Produce scripture you say. Where to start, how about the pretrib rapture upon which the whole dispensational system rests? Since this thread’s focus is the book of Revelation and the thousand years, how about there?
I think you will agree with me that chapters 6-19 is the tribulation section, chapter 20 is the thousand years reign of Christ after the tribulation. Why is it then that the Revelation reveals two resurrections, one before the millennial, and one after it, yet it only reveals one coming of Christ (chapter 19)?
If there were a coming of Christ before the tribulation, then we would see it describing a coming of Christ before the tribulation and one after it, just as clear as we see a resurrection before the millennial, and one after it.
Isn’t the job of the book of Revelation to reveal? Then why doesn’t it reveal a coming of Christ before the tribulation just as clearly as it reveals a resurrection before the millennial? If the pretrib second coming were true it would. Something as important as a coming of Christ before the tribulation would not be left to conjecture, it would be as clearly stated as the resurrection is in chapter 20.
Perhaps because the time frame John was given the vision to write about the believers have already been taken to meet Jesus in the air? The time frame John writes about takes place at the start of the 7 years. The Rapture happens before that starts.
That's your first mistake, and if you haven't got the foundation of dispensational theology right, then you can't very well mount an "argument" against it. I'll refer you to this to learn about what dispensationalism is.
Why is it then that the Revelation reveals two resurrections, one before the millennial, and one after it, yet it only reveals one coming of Christ (chapter 19)?
I don't see how that is an issue since the resurrections are for specific purposes and the coming of Christ is simply the coming of Christ.
The first resurrection, which takes place at the rapture, is for the Church, or "those who have fallen asleep in Jesus" (1 Thessalonians 4:14). Old Testament saints are promised a resurrection into everlasting life and this will occur when Israel's Messiah comes to rule over the kingdom of His father David. Daniel was promised that he would see that day:
As for you, (Daniel), go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age". (Daniel 12:13)
There are three phases to this one resurrection of those "in Christ": 1. Church age saints 2. Old Testament saints and 3. Tribulation saints. Christ spoke of the resurrection of the just in an Old Testament context without reference to the resurrection of the Church saints in Luke 14:14.
The martyred Tribulation saints who "had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God" will "reign with Christ a thousand years" (Revelation 20:4). The martyrs will take part in the "first resurrection" and will enter into the millennial kingdom (verse 5).
The "rest of the dead" are the lost, including those who died during the Tribulation without being saved, and all lost people of all generations will later be resurrected for judgment at the Great White Throne Judgment which takes place at the end of the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:11-15).
If there were a coming of Christ before the tribulation, then we would see it describing a coming of Christ before the tribulation and one after it, just as clear as we see a resurrection before the millennial, and one after it.
Not if the purpose of the book of Revelation is not about the Rapture, which is dealt with in other Scripture, but is about the events of the Tribulation all the way to the judgment of the unsaved, after the millennial kingdom.
The event of the Rapture is already over and done with, with the Church already in Heaven, by chapter 4 of Revelation.
The book of Revelation is not about the Rapture.
Isn’t the job of the book of Revelation to reveal? Then why doesn’t it reveal a coming of Christ before the tribulation just as clearly as it reveals a resurrection before the millennial?
See previous paragraphs.
If the pretrib second coming were true it would.
That's absurd. So anything that God put in Scripture that isn't discussed in the book of Revelation isn't true? I've never heard anything more ridiculous.
The doctrine and event of the Rapture is clearly spelled out in Scripture. Just because it's not in the book of Revelation doesn't mean it's not true. I guess because the virgin birth, death, burial and resurrection of Christ isn't in the book of Revelation that event isn't true, either? Ridiculous.
Something as important as a coming of Christ before the tribulation would not be left to conjecture, it would be as clearly stated as the resurrection is in chapter 20.
Oh, it's more than clearly stated. Just because there are fallen human beings who feel that they have the omniscience and authority to pick and choose what parts of God's Scripture are true and which are not, does not mean that God did not spell out the fact that Jesus Christ will come for His Church before He sends judgment on this world. People can twist themselves into a body cast trying to deny the Scriptural doctrine and event of the Rapture, but that Scripture has survived thousands of years of deniers and that Scripture will be around for eternity, unlike those who futilely attempt to claim that God did not mean what He said when He promised His bride that He would come for us.
Now, do you have that Scripture that disproves what is in the article?