Posted on 04/24/2011 12:47:23 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
GN's responses have been an attempt to work with you to understand His Word, not to debate.
The article provides plenty of guidance.
Regarding the false presumption that Christ knew He was going to leave for a very long time, only the Father knows the time of His return. Coming in the clouds is different than coming with the clouds. The Rapture and the 2nd Advent are 2 different events recorded in Scripture. If one seeks to normalize them, then other Scripture must be reviewed to insure all other issues have been resolved prior to the 2nd Advent.
Do you separate Israel and the Church in your post trib concept? This is a key for me being pre trib.
Looks like Cvenger has left Eschatology and now wants to take this thread in an entirely different direction, Christology and the deity of Christ. You sound as if you are an Arian, which denies Christ’s deity, saying Christ is but a demigod (as the Jehovah Witnesses and other similar groups believe), a created being and not actually God. By definition, God is omniscient, he knows all things...or else he isn’t God. Are you a Jehovah Witness?
I happen to believe, and I base it on passages like Phil. 2:5-11, that Christ’s time upon earth in the flesh was but a temporary soujourn in which, though in the form of God, he was found in fashion as a man, as a servant he made himself of no reputation. He ate, slept, prayed, and spoke as a man. At times, and at other times he spoke as God.
A servant “knoweth not what his Lord doeth,” John 15:15. When he said only the Father knows the day and hour of his coming, Matt. 24:36, he was speaking, not as God, but as man. He was speaking in his servant role. He was 100% God, and 100% man, a great mystery God manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3:16.
On the God side of him, you can believe what you want, I believe he was fully omniscient, he knows all things, or else the Jehovah Witnesses are right in denying his deity.
But this venture into Christology is quite unneccesary, at issue here is not the day and hour of his coming anyway. The issue is two second comings, one before the tribulation, another one after it, or one second coming only, at the close of the tribulation. And which one did Jesus teach, or “know,” in Matt. 24?
Surely you are not suggesting that Jesus Christ did not “know” whether he was going to come twice or not? The precise day and hour of his coming, and whether he comes once or twice are two very different things!
Clarify please. And while you are at it, would you mind telling us if you are an Arian which denies Christ’s deity?
I'm not concerned about being a debater. My concern is rightly dividing the truth of God and making sure that the absolute truth of Scripture is preserved. I not only am a sincere seeker of the truth, I know the truth from Scripture. And the fact remains that there has been not one valid passage of Scripture presented in this back and forth that even hints that the Rapture, which, by the way, God told us to comfort one another with the promise of the fact that He will get us out of here before He sends judgment on this world, will occur after the Tribulation. Not one passage. That is just the cold, hard fact.
You keep asking me to give you scripture for the post-trib rapture. The entire Olivet Discourse is a definitive post-trib statement, for heavens sake! Jesus Christ set the standard right for the entire church age right there.
If you believe that the Olivet Discourse proves that the Rapture will happen after the Tribulation, then post the verses and point out to me how Jesus is telling His Church, after repeatedly stating that He will take us out (the Greek used in the 1 Thessalonians Rapture Scripture is "ek", which means "out of", not "through") that He wasn't being entirely truthful, that the Church will actually go through God's wrath which God tells us is only for those who reject Christ.
You need to post the Scripture that you believe proves your theory. If you can't find that Scripture, you don't have to respond. Just please, please, please post the Scripture where God tells us that His bride will go through the judgment He has for those who reject Him. If the Scripture is there, it shouldn't be a problem.
If I don't see some Biblical proof in your response to me this time, I'll have to assume that you couldn't find it.
Happy hunting.
Yes, you are debating, reminds me of a Chris Matthews “discussion.” That’s you as Chris, of course. Chris never acknowledges anything a conservative says.
No, you are not rightly dividing the word of truth. To rightly interpret the second coming you start with Jesus in Matt. 24, then follow through in the epistles and Revelation accordingly. The epistles and Revelation merely give more detail about the second coming in Matt. 24 29-31 “immediately after the tribulation of those days.” Detail such as the rapture or the “harpazo,” the catching up, in 1 Thess. 4:17. Not a separate event. What Jesus said trumps the spin pretribs put on second coming passages in the epistles and Revelation. They follow him, not the other way around.
Which is what you do. Your last post, for instance. You use 1 Thessalonians to trump Jesus in Matt. 24. And you call that rightly dividing the word of truth?
Like I brought out in my last post to you, Matt. 24 is a no spin zone, he set the hermeneutic standard on the second coming for the entire church age. There is a total non-mention of any coming prior to the post-trib coming. Post-trib is presupposed in everything he said. He gave repeated warnings in the discourse against premature pre-trib type thinking.
You seem to think by shoveling up the biggest pile of scriptures, taken from here there and everywhere, disregarding the rightly dividing of the word of truth (the chronological order: first Matt. 24, then the epistles), makes you a kind of Chris Matthews debate champ.
We are tail end Charlie on this thread it looks like. This is all I have to say on this thread. I rest my case. Here it is: no second coming rapture until the Matt. 24:29-31 one. No resurrection until the one that begins the millennial, see my posts 47 & 71.
You had the burden of proof to prove where in the epistles is the dramatic introduction of an additional coming additional to Jesus’ in Matt. 24:29-31. In clear language stating this. You dropped the ball, you could not come up with one. Therefore Jesus wins and you, Chris Matthews, John Darby, Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, Tim Lahaye, etc., lose.
Here is the Scripture in question:
"But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31)
Posttribulationists like to try to use this passage to equate the Rapture with the gathering of the elect by angels at the sound of the trumpet. Most post-tribbers will not even attempt to define the Rapture, which allows them the flexibility they need to try to find the Rapture in Matthew 24:31.
So the question is, is Matthew 24:31 a Rapture passage? 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is the only undisputed passage describing the rapture event. Only in this passage is the Greek word harpazo ("caught up") used, from which the word "Rapture" descends. Whatever else the Rapture may include in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, it clearly consists of a translation of living believers and the simultaneous resurrection of dead saints.
In an attempt to equate Matthew 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17 as referring to the same event, post-tribbers attempt to claim that there is a parallel terminology in Paul's Thessalonian discussion of the Church's Rapture, where we read of a trumpet, clouds, and a gathering of believers just as in the Olivet Discourse. Indeed, there are some similarities between the Rapture and the second coming. There are also some similarities between Christ's first advent 2,000 years ago and His second advent. But all agree that they are not the same events. We know they are not the same because of the differences. In the case of comparing Matthew 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17 it is the differences that are important. Enough differences exist between the two passages to clearly conclude that they must be separate events.
When both passages are compared to each other, in Matthew the Son of Man comes on the clouds, while in 1 Thessalonians 4 the ascending believers are in them. In Matthew the angels gather the elect; in 1 Thessalonians the Lord Himself gathers the believers. Thessalonians only speaks of the voice of the archangel. In the Olivet Discourse nothing is said about a resurrection, while in the latter text it is the central point. In the two passages the differences in what will take place prior to the appearance of Christ is striking.
In addition to the above differences, the order of events are different between the two passages. In 1 Thessalonians 4 believers are gathered in the air and taken to heaven, while in Matthew 24 they are gathered after Christ's arrival to earth. The differences in the two passages support the pretribulational contention that they are speaking of two distinct events. And who are the elect spoken of in the Matthew 24 passage? Dr. Renald Showers gives us an excellent description:
"The elect are the faithful, believing Israelite remnant in contrast with the unbelieving sinners within the nation. In Isaiah 65:7-16 God drew a contrast between these two groups and their destinies. In verse 9 He called the believing remnant "mine Elect," and in verses 17-25 He indicated that in the future Millennium His elect remnant of the nation will be blessed greatly on the earth." (Renald Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel, 1995)
What Jesus describes in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 is the Jewish ingathering that will fulfill the prophetic aspects of the Feast of Trumpets for the nation of Israel. In fact, a prayer for this regathering of the children of Israel appears to this day in the Jewish Daily Prayer Book.
t is quite clear that since the church is not mentioned in Matthew 24, but 1 Thessalonians is about those who are "in Christ", then verse 31 cannot be a reference to the Rapture of the church. Instead, as one studies the context and Old Testament references that our Lord alludes to, it becomes quite clear that He speaks of an end time regathering of elect Israel in order to return them to the land for the Millennium.
So, yet again, you have failed to produce any Scripture which proves your post-tribulation Rapture theory. You have not met your own burden of proof. Some friendly advice: find some new Bible teachers.
It’s late in this thread, GN, and you want to keep it going I guess. All right, one more time.
Firstly, you failed to mention the total non-mention of a coming, rapture, whatever you want to call it, in Christ’s discourse prior to the Matt. 24:29-31 event.
Secondly, concerning your “arguments of silence,” things Jesus did not mention in the Olivet Discourse, think context, context, context. In Matt. 24, Jesus was answering the disciples specific questions about his coming and the end of the age:
Matthew 24:3: Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
That’s the context of Matt. 24. Using 1 Thessalonians as an example, we are looking at a different context. Paul was trying to give them comfort and hope concerning their departed loved ones:
I Thessalonians 4:13, 18: But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope... Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
The contexts under which the teachings in Matthew 24 and I Thessalonians 4 take place are completely different, so we should not be surprised that what they focus on are different. Jesus gave His disciples a wide-angle lens view of the future, whereas Paul focused on a more narrow aspect of it.
Unless the differences in the epistles contradict what Jesus said, there is no reason to assume it is a different second coming event. They don’t contradict, they simply give more detail.
The proper thing for Paul to do, of course, would be for Paul to define this parousia event in 1 Thessalonians as an additional parousia from Jesus’ in Matt. 24:29-31. This is the place to do it. If it is a different event, give it a specific name to distinguish his parousia from Christ’s parousia in Matt. 24. But Paul didn’t, he used the same word, parousia (coming), Christ used for the Matt. 24:29-31 event.
I don't need to. The Rapture was not the subject of Christ's conversation at that moment and God dealt with the Rapture in different Scripture. The fact that Jesus was not talking about the Rapture at that particular moment does not mean that there will not be an event known as the Rapture. If you make the choice to deny the Scriptures that deal with the Rapture, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean that God didn't say there would be an event known in Greek as the "harpazo".
Secondly, concerning your “arguments of silence,” things Jesus did not mention in the Olivet Discourse, think context, context, context. In Matt. 24, Jesus was answering the disciples specific questions about his coming and the end of the age:
Right. The Tribulation has nothing to do with the Rapture. The fact that Jesus chose not to talk about the Rapture in the book of Matthew does not make His later Scripture which does concern the Rapture meaningless. Any more than the fact that Jesus does not address Noah's flood in the book of Matthew mean that the flood didn't happen. God does not have to include all of Scripture in one book to mean that all of Scripture is inerrant fact. God does deal with different things in different books. God chooses to reveal the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians. All of Scripture is absolute truth, no matter in what book God chose to tell us certain things.
Matthew 24:3: Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Yep. The disciples wanted to know what the signs of His return would be.
That’s the context of Matt. 24. Using 1 Thessalonians as an example, we are looking at a different context. Paul was trying to give them comfort and hope concerning their departed loved ones:
Thessalonians 4:13, 18: But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope... Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
I'll refer you to what I said in my previous post, which you did not address but is the issue in the 1 Thessalonians Rapture passage:
"1 Thessalonians 4:17 is the only undisputed passage describing the rapture event. Only in this passage is the Greek word harpazo ("caught up") used, from which the word "Rapture" descends. Whatever else the Rapture may include in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, it clearly consists of a translation of living believers and the simultaneous resurrection of dead saints."
Now whether you want to hear it or not, and whether you want to face it or not, 1 Thessalonians 4:17 explicitly and plainly states that both dead and living Christians will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and will be with Jesus Christ from that moment on. Sometimes, even if Scripture proves what we believe to be wrong, we still have to deal with it. Post-tribbers can deny that Scripture until a new world is built, and, as it has since it was written, that Scripture will still be around after the deniers are long dead.
It's just a (unfortunate for some) fact - that Jesus will snatch His Church off the earth before He sends judgment.
The contexts under which the teachings in Matthew 24 and I Thessalonians 4 take place are completely different, so we should not be surprised that what they focus on are different. Jesus gave His disciples a wide-angle lens view of the future, whereas Paul focused on a more narrow aspect of it.
You're certainly right about the contexts being different. Jesus and Paul were speaking of two separate events. Jesus was giving the disciples details of what would happen during the Tribulation, and Paul was giving the Church Christ's promise of deliverance before judgment.
Unless the differences in the epistles contradict what Jesus said, there is no reason to assume it is a different second coming event. They don’t contradict, they simply give more detail.
No contradiction - just two separate events.
The proper thing for Paul to do, of course, would be for Paul to define this parousia event in 1 Thessalonians as an additional parousia from Jesus’ in Matt. 24:29-31. This is the place to do it. If it is a different event, give it a specific name to distinguish his parousia from Christ’s parousia in Matt. 24. But Paul didn’t, he used the same word, parousia (coming), Christ used for the Matt. 24:29-31 event.
First, let's establish this little factoid:
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
So now that we know that all prophecy is from God and not from man, each word of prophetic Scripture is in it's correct place, and exactly where God wants it to be. Nobody who wrote down the words of prophecy that God wanted written made any mistakes, or put a word in where it shouldn't have gone. None of us know better than God how the Bible should have been written. Now that we've established that, the word "parousia" simply means “coming” or “presence.” It can be used to relate to anyone’s coming or presence to a certain place or to a group of people. It is used to refer to people other than Christ in Scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 16:17, 2 Corinthians 7:6, and Philippians 2:12.
Primarily this word refers to the Coming of the Lord Jesus. It can refer to either His second coming at the END of the 7-year tribulation period (Matthew 24:27, 37, 39; Revelation 19:11 ff), or to His coming to rapture His Church PRIOR to the 7-year period known as the tribulation (1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 5:23; James 5:8; 1 John 2:28).
So, the Parousia is the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you have to look at the context to determine whether it refers to His appearing in the air to rapture or catch away the Church (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), or whether it refers to His second coming to Earth to setup His millennial kingdom (Matthew 24-25; Revelation 19:11ff; 20:4-6).
Just out of curiosity, could you give me an explanation, of the following facts?
There are more differences between the two separate events of the Rapture and Jesus' second coming, but we'll start with those two.
Can you explain the discrepancies in the descriptions of the two events? How can one event have such glaring differences?
You mentioned factoids. Here is one you need to consider: the disciples in Matt. 24 represent the church. For example, v. 15, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation...” The transcendent “you.” Unless you are a preterist you’ll have to admit the disciples would not be alive to “see” the tribulational abomination of desolation take place. “Behold I have told “you” before,” v. 25, and so on.
Consider also the concluding words of the book of Matthew, 28:20, “and, lo, I am with YOU alway, even unto the end of the world.” You’ll have to admit that the disciples represent the church here, they would not be alive until the end of the world. They represent the church teaching and baptizing all nations (the great commission) “unto the end of the world.” The same “end of the world” which is the context of both the wheat and tares parable and Matt. 24. The same transcendent “you” as in Matt. 24.
In Acts 1:9-12, the disciples see Jesus taken up, and are told by the angels he “shall come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” He will return to the mount of Olives from which he left, the same mount of Olives Jesus gave his second coming discourse.
As in Matt. 24 and 28:19,20, note the utter non-mention of any prior coming of Jesus, in addition to the post-trib event. The disciples as representative of the church, there is just no way that Jesus or the angels would have not mentioned, or at least alluded to, a prior pretrib coming...if it were true. The disciples, as representative of the church, would not expect to see Jesus until he comes again to the mount of Olives from which he left. The same post-trib coming of the Olivet Discourse.
Now, I realize you have your theory to defend, but if you can’t see this, there is no use wasting our time in the epistles. Various arguments of silence, and so on. What Jesus established on the mount of Olives, Matt. 24, and the angels on the same mount of Olives is foundational truth.
Face the truth, if the church is to fulfill the great commission “until the end of the world,” until the post-trib coming at the end of the world, then the epistles have to be speaking of the same coming. Giving us more detail about the same coming. Especially, the harpazo, and so on.
The context of Jesus' responses to the disciples in the Olivet Discourse are Jeremiah 30 and Daniel 9. This establishes the Olivet Discourse in light of Old Testament prophecy.
The disciples asked Jesus their questions from a Jewish perspective. They were Jews who were inquiring about the return of their Messiah and when He planned to establish the kingdom which God had promised to their forefathers. The disciples were already aware that it would be established at the end of the age, but they wanted to know exactly how long it would be until that day. It must be kept in mind that the future Church, which would one day be comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, is not the subject being discussed, nor is it even in view in Matt. 24. We find this truth revealed in John 7:39, "But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."
It is a fact that the first record of the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit and uniting with the Jewish believers is not recorded in the Scriptures until after Christ’s death and resurrection in Acts 10:44-48 & 11:1-18. Although all Scripture is given to believers, Matt. 24 was written with a Jewish focus.
So the Scripture you provided does not apply to the Church. It applies to the Jewish remnant during the Tribulation who, as Jesus told them, will flee when the Abomination of Desolation takes place. This is not about the Church at all. The Church would not be affected by what happens with the Temple since the Temple is for the Jews, not Christians.
Consider also the concluding words of the book of Matthew, 28:20, “and, lo, I am with YOU alway, even unto the end of the world.” You’ll have to admit that the disciples represent the church here, they would not be alive until the end of the world. They represent the church teaching and baptizing all nations (the great commission) “unto the end of the world.” The same “end of the world” which is the context of both the wheat and tares parable and Matt. 24. The same transcendent “you” as in Matt. 24.
The problem with the conclusion you came to with this verse is that the original Greek used for the word "world" in this passage is aion, and does not mean "world", but "age, dispensation, era, or a period of time." The Bible talks about the end of the age but never the end of the world. So the verse should read, using the original Greek that it was written in, "And lo I am with you, even unto the end of the age". The age that Jesus started, the "Age of Grace", or the "Church Age", otherwise known as "Christianity", will end with the Rapture of the Church Age saints. So Christ is telling them to, during the Church Age, spread the Gospel and "make disciples of men", and He will be with us on this earth until the end of this present age.
This does not "prove" post-tribulation Rapture theory. It does not even hint at a post-tribulation Rapture.
In Acts 1:9-12, the disciples see Jesus taken up, and are told by the angels he “shall come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” He will return to the mount of Olives from which he left, the same mount of Olives Jesus gave his second coming discourse.
No "proof" of a post-tribulation Rapture here either.
As in Matt. 24 and 28:19,20, note the utter non-mention of any prior coming of Jesus, in addition to the post-trib event.
As long as you are conversing with me, you can give up trying to ignore the 1 Thessalonians Rapture Scripture. As has been explained to you repeatedly, the details of the Rapture are given in later Scripture. I know 1 Thessalonians demolishes post-tribulation Rapture theory, but as long as we're having this conversation you aren't going to get away with ignoring it and glossing over it.
Jesus didn't mention in Matthew how He created the world so using your logic, He didn't create the world.
Give it up already. The fact that Jesus doesn't mention the Rapture in Matthew does not "prove" post-tribulation Rapture theory.
The disciples as representative of the church, there is just no way that Jesus or the angels would have not mentioned, or at least alluded to, a prior pretrib coming...if it were true.
The disciples represent the Jews in the Olivet Discourse, not the Church, and the fact that you ignore and dismiss not only the Rapture Scripture which has been repeatedly given but also other Scriptural proof which has been repeatedly given in this thread puts you in a precarious position. Are you absolutely certain that you're willing to dismiss the Word of God to cling to an obviously false doctrine? Something to think about.
Now, I realize you have your theory to defend, but if you can’t see this, there is no use wasting our time in the epistles. Various arguments of silence, and so on. What Jesus established on the mount of Olives, Matt. 24, and the angels on the same mount of Olives is foundational truth.
The fact that you have ignored and dismissed Scripture and refused to respond to and deal with any of the overwhelming Scriptural proof I have provided for the fact that the Rapture will precede the Tribulation absolutely nukes your position aside from anything else. I have picked apart and destroyed everything you have provided trying to prove your theory, and you have not been able to provide a defense for any of it.
Being mistaken about the timing of the Rapture does not affect a person's salvation, but denying Scripture certainly does. Once the line of denying one part of Scripture has been crossed, it's nothing to deny other parts of it. It's a dangerous road to be on.
Face the truth, if the church is to fulfill the great commission “until the end of the world,” until the post-trib coming at the end of the world, then the epistles have to be speaking of the same coming. Giving us more detail about the same coming. Especially, the harpazo, and so on.
As we see when we look at the Greek that the verse was written in, the translation of that verse is incorrect and therefore means something completely and totally different than what you have made it out to be. When we know what the correct meaning of the word is, it demolishes post-tribulation Rapture theory.
And, just for kicks and giggles, I'll ask my questions again. It should be easy if there is Biblical proof of a post-tribulation Rapture:
If the Rapture and the Second Coming are one event, how can you explain those differences?
Your post is prime example of what is going on here. A classic stand off between a Historic Premillennialist and a Dispensational Premillennialist. Historic Chilaism vs modern day Darbyism. The Chilaists of the early centuries were post-tribs, Pretribs like yourself do not represent the historic form of Premillennialism, you, on the other hand, follow Darby’s form of Premillennialism, Darby “the Father of Dispensationalism,” and his modern innovation.
So naturally you interpret the wheat and tares parable, the Olivet Discourse, the great commission until the end or the world at the end of Matthew, the angels in Acts 1:10, in accordance with Darby’s theory. You can’t help yourself, you’ve got your bifocals on when your read the scripture, you see two parousia’s or second comings, two last trumps, two first resurrections, two hopes, two ends of the age, two elect bodies of the elect, and two wives of God. Never one, always two.
Conversely, I wear no bifocals, I see one parousia/second coming, one last trump, one first resurrection, one hope, one end of the age, on elect body of the elect, and one wife of God.
You are going to continue with your bifocals looks like, as we move along into the endtime, the opening of the seals, the antichristian one world government, the great tribulation with it’s abomination of desolation, image and mark of the beast. But, at least you are premillennialist, you are no preterist, so there is hope for you.
You are not going nowhere, flying off in a Darbyist theoretical pretrib rapture, still firmly clutching your bifocals, leaving the rest of us who don’t wear bifocals behind (shades of Tim Lahaye). If Free Republic is still around by then and we can talk about these things, we’ll see then if you are still wearing your bifocals. Like I said, you ain’t going anywhere.
Until then we are beating a dead horse. Since you won’t even try viewing the scripture without your bifocals, we’ll just have to agree to disagree and move on. One thing for sure, since we are both Premillennialists, we know we’ve got rough sailing ahead. How God separates the tares FROM the wheat in the days ahead is bound to get interesting.
I’ve said all I intend to on this thread. I’ll probably be talking to you again on other threads, like I said you ain’t going anywhere.
If you are here when the identity of the Antichrist is revealed, just do a Google search on what to do if you missed the Rapture. There are many articles out there for those who have chosen to be left here to go through the Tribulation. You may even want to start bookmarking them now.
Based on what the Bible says about it, I know I won't be here. Thank Jesus Christ for His promises of deliverance, that were made, by the way, long, long before John Darby was a twinkle in his father's eye.
Thanks.
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.