Your response is but an inference, Iscool. Where’s the text in Revelation I asked for (other than the post-trib one in Rev. 19), that mentions a pretribulation marriage of the Lamb? Not another inference please, but a statement in Revelation that actually describes the marriage taking place prior to the tribulation.
There is no such thing, of course. Neither have you given me the passage I asked for that sets forth the two parousias doctrine.
I think at this point, I need to clarify something I said to you about the word “rapture.” Especially so, considering all the hoopla on this thread about it, begun by Yosemitest. I said:
“The pretrib spin on the marriage of the Lamb, is but another in a long list of inferences they believe “proves” a pretrib rapture. But inferences is not what you need (inferences = passages you believe that “infers” a pretrib rapture), what you need is an actual statement somewhere clearly setting forth your doctrine, setting forth an additional parousia separate from the one Jesus taught in Matt. 24:29-31.
Something by Paul like this: ‘Jesus taught only one parousia to his disciples on the mount of Olives, behold, I bring a tremendous new revelation, there are two parousias! one before the tribulation, another one after it. To differentiate the two, we will call the first one the RAPTURE.’ Or something to this effect. [Notice, I have ‘rapture’ in caps here]
If you can produce such a statement, and you DO need one for such a dramatic thing as you propose, an additional parousia from the one Jesus set forth in his olivet discourse, then you will have a case. Until you can come up with such a statement, then all you have are a bunch of inferences. Which, in every instance all you are doing is reading your presupposed additional parousia into the word of God.”
The point I was making, is pretribs consistently use the word “rapture” for the first of their two events, yet Paul uses the Greek word “parousia” (coming) for it in two of his most important passages on this subject, 1 Thess. 4:15 and 2 Thess. 2:1.
Note: Paul did NOT use the word “rapture” to describe the first event. Why didn’t he?
1. Because the “rapture,” or catching up, is only one incident, there is also the “descent” (of Jesus from heaven), the trump being blown, the resurrection/translation of our bodies, the “catching up” (rapture), “meeting in the air,” our “gathering to him.” All different incidents of the same event. The word used is parousia (coming) to describe the event, NOT “rapture,” it being only one aspect of it. Jesus must be central in all of this, not us, the word used, therefore, should reflect this…it does, the “parousia” of Jesus Christ!
2. Because Paul didn’t believe the event was a different event from Jesus.’ If he believed it was a different event, he would have used a special word to differentiate it from the second event…like calling it the “rapture.” We certainly need a special word to describe such a tremendous event as this.
Now, what I would ask of you, Iscool, if the first event is a different event from the second, as you believe, what IS the word – scripturally - it should be called?
If you say “rapture,” then why didn’t Paul call it that? Why did he call it the “parousia,” the SAME WORD Jesus used in Matt. 24:29-31 for the “second” event? the same word Paul uses elsewhere for the alleged “second” event? 2 Thess. 2:1, for instance.
And if you will concede that “parousia” (coming) is scripturally the word we should use, the word Paul used in Thessalonians, then, doesn’t this mean you have two parousias? Two comings? A parousia before the tribulation, another one after it?
If that doesn’t sound right to our ears - and it doesn’t - then what are we going to call this first event – scripturally - to differentiate it from the second? Should we call it a “two-stage second coming?” As the older pretribs used to call it?
Please answer, if you don’t mind, these questions for me. Thanks.
In your mind, is the Olivet Discourse the same in MArk and Matthew? I believe it is ... So is the Luke 21 Discourse the same as the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 Discourse? ... in your mind.
Are you serious??? The word Trinity isn't in the scriptures either but I'll bet you believe in the Trinity...
“The pretrib spin on the marriage of the Lamb, is but another in a long list of inferences they believe “proves” a pretrib rapture. But inferences is not what you need (inferences = passages you believe that “infers” a pretrib rapture), what you need is an actual statement somewhere clearly setting forth your doctrine, setting forth an additional parousia separate from the one Jesus taught in Matt. 24:29-31
Says you...But you admit there's a LONG list of inferences that the rapture is pre-trib...
Something by Paul like this: ‘Jesus taught only one parousia to his disciples on the mount of Olives, behold, I bring a tremendous new revelation, there are two parousias! one before the tribulation, another one after it. To differentiate the two, we will call the first one the RAPTURE.’ Or something to this effect. [Notice, I have ‘rapture’ in caps here]
Here's another inference...When Paul spoke of the 'last trump' he had no clue whatsoever that Jesus would reveal to John 40 YEARS LATER that there would be 7 trumpets blowing...
The point I was making, is pretribs consistently use the word “rapture” for the first of their two events, yet Paul uses the Greek word “parousia” (coming) for it in two of his most important passages on this subject, 1 Thess. 4:15 and 2 Thess. 2:1.
2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
παρουσία
parousia
par-oo-see'-ah
From the present participle of G3918; a being near, that is, advent (often, return; specifically of Christ to punish Jerusalem, or finally the wicked); (by implication) physical aspect: - coming, presence.
Being near??? Works for me and the Rapture...
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
ἁρπάζω
harpazō
har-pad'-zo
From a derivative of G138; to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).
There's RAPTURE
Note: Paul did NOT use the word “rapture” to describe the first event. Why didn’t he?
Because parousia means to 'come near' which is what Jesus does at the Rapture...
2. Because Paul didn’t believe the event was a different event from Jesus.’ If he believed it was a different event, he would have used a special word to differentiate it from the second event…like calling it the “rapture.” We certainly need a special word to describe such a tremendous event as this.
Now, what I would ask of you, Iscool, if the first event is a different event from the second, as you believe, what IS the word – scripturally - it should be called?
Parousia which means (for Jesus to) come near...And.
Harpazo which means (for Jesus to) catch us up; seize us by force...
And if you will concede that “parousia” (coming) is scripturally the word we should use, the word Paul used in Thessalonians, then, doesn’t this mean you have two parousias? Two comings? A parousia before the tribulation, another one after it?
Yes...One where Jesus 'meets' us in the air and we are caught up and the other where Jesus lands on earth...