Have they killed any Jews or advocated killing them (except for a few radicals, of course, there are always radicals in all things)? Have they taken any physical harmful action? Just what is the hype about?

British Israelism is simply nonsense and an attempt put the British/Americans as the center of God's Plan, being blessed as Israel, instead of simply acknowledging the fact they are blessed as Gentiles because they blessed Israel.

Now, I have made it clear that just because one believed in British-Israelism that made them anti-sematic, only that there were variants in it that were and it seemed to lead its adherents to Legalism instead of the Gospel of Grace.

Based on those who have admitted to following this view, that opinion seems justified.

Now, I could provide you with links to anti-British-Israelite writings that explain the historical and Biblical fallacies of it if you would like.

[Over time, the usage of the word was to include all 12 tribes that had blended together from those who had gone into the Southern kingdom during the split.]

Only those that do not understand or have not been taught include all 12 tribes under the name Jew. They have not blended together. These things have been scripturally demonstrated to you yet you choose to remain blind to the facts. That of course is your right but you should not hinder others from learning the truth.

You have not given one solid fact to support you non-Biblical claim.

Israelites are Jews and did not migrate anywhere.

[ The House of Israel (the term for the Northern Kingdom-Zech 8:13) was specifically named by Peter as being responsible for the Lord's Crucifixion.(Acts.2:36) ]

You are incorrect. Please read it with understanding, as has been explained.

I have read it with understanding, and the passages are very clear.

Israelties are Jews and Jews are Israelites, the terms are synomous with one another.

[ So, those who we call Jews today are comprised of all 12 tribes (who James wrote to), not just 3. ]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Open your eyes and ears.

I have and read the Bible-you should try it.

[ This view leads to all kind of confusion regarding prophetic events with Israel (Jews) and the church. ]

It opens scripture to us. "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace" (1Cori.14:33) This knowledge brings understanding.

It brings no knowledge if it is false, which it is.

[ It also seems to carry over into other doctrinal areas as well, e.g. regarding the observance of Jewish Mosiac law. ]

Do you mean as the 10 Commandments? Those Mosaic laws, such as keeping the Sabbath?

Exactly-do you keep them thinking you are an Israelite?

Israelties are Jews and Jews are Israelites, the terms are synomous with one another.

First of all it's important to understand that the term "Jew" is an English slang word for what scripture refers to as someone who is descended from Judah. What modern English and tradition believe "Jew" means is...well...meaningless.

From a Jewish website "Ask the Rabbi" column:

Dear Rabbi,
Can you tell me the origin of the word "Jew"?

Dear Evelyn Goldberg Rotz,
The word Jew is rooted in the name "Judah". Judah was one of Jacob's 12 sons and he was the father of one of the 12 Tribes of Israel.
About 26 centuries ago, ten of the Tribes of Israel disappeared into exile. Only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and the Levites remained. Since Judah was the preeminent tribe, the land was known as "Eretz Yehuda," or Judea, and the remaining Israelites were called "Yehudim," Jews.
One of the earliest appearances of the word "Jew" is in the Book of Esther, in which the hero is referred to as "Mordechai Hayehudi," Mordechai "the Judean" or "the Jew." (Book of Esther 10:3)

It seems that Jews believe that most of the 12 tribes never returned from exile. You would have to assume that they know.

And one more piece of evidence. Twice in scripture God refers to Israel and Judea (Jews) in separate and distinct terms for future prophecies:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

If all Israelites are Jews, why does the Lord bother to make this distinction?

If all Israelites are Jews, why does the Lord bother to make this distinction?

The distinction is a Kingdom one.

Both branches of the Davidic kingdom will reunited as one under Davids greater son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is what those verses refer to (Jer.31:31, Heb.8:8), the new Millennial Kingdom in which all 12 tribes are represented (Ezek.48).

As for the terms Jew, it stood for the leading tribe, Judah.

Over time it has come to represent all the tribes.

Peter stated that the house of Israel had been responsible for Crucifixion Christ (Acts.2:36) and Christ went to the 'lost house of Israel'.

Now, how you get the impression from your quote from 'ask the Rabbi' that the Jews did not believe the other tribes were had not returned is beyond me.

All that states is what is already well known, the history of the word 'Jew'.

Since Paul called himself both an Israelite and a Jew, the British-Israelites have been forced to fall back to the assertion that while Jews can be Israelites, Israelites are not Jews.

Clearly, members of the 10 tribes were in Palestine during Christ's time and James writes to the '12 tribes'.

There is no recorded history of any migration of the 'lost tribes' to Europe.

Question: “What is British Israelism and is it Biblical?”

Answer: British Israelism, also known as Anglo-Israelism, is the belief that the “lost ten tribes” of Israel immigrated to Europe and then to England and became the primary ancestors of the British people, and thereby, the United States. British Israelism was made popular by the Worldwide Church of God and Herbert Armstrong...but other groups have held the doctrine as well.

Is British Israelism true and Biblical? In order to determine this, we need to examine the two primary claims: (1) The ten tribes were lost, and (2) The ten tribes immigrated to England.

(1) 2 Kings 17:18 states that Israel was deported to Assyrian in 722 B.C. After this time, mentions of the ten northern tribes (Israel) are rare in Scripture. However, other Scriptures (and historical records) indicate that some of the people of the northern ten tribes remained in the land. 2 Chronicles 35:18 records Israel celebrating the Passover with Judah approximately 90 years after the Assyrian deportation. It is likely that many people of the northern ten tribes fled to Judah to escape the Assyrians, and even more fled to the safety of Judah after the Assyrians had ransacked Israel. 2 Chronicles 15:9 records people from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon settling in Judah long before the Assyrian invasion. In the New Testament, the prophetess Anna is said to be from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36), one of the supposed ten lost tribes. So, yes, many people from the northern ten tribes were deported to Assyria, never to be mentioned again. At the same time, there is sufficient evidence in Scripture to prove that the ten tribes were not lost, but rather in fact rejoined with Judah in the south. It is likely that when Judah was deported by the Babylonians, the people would have sought out the Israelites in Assyria (very near Babylon) and rejoined with them. In the returns to Israel recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah, the Scriptures nowhere limit the returnees as being entirely from the tribe of Judah.

(2) Is it possible that some of the deported Israelites immigrated to Europe, even England? Yes. It is likely? No. A journey from Assyrian to England would have been exceedingly difficult in ancient times, especially for a large amount of people. Geographically-speaking, Afghan-Israelism and even Japanese-Israelism have a greater possibility of truth. Further, why would Assyria, or later Babylon, or later Persia allow the Israelites to immigrate outside of their territories? Further, if the Israelites had the ability to immigrate, why would they travel to Europe / England instead of back to their ancestral homeland? So, while it is possible that some Israelites immigrated to Europe / England - it is highly unlikely that this occurred to any significant degree.

The primary goal behind British Israelism is to claim that England and the United States have inherited the covenant promises God made to Israel. While England and the United States have been blessed by God in many ways...it is not because God’s promises to Israel have been transferred to those two nations. God’s covenants with Israel always involved the specific land of Israel. Abraham’s descendants would inherit the land. The blessings of God to Israel were always in connection with the specific land that was promised. These promises, therefore, cannot apply to England or the United States, as those two nations do not possess the promised land. Further, while a significant amount of Americans have English heritage, there are far more American immigrants combined from other nations than from England.

British Israelism (and other forms of Israelism) should be rejected because it does not have a solid basis Biblically, historically, or in reality.

Recommended Resource: Bible Answers for Almost all Your Questions by Elmer Towns.

http://www.gotquestions.org/British-Israelism.html

Anglo-Israelism Refuted

A lecture delivered February 20th, 1879 by Robert Roberts of Birmingham in reply to a lecture given the previous evening by Mr. Edward Hine.

Yielding to the cogency of this line of argument, those who believe England to be Israel, and rest that belief on the distinction between Israel and Judah—which distinction, however, if proved, would not prove the case—yielding to the force of these considerations, they have invented the formula’ “All Jews are Israelites, but all Israelites are not Jews.” (Anglo-Israelites’ Hear, hear.) Very well, then, let us see. We will take the book of Esther. Artaxerxes, here described as Ahasuerus, reigned as king over the 127 provinces of Persia. Now that jurisdiction covered the whole of the region to which the ten tribes had been removed; and how are they described? How are the kinsfolk, the national relations, “the people of” Esther and Mordecai, described’ for Haman, their adversary, contrived to obtain a decree for the extermination of their whole people; the entire nation. Esther iii. 13 “The letters were sent by post into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, ALL JEWS, both young and old, little children and women,. in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month,” and you will find it stated in the 12th verse, that that decree was sent “to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language.” So that this decree covered a variety of nationalities, and in all these nationalities the Jews were to be extirpated, whereas, according to Mr. Hine’s theory, the Jews, having been a short time in Babylon, had gone back to Jerusalem, and were there at this time. The ten tribes were Mordecai’s people, as well as the two tribes; they were in the Empire of Persia, and they are here described as Jews.

How comes this to be? What is the meaning of the term “Jews”? Well, it doubtless comes from Judah. (Anglo-Israelites: Hear, hear.) Yes: that is the philology of the word; but you know the conventional use overrides the philology in thousands of cases in our every-day talk. Why, the very word English, of which so much is made in this controversy, is an example. It comes from the Angles, who, in conjunction with the Saxons, invaded England to help the Britons against the Picts and Scots of the north. Afterwards came Danes and Normans and others, and laid the foundation of our heterogeneous stock. But the name Angle-land, which the country early acquired in connection with the Angles, remained; and the people occupying it came to be called Angle-ish or English, quite irrespective of original extraction. There is a very small Angle element in the English population, and yet we are all Angle-ish according to the philology of our name. So in this case we must not tie ourselves up in the philology. We have to ask, what is the Scriptural usage in regard to this term “Jew,” which was originally and popularly derived from the Jewish kingdom, having outlived the Israelitish for centuries, and in connection with which alone the Hebrew race was politically known. We have to ask whether, as a matter of fact, the Scriptures adapt themselves to popular usage in the matter in speaking of the people of Israel as Jews. And you will find it is so.

What does Jesus say? He says: “Salvation is of the Jews” (John iv. 22). Does he mean salvation is of the two tribes, to the exclusion of the ten? If so, what becomes of Mr. Hine’s contention, that salvation is the peculiarity of the ten tribes, that while Judah is cursed, Israel is blessed; that while the Jews are exiled from Divine favour, Israel are within the pale of His recognition and blessedness? Well, but do we find these Jews to whom salvation appertained called Israel also? Yes. When Paul arrived a prisoner at Rome, you will recollect the first thing he did on his arrival was to gather his countrymen, to commune with them on the subject of his arrest. We are told (Acts 28. 17) that he called the chief of the Jews together, and after telling them certain things, he says at the 20th verse, “For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you, because that for the hope of ISRAEL I am bound with this chain.” The hope of Israel and the hope of the Jews are therefore the same thing.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/150.htm

You have not given one solid fact to support you non-Biblical claim......Israelites are Jews and did not migrate anywhere......

Both of your statements are not true and the facts are obvious to everyone, except you.

I have read it with understanding, and the passages are very clear.

No you haven't. You are very confused about the truth they contain.

Israelties are Jews and Jews are Israelites, the terms are synonomous with one another

Believe that if you wish but you are completely wrong.

It brings no knowledge if it is false, which it is.

It is quite true but it brings no knowledge to you because your eyes have been closed and you have every intention of remaining in that dark, little corner and keeping them as tightly shut as you can. I don't know what your church is or what they taught you but there is a big world out there and God opens it to us through His Word. It is your choice.......Upon closer thought, perhaps it isn't your choice -

Rom.11:7 What then: Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

8. According as it is written, "God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear";) unto this day.

Perhaps it just isn't time for you to clearly see and hear the truth.

"Do you mean as the 10 Commandments? Those Mosaic laws, such as keeping the Sabbath?".....Exactly-do you keep them thinking you are an Israelite?

I keep them because God commands us to. They are not the 10 wishes but 10 commandments. Why do you feel you are above keeping them? Is that something your church teaches?

There is a meanness to many of your remarks, such as, "I frankly doubt that you are saved" (one among many). Is that the mark of a Christian? Is that how your church teaches you to bring others to Christ? Is that how you let your light shine so others can see Him in you?

[You have not given one solid fact to support you non-Biblical claim......Israelites are Jews and did not migrate anywhere......]

Both of your statements are not true and the facts are obvious to everyone, except you.

No, both statements are true.

There is no historical evidence of any migration of the 'lost tribes' to Europe.

[ I have read it with understanding, and the passages are very clear. ]

No you haven't. You are very confused about the truth they contain.

You and your friends haven't given any facts, just conjecture and wrested scripture to support it.

[ Israelties are Jews and Jews are Israelites, the terms are synonomous with one another ]

Believe that if you wish but you are completely wrong.

Well, thank you, but it is you who are completly wrong.

No 'Christian' nation is Israel.

[ It brings no knowledge if it is false, which it is. ]

Well neither you nor your friends deal with what the Scripture actually says, you twist it to fit it into your own false theology.

Rom.11:7 What then: Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Yes, and Paul is speaking about individual Jews who get saved despite the hardening of Israel as a race.

Do you ever read anything in context?

8. According as it is written, "God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear";) unto this day.

Yes, the Jew is still blinded, that is a mystery, but after the rapture of the church, and the Tribulation, her eyes will be opened (Jer.31:31, Heb.8:8)

Perhaps it just isn't time for you to clearly see and hear the truth.

Well, since those passage refer to Jews and not Christians, I am not concerned about their application to me.

[ "Do you mean as the 10 Commandments? Those Mosaic laws, such as keeping the Sabbath?"].....Exactly-do you keep them thinking you are an Israelite? ]

I keep them because God commands us to. They are not the 10 wishes but 10 commandments. Why do you feel you are above keeping them? Is that something your church teaches?

The bible teaches that no one can keep the Ten Commandments and if you are doing so to get saved you are following a false Gospel.

Thus, we get to the root of the evil of British-Israelism, a false Gospel, holding that one has to keep the Law to be saved.

You are rejecting the Gospel of Grace and are lost.

The Bible tells us to rebuke those soundly who are not in the faith (Tit.1:13).

Paul called an anathama on anyone preaching your false Gospel.

Your Gospel of works salvation is false and you have rejected the truth of God's word.

Yes, the Jew is still blinded, that is a mystery, but after the rapture of the church, and the Tribulation, her eyes will be opened (Jer.31:31, Heb.8:8)

The Jew and most of the House of Israel is still blinded and you are among them. There is no rapture of the church.

I see why you are so against the tribes issue. It is all part of your rapture doctrine. If there is no rapture then we will all be here in the tribulation (exactly as the Word of God tells us we will be). In your mind, only the Jews will undergo that so we can't be part of them or there would be no rapture.

So....we are back to where this argument started. the false doctrine of Rapture.

The bible teaches that no one can keep the Ten Commandments and if you are doing so to get saved you are following a false Gospel.

Okay, then let us all go out and murder, steal, lie and do every evil thing we can think of but if we took that walk down the aisle of your church then we are in great shape. Is that your idea of Christianity? Is that what you think God wants. Wake up FTD.

Paul called an anathama on anyone preaching your false Gospel.

And he was correct - stop preaching it.

The Israelites are Jews and the Jews are Israelites.

It is true that the Jews are Israelites. It is not true that Israelites are Jews. Judah was one tribe among 12. This is not arguable.

You only choices in explanation of what happened to the great mass of Israel is A) they were wiped out, B) they moved elsewhere after the defeat of Assyria and C) they moved over to Palestine and merged with Judah.

A is contrary to God's promise. C is impossible because there were only about 500,000 in Palestine during the time of Christ. The bulk of Israel would have pushed it by millions, according to the count of fighting men recorded in the Bible.

B is the only reasonable choice.

Hosea 1:10-11 predicts the population of children of Israel will be like the sands of the sea when it recombined with children of Judah. This could not happen if the bulk of the tribes were wiped out, so A is out of the question.

It would appear that to believe that believing either A or C defines the moonbat. A moonbat believes in what he must believe in to hold together his worldview regardless if it makes no sense and there is evidence against it.

I truly don't see what your resistance is. It can't be intellectual and scholarly, there's too much emotion.

What threatens you about the notion that the children of God spread all over the world? If they did, and now make up the population of nations, the remnants of Judah would indeed be blessed with all these brothers under the covenant, wouldn't they?

Do you not like Jews and want them to be alone in their challenges?

And you take that as some historical evidence that the Israelites are the Royal families of Britain!

I have no idea. I would doubt it because Judah was in Palestine, not in Europe, and Judah held the royal line.

There are scratch drawings of figures dressed in Israelite priestly garb on Assyrian tablets from Assyrian outposts between Assyria and Turkey as it was at that time. Israel, after God allowed them to be taken by the Assyrians, was put with other people on the northern border of Assyria as a buffer.

As I said in my prior post, you have population problems saying they merged with Judah in Palestine, or were completely wiped out.

I have fought this battle years ago on many threads. This is a highly emotional topic, as evidenced by your approach.

That's your problem? You want God's plan to be limited to the remnants of Judah? Why? Maybe God's plan is to include the mass of Earth's population. Why would that bother you? Are you privy to God's plan?

Of course, I can see the jealousy of the Jews toward that notion, having God's protection, and now having to share it with a great multitude. But what's your problem with it? Are you Jewish?

I would think the Jews would, as a practical matter, be relieved, having so many brothers under the convenant to be with them in their travails. You seem to be happy to see them go it alone.

I'm sorry. I can't get the sense of this paragraph. Believing that brothers under the covenant are in Europe and all over the world in vast numbers is antisemitic? I would think wanting to isolate Judah would be antisemitic.

You are right to a certain extent. There appear to be radical factions in the groups that believe that Israel is spread worldwide. Those in that faction seem to just hate Jews, so they want to replace them as impostors.

Yes, so? Nut factions are in every group everywhere. Remember Jim Jones?

Now, I could provide you with links to anti-British-Israelite writings that explain the historical and Biblical fallacies of it if you would like.

Thank you, but I've probably read it all in 2001 and refuted most of it with simple logic and Bible prophecy. The effort was to prove the tribes did not go some place. Very hard to prove a negative.

At this point in history, only God knows. For us it is what we want to believe.

Why do you want to believe that the Jews are cursed with isolation, and the remnants of Judah are all alone to face the world, and God broke his promise to Israel?

You make no sense, seemingly supporting the Jews and being against their practical protection and safety in numbers at the same time.

In regards to the spirit, the pretrib rapture makes very much sense if the Holy Spirit no longer indwells the believer during the Great Tribulation.

Both of you quoted 2 Thess.2:7 as the verse about the Holy Spirit no longer dwelling with us during the tribulation. I'm afraid I just don't see that but you both know I don't believe in a rapture. Perhaps the two are taught together.

The verse I kept trying to think of is Isaiah 54:7-8.

"For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kidness will I have mercy on thee," saith the Lord thy Redeemer.

That was taken from Isaiah 8:17. And I will wait upon the Lord, That hideth His face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for Him.

To me, it means that during the tribulation, the time of Jacob's trouble, the Holy Spirit (for a small moment) won't be with us. We may feel abandoned and forsaken during that time of the tribulation of Satan but it is our destiny to be delivered as He told us in Matthew 24 , Mark 13 and Luke 21.

I have no idea. I would doubt it because Judah was in Palestine, not in Europe, and Judah held the royal line.

When Jerusalem was taken by the King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon the King of Judah, Zedekiah, was taken captive. All of his sons were killed and after putting out the eyes of Zedekiah he was taken in chains to Babylon where he later died (Jer.39:407). The King's daughters were spared and there are several later references to them (Jer.41:10-17, Jer. 43:6).

Most consider Zedekiah as the last king of the judeo-David line but God has said that He would build up David's Throne unto all generations. "then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel" (1 Kings 9:5).

Unless God lies there must be a continuation of that throne and must be a ruler of the house of David reigning over at least a portion of the house of Israel. Under Hebrew law (Num. 27:8-11)a daughter would inherit as though she were a son and the right to descent would pass to her male seed, providing she married within her own house (Num.36). The king's daughters, in the company of Jeremiah, did escape with a remnant of Judah to the land of Egypt. They then went to Ireland and Scotland.

Through them the throne of David continues today.

Taken from "Jacob's Pillar" - E.Raymond Capt

Unless God lies there must be a continuation of that throne and must be a ruler of the house of David reigning over at least a portion of the house of Israel.

[Genesis 38:27-30] And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb. And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez. And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah. Here are the two sons of Judah.

Well.....King David was descended down through Pharez [Matthew 1:3-6] and this line was thought to have ended at [Jeremiah 52:10-11].....but as you say.....the Kings daughters were rescued by Jeremiah [Jeremiah 43:4-7] and if they were taken to "Zarah" the Royal line of Judah...as well as David, would then be reunited.....wouldn't it?

We need to find out where Zarah took off to.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.