Free Republic

(This appears originally to have gone to a "Daniel12." Some truncation error along the way occurred.)

Prayers to the saints and martyrs or any created beings are NOWHERE recorded on the pages of Scripture,

Well, duh, since there were no persons in heaven during the OT period, and since the Apostles writing the NT books had, in the main, yet to die or be martyred, it's not a practice necessarily expected to be found in the Scriptures.

Which means that are wrong,

Rather, I think the fact that intercessory prayer was practiced among the churches known to have had succession of teachers going back to their Apostolic foundation is STRONG evidence of its propriety.

Intercessory prayer includes prayers to angels, as well as to Elijah and Enoch, but prayer to which the Holy Spirit nowhere records or sanctions by believers.

Well, it's good you brought up angels, as Scripture does record the intercession of angels in receiving prayers and placing them before the Lord. Tobit 12:12. Oh, wait, I can hear it already. You don't think the church of the first centuries knew what books were Scripture either.

Wrong, as your source is not that of the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth, but it that of uninspired tradition and Catholic teaching,

My source is the church founded by Jesus Christ, which he commissioned to go and teach throughout the world, and which He promised the Holy Spirit to lead into all truth. When that church in the world agrees that the practice of intercessory prayer is right and good, then I have a Divine source teaching me.

**No one around 300 A.D. was apt to look at Hebrews and find your "argument from silence." You again miss the mark.**

Irrelevant,

It's very relevant as you're trying to build your "argument from silence" off a book that then didn't then have universal recognition. Your historical illiteracy is tripping you up.

for as is abundantly evidenced, they did look to what was written as the standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and oral preaching was established upon Scriptural substantiation,

Great. So then we know that when it came to intercessory prayer they either 1) found Scriptural sanction directly (e.g., Tobit) or indirectly (e.g., the teaching on the Body of Christ) or 2) founded it on oral tradition passed on from the Apostles. I'm good either way. :)

What we do know is this generation of Christians -- upon whose determinations we rely as to the scope of the NT canon (including you, whether you admit it or not) -- found the practice salutary and unobjectionable.

Nor is my argument only based on silence where there should be revelation,

Here's where your argument collapses, as it is very much the argument from silence I've been calling it.

The Apostles lived within the NT communities for years at a time. Yet, Scripture records virtually nothing of their prayer life or how they lived and reacted within those communities. Much of the NT (esp. Paul's letters) were written AFTER he had moved on in order to address various issues that had arisen since his departure. You're noting that the NT books don't explicitly record an illustration of intercessory prayer, but they don't much record the private prayer of ANYONE. Apart from Jesus's words in Gethsemene, we lack much of a description of the words and actions used in private prayer. And general descriptions exhorting people to pray "to God" don't provide an answer for you, as intercessory prayer is still "to God" as the object of receipt.

Prayers to the saints and martyrs or any created beings are NOWHERE recorded on the pages of Scripture,

Well, duh, since there were no persons in heaven during the OT period, and since the Apostles writing the NT books had, in the main, yet to die or be martyred, it's not a practice necessarily expected to be found in the Scriptures.

Which means that are wrong,

Rather, I think the fact that intercessory prayer was practiced among the churches known to have had succession of teachers going back to their Apostolic foundation is STRONG evidence of its propriety.

Intercessory prayer includes prayers to angels, as well as to Elijah and Enoch, but prayer to which the Holy Spirit nowhere records or sanctions by believers.

Well, it's good you brought up angels, as Scripture does record the intercession of angels in receiving prayers and placing them before the Lord. Tobit 12:12. Oh, wait, I can hear it already. You don't think the church of the first centuries knew what books were Scripture either.

Wrong, as your source is not that of the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth, but it that of uninspired tradition and Catholic teaching,

My source is the church founded by Jesus Christ, which he commissioned to go and teach throughout the world, and which He promised the Holy Spirit to lead into all truth. When that church in the world agrees that the practice of intercessory prayer is right and good, then I have a Divine source teaching me.

**No one around 300 A.D. was apt to look at Hebrews and find your "argument from silence." You again miss the mark.**

Irrelevant,

It's very relevant as you're trying to build your "argument from silence" off a book that then didn't then have universal recognition. Your historical illiteracy is tripping you up.

for as is abundantly evidenced, they did look to what was written as the standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and oral preaching was established upon Scriptural substantiation,

Great. So then we know that when it came to intercessory prayer they either 1) found Scriptural sanction directly (e.g., Tobit) or indirectly (e.g., the teaching on the Body of Christ) or 2) founded it on oral tradition passed on from the Apostles. I'm good either way. :)

What we do know is this generation of Christians -- upon whose determinations we rely as to the scope of the NT canon (including you, whether you admit it or not) -- found the practice salutary and unobjectionable.

Nor is my argument only based on silence where there should be revelation,

Here's where your argument collapses, as it is very much the argument from silence I've been calling it.

The Apostles lived within the NT communities for years at a time. Yet, Scripture records virtually nothing of their prayer life or how they lived and reacted within those communities. Much of the NT (esp. Paul's letters) were written AFTER he had moved on in order to address various issues that had arisen since his departure. You're noting that the NT books don't explicitly record an illustration of intercessory prayer, but they don't much record the private prayer of ANYONE. Apart from Jesus's words in Gethsemene, we lack much of a description of the words and actions used in private prayer. And general descriptions exhorting people to pray "to God" don't provide an answer for you, as intercessory prayer is still "to God" as the object of receipt.

That's not a fair assessment since there were likely millions of Christian who refused to bow to the Catholic religion and who were as a result pretty much wiped off the face of the earth while their scriptures were confiscated and burned...The world was left with mostly Catholic teaching while for Centuries scriptures were kept from the lay Catholic...

LOL. As laughable, unsubstantiated claims go, you've made a good one here.

I know asking you for proof of these supposed "Millions" who perished is pointless, as I know from experience people will believe the myth when it suits them, and the lack of evidence simply doesn't bother them.

But before 325 C.E., when Constantine legalized the practice of Christianty, the Church was poor and persecuted. Your laughable explanation grows even more pathetic when one realizes there is not support for the PTR among the Christians existing before then. (And you can spare us your Scriptural misreadings; the point being that if Paul or anyone explained there is some pre-trib "rapture" to any of the communities in which he lived and taught, that knowledge didn't pass into the next generations of Christians.)

No, it is not rooted principally in the faith and practice of the early church,

It is, despite your reflexive denials.

Prayers to the saints and martyrs are recorded on the walls of the Catachombs in Rome (the place where early Christians sought refuges from the persecutions). We have other early evidence that the practice existed in other parts of the Christian world. Both the Orthodox and Roman churches concur this is an ancient and widespread practice. (For an Orthodox perspective, see On the Intercession and Invocation of the Saints

) Your appeal to the OT misses the mark. Intercessory prayer proceeds from the belief that within the Body of Christ (the Church) there are some who are present with Jesus Christ in the Heavenly realm. That was not true during OT days.

And much the same can be said as the NT. Some of the earliest known examples of intercessory prayer were to the martyred apostles. Obviously, that practice didn't exist while the Apostles (they who composted the NT books) were still alive.

Not even the book of Hebrews with its details of the better covenant, and priestly functions, nor any other book, teaches prayer to created beings in Heaven.

Your reference to Hebrews only serves to underscore the historicity of the practice. Hebrews was one of the last books of the NT to gain universal acceptance. It's authenticity was dispute into the 4th Century. By that point in time, intercessory prayer was already an established (and seemingly non-disputed) practice.

No one around 300 A.D. was apt to look at Hebrews and find your "argument from silence." You again miss the mark.

Upthread, St. Ephraim the Syrian was cited as a supposed example of a Pre-Trib Rapture (though he was not the author of the document attributed to him). But he does speak on the present topic. From the cited source:

"Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him.[vii]

Amen.

Truth does not depend on being accepted.

You're wandering in "if a tree falls in a forest . ." territory here.

I believe that there are things concealed in scripture yet to be discovered. It is the nature of God' s word. (Proverbs 25:2).

When Proverbs was written, the fullness of God's revelation through Jesus Christ had not yet occurred. You're using that verse almost to deny Scripture as a matter of General Revelation (i.e., Truth revealed to all).

When something new causes us to examine our doctrine, we cannot measure how much departure it causes to determine if it is OK.

This sentence is a bit opaque.

Whether it was Ephraem or a pseudo Ephraem who authored this piece makes no difference .

It seems to make a difference to those who somewhat gleefully try to add greater legitimacy by tying it to a canonized "saint" of the church.

The point is that the idea of a pre Tribulation rapture existed at the time...

That still depends on what the Pseudo-Ephraim meant by "escaping" the Tribulations to come. I've shown that the Syriac version describes this as escape via death:

And when the Accursed One comes And displays his mighty works and wonders, The nations will gather together and come As (if) they were going to see God. Groups and nations will join him, And every person will renounce their deity; Everyone will say of him to their fellow That they should acknowledge him, the Son of Destruction! Peoples will fall upon one another, Slaying each other with swords. The elect will flee from his presence To the peaks of mountains and hills, And there will be calamity on earth Unlike any that came before. Fear will fall upon all people And they will be overcome with terror. Children will renounce their father And follow after the Evil One; Priests will abandon their altars To serve as his heralds. People will flee to cemeteries And hide themselves among the dead, Pronouncing the good fortune of the deceased Who had avoided the calamity: 'Blessed are you for you were borne away (to the grave) And hence you escaped from the afflictions!

You still lack a document that unambiguously teaches the notion of a bodily transportation of the living to Heaven prior to the Tribulation.

While there is not much in the way of evidence that the church thru out history believed in a pre Tribulation rapture there is some evidence.

If the question is phrased "is there any evidence?" a correct answer is "nearly none."

If the question is phrased "has this been believed throughout history?" the answer is "absolutely not." There is NO evidence of any continuity of thought or believe, even among the scant fragments that some purport to hold up.

But how can this be if the PTR is set forth in Scripture? We Catholics are told the Scriptures are "perspicacious;" that anyone coming to them in the spirit of truth will understand. How can it be that pretty much the entire professing christian world managed to look past 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and not understand its proper significance for 1800 years? And that epistle is likely the very first book written of what we now call the NT.

So it seems that either the Scriptures are not as claimed (so the Catholic case for a "Magisterium" -- a Divinely appointed teaching authority held by the church Jesus established -- is made stronger) or that there is something fundamentally flawed with the Pre-Trib Rapture theory as a matter of Bible interpretation.

I said, "Actually it seems the origins have at least its seeds in writings by Catholics. From a priest:...The doctrine – called futurism – which would later become ‘the rapture’ originated and was submitted by Francisco Ribera in 1585..."

Fair enough. Though the "Rapture" has always existed as a teaching within a future event (the Parousia). It's the separation of the "Rapture" and the Parousia by a period of years that's the novelty. The argument would need to be developed as to how anything Ribera wrote was more of a "seed" for the PTR than the original futurist view of the Parousia.

But if you believe that such things as praying to created beings in Heaven validly finds its origin (it's "seeds") in the earlier thoughts and beliefs of the Scriptures,

Intercessory prayer is rooted principally in the faith and practice of the early church. (The faith and practice of the same generations of early Christians from which we take our acceptance of the Bible canon in the first place). It finds inferential support in the Scriptures. Though it's not like someone was reading the scriptures and then around the 1800's decided there was this other new facet as to how one might pray. That would be suspect.

, then you should have little problem with developing the PTR (which i do not subscribe to as a futurist) out of futurism, though i do.

Doctrine can develop, but it has to develop consistently within the context of what's already known and accepted as true. The PTR with its dispensationalist foundation is too much of a departure from historic, confessing Christianity for it to be a legitimately developed doctrine.

I've yet to see a PTR supporter claim what Darby did in the 1800's was a development of any prior "seed" existing before Ms. MacDonald. They (for the most part) eschew history, and for good reason. How does one claim the PTR is taught in the Scriptures and explain that near total absence of anyone "seeing" that in the scriptures for a Millennium and a half, while at the same time (being the good Protestant progeny they are) claiming the Scriptures are "perspicacious" (i.e., self-illuminating and self-teaching without any need for repair to Tradition or a notion of a "Magisterium)?

By what other names do you post at FR?

None.

The quoted section from Irenaeus addresses the people written of in Daniel. These would be Jews, not the Church.

Except that, as I showed from Irenaeus's writings a few posts back, when he discusses Daniel, Irenaeus makes explicit reference to the Church!:

1. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.”4676 It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.

The ink hadn't dried on my comment that you read Irenaeus through the glasses of your presuppositions when you turn around and commit the same error.

But you will never get the poster to acknowledge that there are Church Age saints who are not Tribulation Saints,

Why would I deny that? There have been, are presently, and will be church-age saints who are not tribulation saints for the simple fact they will have died before the Tribulation. Though it's also true that there will be (earthly) saints in the Tribulation era because the church will still be present on earth then. You should read the Church Fathers. Those speaking to the point uniformly affirm this.

nor will you get the poster to acknowledge that he has made an error due to incorrect assignation of Matthew and Mark ...

The error here is your failure to note that I haven't even discussed Matthew or Mark on this topic.

I chose to not discuss these issues with him/her further because there is an ego problem hindering reasonable discussion.

Translation: "He's killing my argument at every turn, so the best I can do is kibbitz about him to other posters."

Ah, true to form you double down on the baiting effort.

So when a person is challenged to support a claim that person has made, you term that challenge "baiting?" That's ridiculous.

As I previously posted to you, I was anticipating a discussion of the notion of imminency, as taught by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and found in Jude

Though your first comment to me (Post 211) said nothing about "imminency," but did made the claim I've been challenging ("Not only are there many references in early church writings, but the pre-trib notion is also found early on in church History").

But I understand why you have since been trying to backpedal from the ECF claim and slant this along a different line.

Part II

Ephraim The Syrian Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.

First off, this text was NOT authored by Ephraim the Syrian. Here I'll just cite to the Wiki article for a short summary:

Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem (known today as the Sermon at the end of the world)[1] is a 7th-century Syrian tract which provides a glimpse into the events that took place during its time in the Middle-East.

Use of Other (Latin) Pseudo-Ephraem in Controversy over the History of Rapture Doctrine[edit]

A translation of a radically different "Ephraem" text, a Latin text (with disputed date) of what is also purported to be a sermon of Ephraem, by a professor at Tyndale Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas, Cameron Rhoades, is cited by some, to support an early Church reference to the rapture. While the Latin text is dated in the period 4th to 8th centuries, exactly when in that time bracket is questionable. The Latin text may not date before the 8th-century. The Latin text is certainly not translated from the (radically different) Syriac sermon. The Latin origin may be earlier than the Syriac origin. Its relation to the Greek texts is uncertain.

* * *

The opinions of scholars are divided on the origins of this apocalypse, but a date later than Ephraem with pseudonymous authorship are advanced by some. As an example, C. P. Caspari (Latin text editor) and Paul Alexander advance a date after the demise of (St.) Ephraem. Caspari would date it between late 6th and early 7th AD centuries. Alexander claims the work apparently was originally was written at the end of the 4th AD century, but only reached its final form by the late 6th to early 7th centuries. Thus for these scholars, this is not the actual work of Ephraem the Syrian, but the work of some unknown preacher now termed 'Pseudo- Ephraem'.

* * *

As referenced above, these two translations differ substantially due to the fact that the underlying text are in different languages and that the Latin version borrows from portions of Pseudo-Methodius apocalypse (late 7th century).

So what we have with the Latin text (the source of the quote above) is a document produced likely several centuries after the death of the real Ephraim the Syrian, which in turn borrows from a different post-Ephraim pseudonymous document, and for which the Latin text varies greatly from the Syriac version. The claim this is the work of Ephraim the Syrian is but more dishonesty which Pre-Trib supports try to foist off.

But, still, does this Latin text of dubious original teach a PTR view? No!

If one but reads the entirety of the document (full context reading seems to be an insurmountable challenge for the article author or those citing that article), one will see that no even this document of dubious origins supports the claim:

Section IV Whenever therefore the earth is agitated by the nations, people will hide themselves from the wars in the mountains and rocks, by caves and caverns of the earth, by graves and memorials of the dead, and there, as they waste away gradually by fear, they draw breath, because there is not any place at all to flee, but there will be concession and intolerable pressure. And those who are in the east will flee to the west, and moreover, those who are in the west shall flee to the east, and there is not a safer place anywhere, because the world shall be overwhelmed by worthless nations, whose aspect appears to be of wild animals more than that of men. Because those very much horrible nations, most profane and most defiled, who do not spare lives, and shall destroy the living from the dead, shall consume the dead, they eat dead flesh, they drink the blood of beasts, they pollute the world, contaminate all things, and the one who is able to resist them is not there. In those days people shall not be buried, neither Christian, nor heretic, neither Jew, nor pagan, because of fear and dread there is not one who buries them; because all people, while they are fleeing, ignore them.

What?? There are Christians alive in this period?? It seems the author isn't really picturing a world where all Christians got "rapture" prior to these events?

And we read on further . . .

Section VIII In these three years and a half the heaven shall suspend its dew; because there will be no rain upon the earth, and the clouds shall cease to pass through the air, and the stars shall be seen with difficulty in the sky because of the excessive dryness, which happens in the time of the very fierce dragon. . . .

* * *

Section IX Then, when this inevitability has overwhelmed all people, just and unjust, the just, so that they may be found good by their Lordust, so that they may be damned forever with their author the Devil, and, as God beholds the human race in danger and being tossed about by the breath of the horrible dragon, he sends to them consolatory proclamation by his attendants, the prophets Enoch and Elijah, who, while not yet tasting death, are the servants for the heralding of the second coming of Christ, and in order to accuse the enemy.

Notice again the "testing" of the just that we saw clearly set for in Irenaeus? All these tribulations are again stated to prepare the just for the coming of the Lord.

But, OK, but what does the earlier bit about being "taken to the Lord lest lest they see the confusion that is about to overwhelm the world" mean? Interestingly, the Syria version has a parallel passage, which reads:

And when the Accursed One comes And displays his mighty works and wonders, The nations will gather together and come As (if) they were going to see God. Groups and nations will join him, And every person will renounce their deity; Everyone will say of him to their fellow That they should acknowledge him, the Son of Destruction! Peoples will fall upon one another, Slaying each other with swords. The elect will flee from his presence To the peaks of mountains and hills, And there will be calamity on earth Unlike any that came before. Fear will fall upon all people And they will be overcome with terror. Children will renounce their father And follow after the Evil One; Priests will abandon their altars To serve as his heralds. People will flee to cemeteries And hide themselves among the dead, Pronouncing the good fortune of the deceased Who had avoided the calamity: 'Blessed are you for you were borne away (to the grave) And hence you escaped from the afflictions!

How do the "blessed ones" escape the coming perils? By some sudden, secret "rapture?" No -- they escape BY DYING!

Here's a couple...

Neither of those sources say what you claim. I'm taking these in chronological order, breaking them into separate posts.

Irenaeus.

The except cited is from Book V, Ch. 29. Some effort to read in context would have been helpful for the author of that article.

In Book V, Ch. 25, Irenaeus had already made clear that the saints are present at the start of the Tribulation:

4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: “I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,”4668 calling Antichrist “the other,” because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one “who feared not God, neither regarded man,”4669 to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,—that is, the earthly Jerusalem,—to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: “And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice,4670 and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously.”4671 And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: “And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.”4672 And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: “And in the midst of the week,” he says, “the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.”4673 Now three years and six months constitute the half-week. Source

To read Irenaeus is to understand the church is present during the Tribulation and is persecuted ("put to flight").

Irenaeus reiterates the point in his next chapter:

1. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.”4676 It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.Source

So in chapters 25 and 26 of Book V, Irenaeus rather clear indicates the Church is present at the start of the Tribulation period. Does he somehow magically change views when we get to Chapter 29 and quoted sentence offered as supposedly a PTR declaration? No. It is pure "putting on the glasses of one's presuppositions" reading going on here to think that.

"Those nations, however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;”4698 so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”4699 For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.

The imagery here is one of the refiner's fire (cf., e.g., 1 Pet. 1:7 "So that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."). Irenaeus right before the supposed "rapture" phrase, speaks of how the stubble of the straw "by means of combustion, serves for working gold."

And notice the final sentence here -- a sentence that the quote in the article which you've copied and pasted conveniently omits: "For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption." The righteous (the saints, the "church") past through into the Tribulation and are tested and "put to flight." Those who prove worthy of the test are crowned.

To try to take this carefully truncated portion from Irenaeus and twist it to make him appear to be speaking of a PTR is rank intellectual dishonesty.

When you purposely mischaracterize it exposes the real spirit that is within you ...

And what have I mischaracterized? Here's your claim (Post 103):

"Not only are there many references in early church writings, but the pre-trib notion is also found early on in church History[.]"

So there's your claim. And I quoted that sentence verbatim (so no mischaracterization on my part). And you made that claim on a discussion/debate forum where one's claims are subject to being challenged. But the moment you got challenged you got whiny and started beating the retreat.

So my merely factual statement that you haven't been able to substantiate your claim (nor even make an attempt) stands as true.

Here's a helpful suggestion. If you don't like having your claims challenged on a public forum, then don't make claims on a public forum you can't defend.

Capiche?

To you I wouldn’t waste time sharing anything I have studied.

It's clear I caught you making a claim you can't substantiate, you've got nothing that will withstand scrutiny, and now you're employing the "posture and avoid" technique by going ad hominem on me.

I haven't mischaracterized anything. I said you would come up short on proof of your claim that the Pre-Trib Rapture was espoused in the Patristic Era. And you've failed just as I predicted.

So why not share what you have studied for the benefit of others who believe in a PTR?

See, I don't think you've studied this. You've merely read something done by another person and are mindlessly parroting what that person claimed.

Actually it seems the origins have at least its seeds in writings by Catholics.

That the fullness of Truth can find its origin (it's "seeds") in earlier thoughts and beliefs is certainly a true statement. But where in the writings of Ribera, Alcazar, or Bellarmine does one purport to find a hint of a Pre-Trib Rapture? They are known to have espoused a "futurist" view of Revelation and other Bible prophecy. But a futurist view of Biblical prophecy doesn't necessarily entail a Pre-Trib Rapture.

There has been one poster on this thread who claimed the PTR can be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. To say the least, said poster has failed in trying to substantiate that claim -- even to the point of making an attempt.

You're trying to put the PTR about a Millenium later (still late, though earlier than Margaret MacDonald). Though the proof that any of these men give credence to that is still lacking.

What in their writings supports a view of the PTR?

How do you reconcile your wanting God to literally be flesh, when Jesus Christ and his aposltes declare God to be a Spirit and invisible? (John 1:18, 5:37, Col.1:15, 1Tim. 1:17, Heb. 11:27, 1John 4:12)

It's not a matter of "wanting" one thing or another. It's simply that "the word became flesh" signifies that reality of the Divine taking on human form; God in the flesh.

And it is true that no man has seen the Father in His heavenly Glory. But is also true that "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9). The Scriptures are replete with paradoxes on these points. The correct answer accepts that, rather than simply favoring one set of verses over the others.

After his teaching on the ‘bread of life’, Jesus Christ declared that it wasn’t literally the flesh that gives life, but the Spirit:

“It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63

But back up 12 verses:

"51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51

"My flesh . . which I will give for the life of the world?" Who else can redeem the world but God? And how can that "flesh" give life to the world if it is merely an earthly. carnal thing? It has to be Divine as well or else the efficacy of the Redemption is called into question.

(What does "flesh" refer to in verse 63? Hint: it's not Jesus's flesh; to read it that way leads to contradiction, a flesh that "gives life to the world" that also "profits nothing.")

At the end of the semester, the professor said: “There you have it, the Trinity: three persons, two processions, one God, zero proof.”

I take it the professor's comment relates to the objective of "finally understanding the Mystery of the Trinity." As to that, truly, "proof" of that which ultimately lies beyond our human comprehension is lacking. But that's not to say there isn't ample proof from Scripture and Tradition to affirm the Athanasian Trinitarian view as correct as against the competing viewpoints.

Had I perceived a discussion could happen this evening, I would have addressed the doctrine of imminency as taught by the early Church Fathers.

The ECF's didn't teach a pre-trib rapture. They taught that the Church was the "New Israel" -- the heir of the promises and covenants given to OT Israel which attain their most complete fulfillment in the Church. They didn't teach that there will come a point where the Church is taken away from the earth while God once again deals exclusively with the Jewish nation and such others that remain. To the contrary, the ECF's speak of how the Church will be persecuted during the Tribulation!

The linked article might interest you ... or not.

Since the linked article doesn't discuss Patristic thought in the least, it's merely a distraction consistent with my opening premise that you will come up short on evidence that the ECF's taught of a pre-trib rapture.

I guess there are people who can't learn, and people who won't.

Amen.

And, btw, why would you want to start an exchange with a closed mind, such as 'I suspect you're going to be shown wanting on this point.'

It's not a closed mind, but rather an educated mind. I've been down this path before, many times. So I know of which I speak. I also recall you from a few of the "Birther" threads. This is a topic that touches on end-times prophecy. I'm just giving a little prophecy of my own as to how your proof will go. :)

I will bow out now and leave you to your 'victory'.

Very well. That is a very nicely-folded tent.