Preaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture Weakens the Church

ArriveNet ^ | July 7, 2007 | J. Grant Swank, Jr.

[William Terrell]

Every bit of this post is found on the three or four other threads currently in play. Please consolidate. I just posted a response to the lengthier one. Please include any comments that you made on this one in your response to that one.

Thank you.

[William Terrell]

Every bit of this post is found on the three or four other threads currently in play. Please consolidate. I just posted a response to the lengthier one. Please include any comments that you made on this one in your response to that one.

Thank you.

[William Terrell]

That's one. . .

You ought to read the other posts to me.

This fellow's debate tecnhiques reminds me of those of a snarling dog.

[William Terrell]

I don't hit the abuse button except when someone posts porn or the like. But since you brought it up.

Here is a random sampling from some prior posts to me from this individual.

So, once again you have shown yourself to be a fraud and a deceiver.
That anti-semitism has you real tight doesn't it.
So once again, you have been shown to be a fraud.
Your ignorance is astounding but your arrogance even more so!
Stop your deceit!
You are a liar.
What a nut!
Stop your lying!
You are a fraud.
Why you lousy liar!
I can see that you are nothing but a antisemitic bigot.
So stop being so stupid!
Why don't you stop lying.
You are an idiot if you think that!
Now, what I have concluded from your worthless, idiotic posts is that you are an anti-semetic fraud and liar that has not evidence to support your myths.
Why you old fraud!
What a phony you are!
Stop your lying!
You only reveal the fact that you are a fraud.
You are as phony as a three dollar bill!
You are just a very lazy individual.

It ought to be possible to show a litte bit of decorum when debating.

[Religion Moderator]

Let that be the end of it.

Do not pick at the scab.

From here on, discuss the issues all you want but do NOT make it personal.

[William Terrell]

Too many points on one post, or too many posts. I will try to get him to consolidate, or if he won't, try to get him to limit each post to a single point, and have a lot of short posts.

[fortheDeclaration]

While you're doing that, satisfy my curiosity. If, and I say "if", the world is covered by descendants of Israel, from whatever source, Europe or anywhere, do you think this would be a good thing for today's Jews? And the reasoning for the answer? Note, this is a hypothetical. If you use that as an reason to avoid, then it has to be presumed that you would think it would be, because, considering your position, if you thought it wasn't you would say so and gave reasons

It is a question that has no basis in reality, so it doesn't deserve an answer.

The fact is that the world is not covered by Israelites, but it will be one day in the future, when Israel rules the world under the Lord Jesus Christ.

[fortheDeclaration]

Every bit of this post is found on the three or four other threads currently in play. Please consolidate. I just posted a response to the lengthier one. Please include any comments that you made on this one in your response to that one.

Yes, I know that and I have replied accordingly.

[fortheDeclaration]

Every bit of this post is found on the three or four other threads currently in play. Please consolidate. I just posted a response to the lengthier one. Please include any comments that you made on this one in your response to that one.

I have done so.

[fortheDeclaration]

Note, this is a hypothetical. If you use that as an reason to avoid, then it has to be presumed that you would think it would be, because, considering your position, if you thought it wasn't you would say so and gave reasons.

That is one of the most convoluted sentences I ever have read!

What a mind you have!

So, if I don't answer a hypothetical question it is because I believe it is not really a hypothetical question, but actually factual?

How about if I don't answer it because it is a ridiculous hypothetical question?

With 'thinking' like that no wonder you are so confused!

[William Terrell]

It is a question that has no basis in reality, so it doesn't deserve an answer.

That's what I thought you would say. Thank you.

Now, if such a condition of the world's population would be good for the Jews, why do you hate it so?

[William Terrell]

If you asked me a hypothetical question like this, I would consider it and answer it if such a condition really existed.
Convoluted or not, you know what I said.

[fortheDeclaration]

If you asked me a hypothetical question like this, I would consider it and answer it if such a condition really existed. Convoluted or not, you know what I said.

Now, why should I answer the question as if the condition existed, when it doesn't?

It is only because you reject the Tribulation (Jacobs trouble-Jer.30:7) that you think this is relevent.

If that many people were in fact Israelites, they would still be killed (2/3-Zech.13:9) and would be on the verge of annihilation when the Lord returns to save them. (Zech.8:13)

[fortheDeclaration]

[It is a question that has no basis in reality, so it doesn't deserve an answer.]

That's what I thought you would say. Thank you. Now, if such a condition of the world's population would be good for the Jews, why do you hate it so?

See, that is your assumption.

What the Hebrews are going to go through is not going to be changed by how many there are.

The Hebrews are going to be almost wiped out as the Anti-Christ seeks to destroy them as God's holy seed (Rev.12).

You just have this fixation on numbers as if having millions of Israelites is going to change anything in the Tribulation, it won't.

In the end, Gentile nations will be judged on how they treated the Hebrew, Christ's brethren (Matthew 25).

[William Terrell]

Now, why should I answer the question as if the condition existed, when it doesn't?

That is how a hypothetical is avoided by a person who think it may be possibly damaging to his position.

I'm not interested in positions as such. I'm interested in finding the truth.

I'm asking you to assume the condition exits. That is the nature of a hypothetical. I want to know if, in your opinion, that if this fantasy (as you like to term it) condition exists, would it be a good thing for the Jews existing today.

Go ahead, give me the hypothetical that the northern tribes returned and merged with Judah, and the remnants are all that is left of Israel today, and, even though I don't buy it any more than you buy the other, and I will not avoid the question.

I simply ask you for the same honesty.

[William Terrell]

See, that is your assumption.

And the other is yours.

You have been representing your theory that the northern tribes returned and merged with Judah in Palestine as the default.

Where is the ancient writing recording that event that would make the theory the default?

Assyria was defeated in 612 BC. Judah was captured in 590 BC. Cyrus released Judah in 540 BC and they returned to Palestine. At no time had any northern tribes returned to the land of their fathers.

You need records if you insist on a default theory.

I would be excited if the theory I'm exploring were true. We would be living in a world of brothers against our obvious enemies (the "other" Semites).

And, I would have no problem if the Jews were all that were left.

[fortheDeclaration]

[See, that is your assumption.]

And the other is yours.

And we are coming from two different escatological paradigms based on different readings of the Bible.

You have been representing your theory that the northern tribes returned and merged with Judah in Palestine as the default.

See, that is why I get exasperated with you.

You keep repeating a straw man argument.

You have constructed a logical construction in your mind based on that assumption and cannot grasp the fact that no one is saying that the Northern tribes returned and merged with Palestine, by default or otherwise.

Those people who were deported could have stayed right where they were, and those who were left in the Land after the deportation (2Chron.34:6) did as well.

Moreover, individuals came back with the return of the Southern Kingdom deportee's as well.

So, there is no need for those Northern Tribes who were deported to have gone anywhere and quite likely, most just stayed where they were and became assimilated into the culture as did many from the Southern tribes who were deported.

Where is the ancient writing recording that event that would make the theory the default?

No need to record an event that didn't need to happen.

That is a false assumption on your part, based on another false assumption that a large number of Israelites were needed to complete Hosea 1, in the present, which is in fact, a future Millennial prophecy.

So, you start with two false assumptions, that large numbers of Israelites have to exist now, and that the 10 tribes had to go somewhere if that 1st assumption is going to be true.

Neither view is correct.

But you have constructed a logical view that is based on it and cannot deal with anything that contradicts those assumptions, so you keep repeating them as if they are facts, which they are not.

Assyria was defeated in 612 BC. Judah was captured in 590 BC. Cyrus released Judah in 540 BC and they returned to Palestine. At no time had any northern tribes returned to the land of their fathers.

So?

There were enough left in the land to represent all of those tribes 6 centuries later when Christ came.

It is only your false assumption that those deported tribes had to stay intact that keeps you going in logical circles, ignoring alternative views.

You need records if you insist on a default theory.

Only if one accepts the 'default' theory.

No one has ever said that the 10 tribes went back as did the Southern tribes, only that people from all 12 tribes were in the Land, and that they have merged to become known today as a single people-Jews.

That is based what is actually known historically and Biblically, not on assumptions.

I would be excited if the theory I'm exploring were true. We would be living in a world of brothers against our obvious enemies (the "other" Semites). And, I would have no problem if the Jews were all that were left.

Well, your theory is wrong, Americans are not Israelites.

Moreover, any defense of the Jew is going to from a right understanding of the Jew and his relationship to God's Plan, and not from any blood connection.

[fortheDeclaration]

[Now, why should I answer the question as if the condition existed, when it doesn't?]

That is how a hypothetical is avoided by a person who think it may be possibly damaging to his position.

No, a 'hypothetical' can rejected if it is seen as irrelevant.

And that is what your hypothetical is since (1), the blood relations of Americans is not going to make them pro-Jewish.

(2)A great Tribulation is going to wipe out most of the Hebrews, so if America was really made of mostly Israelites, it would also be destroyed as well.

So, you view that the Americans (and Western Europe) must be Israelites in order to fulfill Hosea 1 doesn't hold up, if most of them end up being destroyed before the Kingdom is set up.

I'm not interested in positions as such. I'm interested in finding the truth.

If you are interested in finding the truth, you will discuss what I am saying, not what you think that I should be saying.

You really are just arguing with your own preconceived straw man positions.

I'm asking you to assume the condition exits. That is the nature of a hypothetical. I want to know if, in your opinion, that if this fantasy (as you like to term it) condition exists, would it be a good thing for the Jews existing today.

And I told you that it would be irrelevant to the Jews today since it will not protect them from the Tribulation that is going to happen as laid out very clearly in Matthew 24.

The Anti-Christ is going to rule and he will sit in a throne in Jerusalem and the Jews are going to be virtually destroyed and will only be saved at the last moment by Christ's reappearance to destroy the Anti-Christ forces (Rev.19).

So, even if all of Western Europe and America were in fact really, by blood, Israelites, they would only fall under the same destruction.

Go ahead, give me the hypothetical that the northern tribes returned and merged with Judah, and the remnants are all that is left of Israel today, and, even though I don't buy it any more than you buy the other, and I will not avoid the question. I simply ask you for the same honesty.

Why would I give you a hypothetical that wouldn't make any difference even if true?

Instead of dealing with hypothetical, deal with what actually is and will be.

No one is saying that the 10 tribes came back and 'merged' with anyone.

That is a straw man that you have set up, following the theory based on the false assumption that those deportee's from the tribes had to go somewhere as a group.

Thus, you then conclude that since there is no record of them returning to Israel, they must have gone into Western Europe, of which there is also no records, just tenuous references to tribes that had different names and some philological similarities between languages.