Biblical Support for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture

Mohammed had a smattering of knowledge of both the Old and New Testaments, and it's only smattering that got incorporated into Islam, much of it absurdly confused. He mixed up Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the sister of Moses, among other confusions. And he copied out some portion of the book of Isaiah. That's about it though. Well the Popes have been friendly to Muslims, and if one of them does all those miracles, who knows?As a side point, some Protestant historians regard Islam as the other leg of the Roman Empire. You know that statue Nebuchadnezzare dereamed of in the Book of Daniel? The one Daniel interpreted in terms of succeeding empires with Babylonia as the head, and the Roman Empire as the legs and feet? Two legs of the Roman Empire, Catholism one of them, Islam the other. And they both arose in history about the same time, the Bishop of Rome in 606 AD and Islam within a few years of that, I'd have to look it up. Islam did supplant the Eastern portion of Christendom of those days, part of the Roman Empire, which then became the Byzantine Empire, and then Islam. Francis has a reputation as a reformer of the Church in many ways. He's not identified with the pederasty, and he makes statements about identifying with the downtrodden, doesn't like the trappings of the papacy, likes to hobnob with the common people and so on. But who knows how all this will play out? You think Elon Musk has a better chance of winning them all over? Remember that the Vatican is a political entity, a nation unto itself, so it has "secular" standing from that. I don't know anything about Elon Musk and you haven't given me any reason to consider him a contender for the role of Antichrist, whereas I have the Protestant Reformers on my side, who arrived at their identification of the Pope from scripture, and maybe I can find the scriptures they used if you require it of me. And again, the Pope is not suspected by most people of having nefarious intentions. Pope John Paul was just about universally liked, and Francis is popular too.What I am talking about is based on stuff I've LEARNED over the years, not something that just came over me in some mysterious way so that it now clouds my judgment for emotional reasons.

Jesus was Jewish. Every single one of his disciples were Jews. Paul was Jewish. Its not about being Jewish, as such, its about belief. I think of the bible verses that distinguish between the physical act of circumcision versus the circumcision of the heart. Devout Jews believe that its obedience to the act that brings favor of God, whereas a splinter group of Jews (early Christians) believe that many were so wrapped up in the acts that they forgot the message.Whatever the case, its indefensible. Vengeance is mine saith the LORD. "The Jews" didn't crucify the Son of Man anymore than the Romans did, let alone modern-day Italians. Forgive them for they know not what they do... Translation, they cannot comprehend the deeper implications of their actions.Maybe if God didn't do a complete 180 on the Jews would this have not been an issue.

All the things we find odious about Islam -- head coverings, stoning people to death, public executions.... those weren't original pieces I'm afraid. That was all borrowed from the collection of atrocities chronicled in the Torah, Mishna, and Septuagint. Moses, Jesus, etc... all in the Qur'an. A bastardized version, sure, but all inspired by reading the bible. The other portions were borrowed from paganism practiced on the Arabian peninsula long before Christianity. Better than the Pope. And I'm not saying Elon Musk, I'm saying someone like that who will be nearly universally beloved. Granted, I don't believe any of it, but for the sake of the argument I would think somebody like that would have a greater chance of fulfilling the prophecy. Not amongst a billion Muslims and billions of Hindus and Buddhists. From what "Protestant Reformers" did you learn this? The bible is very clear not to tell you who it is and not to tell you the day or the hour. The books just say look out for these signs and wonders to know the time draws near.

quote:

---

Funny, you remind me very strongly of the House Democrats making it all up against Trump while what he said was clear enough and true.

---

In other words he’s telling the truth and opposing your lies.Your belief in the power of lies is one of the things that convinces me of your dedication to Satan.

quote:

---

Please quote me if you are going to accuse me of saying something

---

It was a while ago, it would take a lot of effort to find and you’ll just ignore it anyway. So why should I bother.?

quote:

---

As a side point, some Protestant historians regard Islam as the other leg of the Roman Empire. You know that statue Nebuchadnezzare dereamed of in the Book of Daniel? The one Daniel interpreted in terms of succeeding empires with Babylonia as the head, and the Roman Empire as the legs and feet? Two legs of the Roman Empire, Catholism one of them, Islam the other

---

That’s a pretty bizarre view, given that Islam never supported the Roman Empire. If you are going to insist on a reference to Romans and you are going to insist that the two legs are significant why not the Orthodox Church for the Eastern Empire ? (It’s all daft anyway because Daniel was not referring to Rome and didn’t make anything of the legs).

There were the Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah and the Jews who did not, yes, "the circumcision" is how the unbelieving Jews were identified. The latter are referred to in the NT as "the Jews." It was "the Jews" who voted for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Christ. Sure, we're all guilty of His death but scripture says very clearly that "the Jews" voted for His crucifixion, and even willingly took the responsibility for His death upon themselves. And yes, Jesus forgave them from the cross and we are not to take vengeance on them either, as you say. Luther was wrong to do that. He was acting like the RCC in calling for the state to punish them.The Jews who did not become Christians have been called "the Jews" ever since. They are the Pharisee party known today as the Orthodox. It is not wrong to identify them as "the Jews."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, Islam practices some of the violence they find in the OT. Yes some of the OT is part of their religion. But not nearly as much as you imply. So what is your point?Again, I did not choose the Pope to be the Antichrist, the Protestant Reformers did, principally Luther, who spelled out the scripture that convinced him, which I'd rather not spend the time looking up but I may try. Certainly people may disagree with the Reformers, but I ended up being most convinced of their arguments, and I do think the calculation of the 666 is very telling, and about Francis the signs I gave for him too, along with his beliefs which are rather more Marxist than Christian.The main evidence ought to be the RCC behemonth itself which is a bastion of Roman paganism that has passed as Christian though there is nothing Christian about it. The existence of the papacy itself is not Christian, the trappings, the garb, are from the Roman pagan religions, the rosary, the candles, the sign of the cross, etc are all pagan in spirit. Then there are the "saints" which have become idols akin to the gods accepted in the Roman pantheon. People actually pray to "St. Jude" or "St. Christopher" fpr various favors. Just like the old gods these saints have their own territory of expertise. The Church also often promotes the worship of Mary over Christ though they will deny that if you bring it up, calling it something else, reverence or something like that? -- oh "veneration," splitting semantic hairs since it ends up meaning the same thing as worship anyway.The RCC does include the Gospel in its liturgy and the priests who got to read the Bible taught much of Christian doctrine, so it is certainly possible for many Catholics to actually be Christians; but the institution itself screams paganism, not Christ.The Bible tells us we will not know the time of Jesus' return, but it doesn't say we can't figure out who the Antichrist is, and that's what the Reformers did. We still can't know when Jesus will return, but we can certainly know "the times and the seasons" which the Bible says we ARE to know. Jesus chides the Jews for not knowing the time of his first coming, which is knowable through the OT, especially the Book of Daniel, and He tells us also to know the times and the seasons of His second coming. No, not the exact day, but the general period in which the signs point to His return. We've been seeing these signs for decades and they are only getting sharper.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually, Jesus said that we would know the end times and it would come during the lifetime of his disciples.When that was shown to be fake the still living followers, particularly the author of 2 Peter, had to make up the excuses that have been used by the Apocalyptic CCoI ever since.And there is no evidence that those excuses will not continue to be needed for at least several more billion years.

Understanding the scriptures related to the timing of the Rapture and the Tribulation is no easy thing. I wouldn't be able to spell it out myself. Reading the early part of this thread I see that among the Christians here, Buzsaw, Jaywill and Iano all weighed in on the subject, and there is no simple agreement between them.I make an effort every now and then to follow some argument or other -- and there are way too many schools of thought on this one -- and give up in the end because there's always some part of it that just doesn't hang together with the overall theory, or I'm not able to get how it does if it does. This is one of those biblical problems that can drive you crazy trying to figure it out. (It's always reasonable to conclude, I think, that if we are having this much trouble with a scriptural problem it's because God doesn't want us to solve it yet, but He's perfectly happy to have us working on it because it keeps the issue alive in our minds. That may be a bit glib but it helps me deal with the frustration).I arrived at the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position less from my own ability to sort through the relevant scripturas than from being persuaded by listening to arguments for it that it is the one that hangs together best, even if some parts nevertheless seem to remain dangling.Robert Jeffress' presentation on Jan Markell's "Understanding the Times radio," that I linked when I joined this thread in Message 43, did a good job of saying why he supports this position, in those four points he made that I listed in Message 47.Scripture does promise believers that if we are in Christ there is no condemnation we have to face, that's in Romans 8:1; in Revelation 3:10 the Church at Philadelphia is told that since they have kept Jesus' word of His patience they will be kept from the "hour of trial that is to come upon the whole Earth." As Jaywill points out early in the thread that implies conditionality, IF we keep the word of Jesus' patience THEN we will be kept from that trial. The trial to come upon the whole Earthy is certainly the Great Tribulation. It is also The Day of the Lord that has been promised from way back in the Old Testament, when He comes to judge the entire world. In the Book of Daniel we learn that this will be a period of seven years at the very end. So the promise to the Church of Philadelphia, which includes all believers of course, is that we will escape it if we are faithful. That means that it is possible that some Christians will not be kept from it and have to go through it, but that's as far as I'll go with Jaywill's view because he splits things up further than that. I think if any of us go through it then we'll just go through it to the end, the Rapture isn't going to occur in stages. In a sense the second coming of Jesus can be said to occur in stages if the Rapture occurs at the beginning of the Tribulation, when He comes to get us or call us, when only believers see Him, and then He comes again in full view of the entire world seven years later.So a strong argument in favor of the Pre Trib Rapture is the promise that believers are free of God's wrath. Another strong argument is that the Church is not mentioned at all from Revelation 6 through 18. The Church is addressed by Christ in the form of the Seven Churches of Asia in the first three chapters, then is seen in heaven in Chapters 4 and 5, but when the judgments begin to be described we are in another frame of reference, the Church is not there and we are hearing about a different set of believers, a different set of martyrs we are hearing about the Jews. It all has a very Old Testament feel to it as we find symbolism of the kind we encounter in the Book of Daniel, similar references to strange animals that represent empires, the Roman Empire in particular, and the religion that dominates that Empire, the Roman Church. The judgments all play out without one reference to the Church. The last we saw of the Church was in heaven while the Lamb of God opened the scroll with the seven seals that releases the judgments onto the Earth. The next time we see the Church is in Revelation 19 when Jesus returns with a multitude following Him.I always had a problem with the scripture about how Jesus will "descend with a shout" which is interpreted to refer to the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. I still have a problem with it but I've come to accept it because the overall scenario is the best fit. It's hard to see how a shout wouldn't be heard by everybody but if it refers to the Rapture it can only be heard by believers. He shouts and believers ridse to meet Him. There's no way I can argue it beyond saying that it fits into the overall scenario. But in any case His coming with a shout is not the same description as His coming on a white horse with a multitude following Him, or coming to stand on the Mount of Olives, so we have two different scenarios anyway. One we refer to the Rapture, the other to the final coming of Christ. Yes, all this is still open to dispute, but I'm not up to disputing it. It makes sense to me that believers have been promised that we will be spared God's wrath, and that is what the Great Tribulation is, and that is enough explanation for being removed from Earth before it happens. We are also taught of course that Jesus took God's wrath for our sins. He paid the price so that we are now spared. Not that we won't have all kinds of troubles on this Earth, persecutions provoked by Satan in particular, but the Great Tribulation is God's wrath and we are to be spared that.So certainly all the parts of the Pre-Trib scemario aren't riveted together so tightly that they aren't subject to dispute, all I'm saying is that none of the other scenarios hold together even this well and this one has the most to recommend it.So I accept this scenario, also accept the Reformers' arguments for the identity of the Antichrist as the papacy of the RCC, and am alert to signs that identify this current Pope as THE Antichrist of the end times. As I've described them I think they hold together very well, but so far the responses to my posts on the subject just ignore or dismiss all that and take up tangential topics instead.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is just a collection of questionable interpretations that ignores the most relevant scripture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) See Message 54 in this thread.

I feel obliged to keep repeating my argument, and I'd appreciate it if you'd repeat yours, showing its relevance to whatever post you are answering. It's just too hard to figure out how you are viewing the qupted scriptures if you don't make a more concerted case for them in the relevant context. Thanks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The main point is the obvious one - 1 Thessalonians says that the Rapture will follow the Second Coming - which comes after the Tribulation (I trust that you will not deny that!)Perhaps you can explain why you think that any member of the Church of Philadelphia around 100AD would need to be Raptured to escape the Tribulation, or why Revelation 3:11 does not imply that the members are supposed to hold out until Jesus returns.

The whole reason I wrote my previous post was to say that I don't feel able to sort all these things out, so I do my best to get a feel for the different scenarios and then trust the teachers who argue for the one that makes the most sense to me, and that's the Pre Trib Rapture. But as I said some of the scriptures remain difficult to incorporate, or for me to do that in any case.The passage you refer to IS interpreted to refer to the Pre Trib Rapture, and I'm not in any position to dispute it. You are free to make of it what you will but yes I do deny that it refers to the final return of Christ. This can be interpreted as some do as the Church's rising to meet the Lord in the air in order to escort Him to earth, the way the people would run out to meet a King returning from a journey and escort him into the city. That is the post Trib Rapture theory. OR it can be interpreted as referring to our meeting Him in the air to be taken to heaven to be with Him for seven years before He returns to Earth with all of us following Him, which is the Pre Trib interpretation. I've given my reasons for preferring this view.You did not quote Rev 3:11 so I have to end this post to go look it up.

Well, they WERE to hold out until His return even though He didn't return in their time. They were to stay faithful in any case although they died before He returned. There are many prophecies in scripture that people expected to be fulfilled in their time but weren't. They get to see their fulfillement much later long after their own death. So each generation reads those passages as pertaining to themselves. Eventually there will be a generation in which it is fulfilled during our lives.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.