The battle of Armageddon ends the Tribulation...That takes place after the Wedding...
Your response is but an inference, Iscool. Wheres 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 didnt 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, doesnt this mean you have two parousias? Two comings? A parousia before the tribulation, another one after it?
If that doesnt sound right to our ears - and it doesnt - 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 dont mind, these questions for me. Thanks.