Conference yukon::christian_v7

    I find myself coming full circle on the pre-trib vs. post-trib rapture. 
    I believe I had taken a post-trib rapture early on in this topic, and
    now must do a flip-flop.  8^)  The more I study/read/learn, the less I
    believe in a post-trib rapture.  Guess the learning process never
    stops.  8^) (which is why I try to keep an open mind...never know when
    stubborness will keep me from learning)
    
    The early church believed Jesus could come at *any* time, and I think
    we should view things in the same way.  There are no prophesies to be
    fulfilled before the rapture takes place, unlike Christ's second coming
    at the end of the great tribulation.
    
    I'm also starting to bite on the young earth theory, too.  (egads,
    what's happening here!?)  I heard a very interesting geologist on
    Christian radio that made very good sense.  He stated that dating
    methods use too much speculation to be accurate, and that when used to
    date *known* items of only thousands of years old, it can come up with
    a date of many millions of years.  
    
    Another interesting tidbit he talked about was Biblically based. 
    Basically, he proposed that since "the wages of sin are death", that
    there was no death on the earth before the fall of Adam.  Death was not
    designed into God's creations, but when sin entered the world through
    Adam, the result was decay and eventual death (not his exact words).
    
    If there was no death before sin, then there was no death before Adam. 
    If there was no death before Adam, then evolution from another species
    is not possible (evolution is based on many millions of years of death
    and change).
    
    Well, it made sense when I was listening.  I don't know if I'm making
    any sense of it.  I do know that I will take Biblical truth before
    theoretical science.  If this man was Biblically accurate, then he is
    worth listening to.
    
    Any comments?  I'm not taking any concrete stands as of yet.  I always
    get in trouble when I do.   8^)
    
    
    -steve 

Hi Steve,

The 'no death before the fall' is fundamental to what we understand.  Sad
that a lot of Christians haven't thought it through, so leave a loophole at
that point.  Sometimes, I believe, because they are unready or unable to 
trust God with *all* of creation ;-}  Your explanation made good sense to 
me, but then I am fully persuaded ... ;-)

Concerning the positioning of Jesus' return, I take 'the other' view ;-)
It is clear from 2 Thessalonians 2 that the Thessalonians are being told 
not to be fooled into thinking that the LORD has returned *until* certain 
events have taken place.

 "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until
  the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed
  to destruction.  He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything 
  that is called God or worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God's 
  temple, proclaiming himself to be God."
						2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

In this chapter, Paul gives the Thessalonians a number of things to look 
out for, as landmarks identifying this man who would be recognised.

Those who would understand a pre-trib rapture take the rapture, and 'The
Day of the LORD' to be two different events, with Christians not being 
around for the latter.  However, this does not fit with the sense of 
2 Thessalonians 2.  When you understand this, the other passages fall into 
place too.

But I don't want to confuse you ... ;-)

					God bless
							Andrew

  For me, the various positions surrounding pre- or post-trib are so
misunderstood and difficult to get a firm answer on that I have asked 
myself, what is the essential message, no matter which event actually
happens.  The answer:  BE READY.
  Do not misunderstand me: I think it is a fine topic to study and to 
become convinced of one persuasion or another.  However, for some people
who make this their focal point (not you) I would caution that there are
many other things which require our energies.
  For me, being ready is a sufficient doctrinal stance.  ;-)
  For you guys, keep studying and when it all happens, we'll see how well
you did on calling the play.  ;-) ;-) ;-)

Mark

>Those who would understand a pre-trib rapture take the rapture, and 'The
>Day of the LORD' to be two different events, with Christians not being 
>around for the latter.  However, this does not fit with the sense of 
>2 Thessalonians 2.  When you understand this, the other passages fall into 
>place too.
    
    They are separate events and are consistent throughout God's Word.  I'm
    sure I've mentioned before that the "apostacy" in 2 Thessalonians 2 can
    be translated from Greek as "disappearance" as well as "falling away."  
    
    God's people have never experienced His wrath - which is the Day of the
    Lord.  Christ came down and took a personal interest in Sodom before
    exacting His judgment on them.  Lot and his family were taken out. 
    Enoch was raptured before the flood.  There are several passages in the
    OT that confirm separate events through typology.
    
    Mike

Hi Mike, 

You (and others) have certainly gone through your understanding of the
pre-trib rapture plenty!  I've examined this view from various stances,
including the tape ministries of men whose teaching generally I've admired
greatly, but while the idea may be humanly desirable, the principle and
teaching has never stood the test of scripture, to my understanding.  I
don't think it's profitable to hammer it out again - neither of us is going
to persuade the other, and on my part, this would not be my aim. 

					God bless
							Andrew

    Fine with me, Andrew.  God will take you anyway ;-)

    {this is to benefit those who haven't seen it yet}
As you know, the church going through the Great Tribulation is quite a
controversial issue.  The questions are asked all the time.  Some people say it
doesn't matter to them, they just want to go.  If you believe in a
post-tribulation rapture, there's really no place to go.  You'll just go up
and come right back down again.  If you believe in a mid-tribulation rapture,
why?  Why only send us through halfway through it?  If you are pre-tribber, what
makes you think you are going to escape the tribulation?

There also many strange angles being preached today.  Some believe that we are
currently in the millennium.  If this is true, isn't it great the joy and peace
we're experiencing?  The people living 400 years?  The lions playing with the
lambs?  The Bible says they will lie down together so we can't be in the
millennium.  You have to ignore too much for this to be true.

For those that have been raised to believe that there is only 1 coming of Jesus,
I want you to stop and think for a minute.  The coming of Christ is already
in 2 phases.  The Old Testament prophets talked about the first coming as well
as the last glorious coming.  They told of the rejection of Christ in the
first advent.  What really matters is that there is a new world coming.  The
glorious kingdom established on earth.  If it wasn't for Daniel 9 and Isaiah
53, you wouldn't have known he would suffer and die.  The Lord will take his
church out before the tribulation period and return in a glorious second coming.

How does the Bible refer to the tribulation and what name does it give that era?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Time of Trouble - Daniel 12:1
The Time of Jacob's Trouble and Distress- Jeremiah 30:4-7
The Great Day of the Lord - Zephaniah 1:14-18, I Thessalonians 5:2
Day of Wrath - Revelation 6:16-17
The Great Tribulation - Matthew 24:21,29; Revelation 2:22, Revelation 7:14
The Wrath of God - Zephaniah 1:15, Revelation 6:16-17, 14:10, 15:1, 16:1, 11:18

The pattern is pretty clear here.  Also note that the term wrath is never used
in the Bible to refer to Hell or the Lake of Fire.  The use of the word wrath
refers to God's wrath against sin which is specifically poured out during the
Great Tribulation.  The key references are in Zephaniah 1:15, Revelation
6:16-17, 14:10, 15:1 "wrath of God is finished in the plagues", Revelation
16:1 "go pour out the 7 bowls of the wrath of God", Revelation 11:18 "thy
wrath came and the time for the dead to be judged."  The word wrath only
refers to God's anger during the great tribulation period.

Who will experience the wrath of God?
-------------------------------------
The Ungodly and the Unrighteous - Romans 1:18
Children of Wrath, children of the world (those not born again) - Ephesians 2:3
Sons of Disobedience - Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6
Babylon the Great - Revelation 16:19
The Nations (says Christ treads the winepress of the wrath of God almighty and
        the nations of the Antichrist will be ruled with a rod of iron) -
        Revelation 19:15
Israel (two-thirds of the Jews will be wiped out) - Jeremiah 30:4-7,
        Zechariah 13:8-9
The Tribulation Saints (every tribe people and nation (Gentiles) will be in
        the midst of this great tribulation)  - Revelation 13:7-10

The Bible is very clear on who will experience the tribulation.  Do you fit
into any of these categories?  You might say no, but that's an argument of
silence.

Let's look at the purpose of the Great Tribulation caused by the outpouring of
God's wrath.  The reasons for the Great Tribulation are 4 fold:

1. To test those who dwell upon the earth - Revelation 3:10
2. That God might pour out His wrath (punish) on the wicked.  The day of
   accountability will come - Revelation 15:7
3. To destroy those who destroy the earth.  There is some scriptural basis
   for environmentalist issues - Revelation 11:18
4. To purge the nation of Israel - Daniel 11:35, Zechariah 13:8-9

Who will not go through this period of God's Wrath?
---------------------------------------------------
The Church is promised deliverance from the wrath of God -  The Great
Tribulation in I Thessalonians 1:9-10, 5:4,5,8,9; Luke 21:36, and
Revelation 3:10.  Remember there is a difference between the wrath of the
world against the Church and the wrath of God against the world.  Jesus
clearly stated that the Church would suffer the wrath of the world in John
16:33.  The Church will face tribulation in the world from the Satanic world
system.  Satan is the one behind these attacks on the Church.  Paul tells us
about this in Ephesians 6:12.  Jesus will not present a bride to his father,
only to have him beat and torture her.  What purpose would it serve God to put
the church through the tribulation?  Anything other than a pre-tribulation
rapture is a belief based on WORKS!  It is a false gospel!  The Great
Tribulation manifesting the wrath of God, originates not from Satan, but from
God and is not directed towards the Church, but towards a rebellious world.

The church of Philadelphia is told they have a little strength and its all they
need to escape.  This 5th church is also the last true church.  These churches
are both historical and symbolic.  They are promised to be kept from the hour of
testing. Revelation 6:1-18 tells us this hour is the great tribulation.

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture (I Thessalonians 4:16-17)
-----------------------------------------------------
Where do we get a pre-tribulation rapture from?  I Thessalonians 4:16-17 says we
will "be caught up."  Rapture is taken from the Latin word for this Greek
translated phrase which is "raper�."  It is from the Vulgate Latin translation
of the New Testament.  "Vulgar" meaning common, which was the common Latin
of the time.  Rapture means "ecstasy" or "being caught up into ecstasy."  The
term "Rapture" has now come to describe the translation of the Church - which
we know will be a rapturous experience indeed!

Old Testament Pictures of the Rapture
-------------------------------------
The clear teaching of God's word that the church will be caught up and raptured
is also taught in like manner in the Old Testament.  Some of the Old Testament
pictures of the rapture that support this are:

Enoch - Genesis 5:21-24.  Enoch was a preacher of righteousness in a very wicked
        world that was heading for a deluge of the wrath of God (Jude 14-15).
        Enoch knew the wrath of God was coming and he proclaimed the coming of
        judgment (Noah's Flood).  Before the wrath was poured out, God took
        him.  Enoch was "caught up" to be with the Lord.  In a sense, with
        Enoch living 365 years, God is telling us in a symbolic sense that
        Enoch is a type of world.  That number, 365, is not associated with
        any other planet.  Noah is a type of Israel because he goes through
        the tribulation.  Noah does not represent the church in this judgment
        like some claim.

Lot - The valley of cities of Sodom and Gomorrah had sinned so grossly that they
      were to be exterminated.  Sodom & Gomorrah were so corrupt that God had
      to judge them by fire.  God shows that he doesn't judge without a
      personal inspection of the corruption.  Lot and his family were the only
      ones living for the Lord.  The angel of the Lord told Lot that the wrath
      and judgment could not happen until he left the city and arrived at his
      destination (Genesis 19:22).  God first removes his believing children,
      the objects of his love and grace, from the sphere of His judgment
      (Genesis 18:23,25)!!

It is also interesting to note that we will not be judged at the same time
that the world is judged.  God always deals with his people separate from the
world.  In Genesis 18:23-25, Abraham eloquently states that God will not slay
the righteous with the wicked.  If you say the church will go through the
tribulation, you are contradicting God's word.

New Testament Promises
----------------------
Looking back to the New Testament, there are more promises to the church with
regard to the rapture.  II Thessalonians 2:1-8 contains the clearest stance
in the Bible where Paul taught the church would not be here for the
tribulation.  Someone had upset the Church of Thessalonica by telling them
that they were in the period called the Day of the Lord or Great Tribulation.
Had they been taught by Paul that they were going to go all the way through
the tribulation - or even mid-way through - they would not have been shaken
from their composure.  The Church was disturbed because they were being told
they were in the Great Tribulation and they had never expected this.  They
were ready to be persecuted by the world (John 16:33) but not to be the
objects of God's wrath!  See also I Thessalonians 1:10, 5:9.

Paul calms their fears by telling them that they are not in the tribulation
and the tribulation cannot come until there is first an apostasy and the one
who now restrains is taken out of the way.  The words "the apostasy" are "he
apostasia" in Greek and have been translated "falling away" in KJV.  The primary
meaning of the word "apostasia" is "defection", "revolt", or "rebellion" against
God.  But there is another meaning - it can be translated disappearance or
departure.  II Thessalonians 2:3 could also read:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
 there come a disappearance (or departure) first, and that man of sin be
 revealed, the son of perdition;"

Some have seen a reference to the rapture of the Church and not just a reference
to and end-time apostasy.  Other verses of interest are: Zephaniah 1:14-18,
Acts 2:20, Joel 2:1-2,10-11, I Thessalonians 5:2, Isaiah 13:9-11, II Peter
3:10, Revelation 6:17, Zechariah 14.

The Restrainer
--------------
Before the day of the Lord can come, Paul tells the Thessalonians the son of
destruction, the antichrist, must first be revealed.  He cannot be revealed
until "what restrains him now" or "he who restrains" is "taken out of the way."
Who is the Restrainer?  It's the Holy Spirit working through the Church!  The
church is spoken of as salt and light (Matthew 5:13-14).  Salt restrains
contamination and decomposition.  Light restrains one from being enveloped by
darkness (Ephesians 5:8, II Corinthians 4:4).  When the church is taken out
the tribulation can begin.

Some may ask, "Well if the Holy Spirit is removed, how will unbelievers be
saved during the tribulation?"  The same way they were in the Old Testament.
The Holy Spirit wasn't working through Israel like He is in the New Testament
church.  People were saved by hearing and believing, but couldn't be baptized
or filled with the Holy Spirit.  We are so blessed in the new covenant!

Delivered From God's Wrath
--------------------------
In I Thessalonians 1:9-10 "Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come."  The
word wrath in the Bible can refer to God's general wrath against sin (Romans
1:18) and also of God's wrath which will be poured out in the Great Tribulation
(Revelation 6:17, 14:10,19, 15:1,7 16:1).  The word wrath is never used to
refer to hell or to the lake of fire.  This verse refers to our having been
delivered "from the wrath to come."  This future wrath from which we have been
delivered is not the lake of fire or hell, because Jesus has already saved us
from these by His atoning death and glorious resurrection.  The future wrath
that the Church is saved from is spoken of in this verse, the wrath of the
Great Tribulation.  Jesus is coming specifically to deliver His Church, His
Bride, from the Great Tribulation.

The End-Time Church
-------------------
Revelation 3:10 contains the message to the faithful last day church that is
in the Philadelphia church.  This faithful end-time Church is promised to be
kept from the hour of trial or the tribulation described in the following
chapters of Revelation (chapters 6-19).  The sphere of this trial is worldwide,
to test those who dwell on the earth.  God proved in the Old Testament that He
always removes his people from His judgments.  If the whole world will be
tested, He obviously has to take His people out of the world.  This verse does
not say that the Church will be kept safe during the trial, the tribulation.
It says that the Church will be kept from the very "hour" of trial.  The
Church will be kept *from* the actual time of the Great Tribulation.

The word translated in English "kept from" is "tereo ek" in Greek, meaning "kept
out" or "kept out of."  Some say we will go through the tribulation like Noah.
If Jesus had meant the Church would be protected "within" the trial, He would
have used "tereo ev" "kept in" (as in Acts 12:5, 25:4, I Peter 1:4, Jude 21),
or "tereo eis" "kept into", or "tereo dia", "kept through."  The only other
place in the Bible where "tereo ek" is used is in John 17:15, where it is used
twice.  It speaks of "taking out" and "keeping away," not "bring through."  The
words the Lord Jesus uses are specific and wonderfully chosen!  "Tereo ek" -
"kept out of" means the church will not be in, into, or through the
tribulation at all!

The Clincher
------------
If this passage in Revelation 3:10 only means that the Church will be kept safe
throughout the tribulation as some have taught, then you have a major problem on
your hands!  The problem is this, all through the tribulation, "saints" are
being killed on a massive scale (see Revelation 6:9-11, 11:7, 12:30,17,
13:7,10,15, 14:13, 17:6, 18:24).  They are being being killed off like flies.
Just about every page!  Are they being kept safe?  Would God make a meaningless
promise?  If these martyrs are church age saints then they are *not* being
kept safe and the promise to the Church in Revelation 3:10 is an error or it
is meaningless.  The saints that are dying are those saved during the
tribulation as the Old Testament saints were saved.  Only as we distinguish
between the Church-age saints and the tribulation saints does the promise of
Revelation 3:10 make any sense.

The term saints can refer to people saved in the Old Testament, under the Old
Covenant (Psalms 34:9, 89:5,7) as well as those who are redeemed by the Lord
Jesus Christ in the New Covenant (I Corinthians 1:12).  The existence of the
saints in the tribulation does not prove the Church is going through the
tribulation.  The term refers to those who are saved by God in each specific
dispensation.

The promise of Revelation 3:10 is that the church will be taken up out of the
sphere of the tribulation before the hour of testing comes upon the earth.
Those people converted during the tribulation (Revelation 7) are the saints
spoken of throughout the Book of Revelation.  They are martyred during the Great
Tribulation.

Hour of Trial
-------------
Revelation 3:10 tells us that the Church will be kept from the hour of trial
that is to come upon the whole world.  The hour of trial is referred to only one
other time in the Book of Revelation in 14:7.  The Church has been promised
immunity from this hour of trial coming upon the whole world.  The Great
Tribulation is God's great judgment upon this world.  John 5:24 specifically
tells us we will never come into judgment.  Romans 8:1 says that there is no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.  We have been saved from ever
experiencing the wrath of God.  We may experience the world's trials, but will
not experience God's trials.  Grace can't be grace if mixed with anything else.

    
    In all my studies I have found the tribulation lasts for
    3.5 years in which christians will endure the attack of the
    anti-christ.  Christ takes away the christians then the remaining
    3.5 years of the tribulation is known as the wrath of God in which
    Christ attacks the anti-christ and those remaining on the earth
    except the 144,000 jews sealed by God.  The reason the 144,000
    jews remain on the earth is because there can not be judgment
    without the presence of the manifestation of the spoken Word.
    
    After all what is it all about if not the Word.  God's manifestation
    to us is to communicate, wether it is blessing or judgement and to
    communicate with us He came as the living Word.  In the end the Word
    will remain.

    -.174
    < the Lord will take his church out before the tribulation period and
    <return in a glorious second comming.
    
           ??Where are the verses that support this??
           ??Who are the Jews??
           ??The 144,000 are not Christians??
     

�        <<< Note 397.173 by FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything" >>>
�    Fine with me, Andrew.  God will take you anyway ;-)

(-; Sure.  I'm not about to complain ;-)

Re: .1  (Steve Leech)

>    I'm also starting to bite on the young earth theory, too.  (egads,
>    what's happening here!?)  I heard a very interesting geologist on
>    Christian radio that made very good sense.  He stated that dating
>    methods use too much speculation to be accurate, and that when used to
>    date *known* items of only thousands of years old, it can come up with
>    a date of many millions of years.  
    
You mean to tell me that all that time I was contending with you on this
topic, you hadn't read the essays that I wrote that were pertinent to this
topic (in 25.12 and 25.13, now superseded by 640.14 and 640.15)?

If only I had referenced those replies!  I just assumed...

    
     Usually I don't participate in these discussions because they lead
    nowhere. As Mark said, the only watchword is "BE READY". 
     As Keith Green once said, "Pray for Pre-, but prepare for Post-".
    
     RG

Hi guys.  And here we go again with this pre-trib-rapture nonsense.

Are there 2 2nd comings of Jesus?

I'm still waiting for a biblical reference that shows that there will be a
rapture 7 years before the 2nd coming of the Lord.

In contrast, a simple reading of Matt 24 and the 1 Thess passage shows that the
rapture spoken of in the New Testament happens at the time of the second
coming, at the last trumpet.

Mind you, God can rapture anyone anytime he wants, and he is under no
obligation to tell us ahead of time in the scriptures.  But this
pre-trib-rapture idea is certainly not an idea that the scriptures tell of.

      Hi,
    
        Count me in as one who would have welcomed the acknowledgment
        of another possibility besides pre and post trib raptures.
    
        And that is no rapture at all.
    
        But, I do believe in the literal 2nd coming of Jesus Christ
        at which time God's sleeping faithful will be resurrected, His
        living faithful will be translated, the unsaved living will
        be destroyed by the brightness of His coming, and the sleeping
        unsaved will remain in their sleep.
    
                                                  Tony

� Hi guys.  And here we go again with this pre-trib-rapture nonsense.

Hi Garth,

Clear though this may seem to you and me, people are really convinced that
these passages are split in fulfillment to give two more comings - much as
the Jews didn't realise that the 'suffering servant' and victorious King
prophecies denoted two basic comings of the LORD.  As such, it's really a 
part of them, emotively; which is why it is best [generally] not to discuss 
it in a wide forum.  I'd rather let it go, than get people stirred up
trying to defend a particular stance on an issue secondary to salvation -
albeit a very key issue.  'Getting stirred up' virtually precludes progress
on each other's perspective.  Calling it 'nonsense' is not going to help
people to consider it rationally, or to view each other's stance
dispassionately.

Mind you, I thought I was the only post-trib rapturist around here, so I'm 
glad there's at least one other person who sees it clearly .... ;-)
						[just stirring it again]

					God bless
							Andrew

    
    The way the word tribulation is getting thrown around its as
    if we all had a common understanding of what each other means
    by the word. 

    
    Personally I take the Pre - Post position.
    

    
    Actually its the Post - Pre position.
    
    Post Trib -Pre Wrath....some call it Mid Trib, it has to do
    with the two thousand some odd days spoken of by Daniel.

Genesis 18:23
And Abraham drew near, and said, wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the
wicked?

Genesis 18:24
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy
and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

Genesis 18:25
That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the
wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee:
shall not the judge of all the earth do right?

I Thessalonians 1:9
For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and
how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;

I Thessalonians 1:10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus,
which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Revelation 3:10
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the
hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell
upon the earth.

The word translated in English "kept from" is "tereo ek" in Greek, meaning "kept
out" or "kept out of."  Some say we will go through the tribulation like Noah.
If Jesus had meant the Church would be protected "within" the trial, He would
have used "tereo ev" "kept in" (as in Acts 12:5, 25:4, I Peter 1:4, Jude 21),
or "tereo eis" "kept into", or "tereo dia", "kept through."  The only other
place in the Bible where "tereo ek" is used is in John 17:15, where it is used
twice.  It speaks of "taking out" and "keeping away," not "bring through."  The
words the Lord Jesus uses are specific and wonderfully chosen!  "Tereo ek" -
"kept out of" means the church will not be in, into, or through the
tribulation at all!

Mike, 

It's easy to take verses - or even passages - out of context, and apply
them to irrelevant situations.  I've seen it done many times on a much more
basic level, where people claim a Biblical promise as a personal 'Rhema',
where it is patently finding expression purely through their soulish desires. 

								Andrew 

Re: .17
    
>    The way the word tribulation is getting thrown around its as
>    if we all had a common understanding of what each other means
>    by the word. 

Hear, hear.

    
Re: .18, .19

>    Personally I take the Pre - Post position.
    
>    Actually its the Post - Pre position.
>    
>    Post Trib -Pre Wrath....some call it Mid Trib, it has to do
>    with the two thousand some odd days spoken of by Daniel.

Marvin Rosenthalism, perhaps?

Re: .20  (Mike)

Genesis 18:23 does not say anything about a rapture to begin with

Genesis 18:24 does not say anything about a rapture to begin with

Genesis 18:25 does not say anything about a rapture to begin with

I Thessalonians 1:9 does not say anything about a rapture to begin with

I Thessalonians 1:10 does not say anything about a rapture to begin with

Revelation 3:10 does not say anything about a rapture to begin with

"tereo ek" ("kept out of" or whatever) does not say anything about a rapture 
to begin with

God can keep us from wrath in any number of ways.  Perhaps there will be a
place of refuge.  Then again, perhaps not.  It is presumption to read
"pre-trib-rapture" into this. 

    obviously there are 2 different stances here and as Andrew stated, its
    futile at this point to try to convince each other of *another* view.
    
    I really like the "pray for pre and prepare for post" line.  :)
    
    And Im sure no matter what posistion one holds we, can all agree as
    Mark said, "Be ready".
    
    
    Sylvain

Matthew 23:37

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you.
How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her
chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.  Look, your house is left to
you desolate.  For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say,  
'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'"
    Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to
him to call his attention to its buildings.  "Do you see all these things?"
he asked.  "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another,
every one will be thrown down."
    As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him
privately.  "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the
sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
    Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.  For many will come in
my name, claiming, "I am the Christ, and will deceive many.  You will hear of
wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed.  Such things
must happen, but the end is still to come.  Nation will rise against nation,
and kingdom against kingdom.  There will be famines and earthquakes in various
places.  All these are the beginning of birth pains.
    "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you
will be hated by all nations because of me.  At that time many will turn away
from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets
will appear and deceive many people.  Because of the increase of wickedness,
the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be
saved.  And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as
a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
    "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes
desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel -- let the reader understand
-- then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.  Let no one on the
roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house.  Let no one in 
the field go back to get his cloak.  How dreadful it will be in those days
for pregnant women and nursing mothers!  Pray that your flight will not take
place in winter or on the Sabbath.  For then there will be great distress,
unequalled from the beginning of the world until now -- and never to be 
equalled again.  If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive,
but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.  At that time if
anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not 
believe it.  For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great
signs and miracles to deceive even the elect -- if that were possible.  See, I
have told you ahead of time.
    "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out;
or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.  For as lightning 
that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of
the Son of Man.  Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
    "Immediately after the distress of those days, 

                     'the sun will be darkened,
                      and the moon will not give its light;
                      the stars will fall from the sky,
                      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

    "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all
the nations of the earth will mourn.  They will see the Son of Man coming on
the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.  And he will send his 
angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the
four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

1 Thess 4:15

    According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are alive, who
are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have
fallen asleep.  For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud
command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and
the dead in Christ will rise first.  After that, we who are still alive and are
left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
air.

1 Cor 15:51

    Listen, I tell you a mystery:  We will not all sleep, but we will all be
changed -- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.  For
the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be
changed.

Acts 1:9

    After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid
him from their sight.
    They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly
two men dressed in white stood beside them.  'Men of Galilee,' they said, 'why
do you stand here looking into the sky?  This same Jesus, who has been taken
from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into
heaven.'
    Then they returned to Jerusalem from a hill called the 'Mount of Olives,'
a Sabbath day's walk from the city.

Zechariah 14:1

    A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.
    I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city
will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped.  Half of the city
will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
    Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in
the day of battle.  On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to 
west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountation moving north and half
moving south.  You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel.
You will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of
Judah.  Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

Now, did you spend as much time reading that last reply as you did reading
Hal Lindsay's book?

	"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,
	for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the
	Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."  (Acts 17:11)

    
   > Marvin Rosenthalism, perhaps?
    
    
    	Who is he?

    Speaking of books, try "How Close Are We?" by Dave Hunt.

    re: .12
    
    Uhm...err...no.
    
    If I had known about them, perhaps I would have read them.  8^)
    
    If it makes you feel better, I did read the latest version.  8^)
    
    -steve

    I hate it when I forget to bring my Bible to work :-(
    
    First of all, in Matthew the context appears to be Christ addressing
    the Hebrews and not necessarily all believers.  Remember too, there will be
    some Christians here during the Great Tribulation.
    
>    Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to
>him to call his attention to its buildings.  "Do you see all these things?"
>he asked.  "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another,
>every one will be thrown down."
    
    Jerusalem 70 A.D.
    
>    As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him
>privately.  "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the
>sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
>    Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.  For many will come in
>my name, claiming, "I am the Christ, and will deceive many.  You will hear of
>wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed.  Such things
>must happen, but the end is still to come.  Nation will rise against nation,
>and kingdom against kingdom.  There will be famines and earthquakes in various
>places.  All these are the beginning of birth pains.
>    "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you
>will be hated by all nations because of me.  At that time many will turn away
>from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets
>will appear and deceive many people.  Because of the increase of wickedness,
>the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be
>saved.  And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as
>a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
    
    All of these are going on today.  The earthquakes, famines, wars, and
    martyrs.  I've posted the statistics on the increasing frequency of
    major (>6.0) earthquakes before.  Famines are all over 3rd world
    nations.  In Russian alone, the national army is currently fighting 30
    civil wars along the borders of its provinces.  Read the missionary
    reports from China, India, Iran, Iraq, and Libya about what they are
    doing to Christians.  The above section specifically addresses
    believers, which we know some will be here during the Tribulation.
    
>    "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes
>desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel -- let the reader understand
>-- then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.  Let no one on the
    
    Obviously we are still waiting for this defiling of the Temple (which is
    currently in the preparation stages of being rebuilt) by the Antichrist
    ala Antiochus Epiphanes.  
    
>roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house.  Let no one in 
>the field go back to get his cloak.  How dreadful it will be in those days
>for pregnant women and nursing mothers!  Pray that your flight will not take
>place in winter or on the Sabbath.  For then there will be great distress,
>unequalled from the beginning of the world until now -- and never to be 
>equalled again.  If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive,
>but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.  At that time if
>anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not 
>believe it.  For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great
>signs and miracles to deceive even the elect -- if that were possible.  See, I
>have told you ahead of time.
    
    A warning of the coming of Antichrist and his false prophets.
    
>    "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out;
>or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.  For as lightning 
>that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of
>the Son of Man.  Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
>    "Immediately after the distress of those days, 
>
>                     'the sun will be darkened,
>                      and the moon will not give its light;
>                      the stars will fall from the sky,
>                      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
    
    This relates the Second Coming and parallels Revelation 6.
    
>    "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all
>the nations of the earth will mourn.  They will see the Son of Man coming on
>the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.  And he will send his 
>angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the
>four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
    
    This relates the Second Coming and parallels Revelation 16-19.

>1 Thess 4:15
>    According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are alive, who
>are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have
>fallen asleep.  For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud
>command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and
>the dead in Christ will rise first.  After that, we who are still alive and are
>left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
>air.
    
    Thanks for proving my point.  Those who have fallen asleep are the dead
    in Christ.  They will rise first and we will be raptured immediately
    afterwards.

>1 Cor 15:51
>    Listen, I tell you a mystery:  We will not all sleep, but we will all be
>changed -- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.  For
>the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be
>changed.
    
    Not all of us will die in Christ.  Those who are alive and remain will
    be changed into their glorified bodies because there will be no flesh
    in heaven.

>Zechariah 14:1
>    A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.
>    I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city
>will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped.  Half of the city
>will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
    
    Just as Enoch and Lot are pictures of the rapture of the church, Noah
    is a picture of Israel going through God's judgment.  Israel will go
    through the Tribulation and this is who God is addressing here.
    
>You will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of
>Judah.  Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.
    
    All the holy ones are the raptured saints who come back to battle with
    the Savior.

    Check out "How Close Are We?" by Dave Hunt for a much more thorough
    presentation than I could ever present.  If not, I'll just have to
    bring it to work with me ;-)
    
    Mike

    Why would God seal the 144,000 Jews if the Church is still here? (we
    have Jewish Christians today)
    
    Why the need of the two witnesses and of the three angels if there are
    already millions of witnesses on the earth during the Great Tribulation
    time (and Christians would most certainly recognise the significance of
    current events)?
    
    God has no need of redundancies, which the above would seem to be if
    the Church is present during this time.
    
    -steve

    
    The 144,000 Jews and the two witnesses are during the Wrath of God
    period of 3.5 years.  No one is converted during the wrath and as I
    understand it the people suffer but do not die even though they try to 
    kill themselves.
    
    The christians alive when the Anti-Christ is revealled will endure
    the affliction as he makes war with them for three and half years.
    
    The reason for the two witnesses and the 144,000 Jews is for judgment
    sake.  There can not be judgement without the manifest presence of the
    Word of God coming forth Prophetically by His Chosen.
    
    Not that any of this really matters.
    

Re: .30  (Mike)

>    First of all, in Matthew the context appears to be Christ addressing
>    the Hebrews and not necessarily all believers.  

Says who?
    
And are you suggesting that this second coming (from Matt 24)...

>    "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all
>the nations of the earth will mourn.  They will see the Son of Man coming on
>the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.  And he will send his 
>angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the
>four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
    
...is not the same as this second coming?...

>1 Thess 4:15
>    According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are alive, who
>are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have
>fallen asleep.  For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud
>command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and
>the dead in Christ will rise first.  After that, we who are still alive and are
>left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
>air.
    
And how do you deal with the fact that this happens...

    "Immediately after the distress of those days, [when]

                     'the sun will be darkened,
                      and the moon will not give its light;
                      the stars will fall from the sky,
                      and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

And what about the following thing, which you say must happen before the
"Immediately after the distress of those days", like 

>    Obviously we are still waiting for this defiling of the Temple (which is
>    currently in the preparation stages of being rebuilt) by the Antichrist
>    ala Antiochus Epiphanes.  

?

    Another reason why only a pre-trib rapture makes sense in the light of 
    Scripture is Imminency.  If you have mid-trib and post-trib, your life
    as a date-setter is a piece of cake.

Re: .31  (Steve Leech)

>    Why would God seal the 144,000 Jews if the Church is still here? (we
    
I guess you'll have to ask him that.

>    Why the need of the two witnesses and of the three angels if there are
    
I guess you'll have to ask him that.

>    God has no need of redundancies, which the above would seem to be if
>    the Church is present during this time.
    
God has no advisors.

Re: .34  (Mike)

>    Another reason why only a pre-trib rapture makes sense in the light of 
>    Scripture is Imminency.  If you have mid-trib and post-trib, your life
>    as a date-setter is a piece of cake.

Who's setting dates?  And what is a "trib"?

So far, I have only seen circumstantial reasoning, and no scripture that 
demonstrates that there will be a rapture 7 years before the 2nd coming of
Christ.

    Well Garth, if you applied that logic to the Trinity in the Bible,
    you'd have to toss that out too.  Obviously, we know through searching
    the Scriptures and through OT typology that the Triunity (my preferred
    term) exists.
    
    Mike

    Actually, there is no conclusive proof in the scriptures that the
    Trinity exist.
    
    The Trinity is a theological doctrine that was developed by church
    councils around 400A.D.
    
    There are several Christian denomination that do not accept a belief in
    the doctrine of the trinity.
    
    Unitarian Universalist Christians find no proof in the Bible for this
    theology and do not adhere to a Trinitarian God.
    
                                Patricia

Re: .38  (Mike)

>    Well Garth, if you applied that logic to the Trinity in the Bible,
>    you'd have to toss that out too.  Obviously, we know through searching
>    the Scriptures and through OT typology that the Triunity (my preferred
>    term) exists.
    
I can demonstrate from the scriptures that there is one God.
I can demonstrate from the scriptures that the Father is God.
I can demonstrate from the scriptures that the Son is God.
I can demonstrate from the scriptures that the Holy Spirit is God.

"Trinity" is just a label, like "pre-trib-rapture".

Can you demonstrate from the scriptures that God will remove believers from
this earth 7 years before Jesus visably appears the 2nd time?

>Can you demonstrate from the scriptures that God will remove believers from
>this earth 7 years before Jesus visably appears the 2nd time?
    
    Yes I can demonstrate from the scriptures that God will remove
    believers from His wrath (Great Tribulation) before the imminent 
    return of Christ.  This was all detailed in a previous posting that
    you probably skipped.  It just so happens that it will be ~7 years before
    the Second Coming of Christ.

Mike, what's your take on these:

AUTO TRIB:  What you believe to be true will happen to you.

CREDIT TRIB:  You stay until all your credit debt is paid off.


8*)


Jeff

    Jeff, Auto Trib is too much like Positive Confession so it can't be
    right ;-)

      Hi Garth,
    
        I'm curious.  What is your belief?  I believe the rapture and
        the 2nd coming are the same thing.  Are we in agreement here?
        
        Just wondering...
    
                                                Tony

Tony,
�        I'm curious.  What is your belief?  I believe the rapture and
�        the 2nd coming are the same thing.  

No - two events which happen at the same time, rather than the same thing.  
The rapture is us going up; the 2nd coming is His coming down - so we meet 
in the air.....

Looking forward to it (if I can wait that long) 

							Andrew

    The Father sending a battered, beaten, bruised, and martyred Bride to
    His only begotten Son is contrary to the typology in Genesis 24 where
    God set the precedent.

Mike,

You're flogging a dead horse, by starting from the wrong end.  You don't 
define the doctrine from a picture, but recognise the picture from the 
original.  The claiming of Rebecah as bride is never identified 
specifically as a picture of Christ and the church.  To define your 
eschatology from this purely because it suits you is bad hermaneutics.  
Especially when it conflicts with the clear teaching of the New Testament.

							Andrew

>define the doctrine from a picture, but recognise the picture from the 
>original.  The claiming of Rebecah as bride is never identified 
>specifically as a picture of Christ and the church.  To define your 
>eschatology from this purely because it suits you is bad hermaneutics.  
    
    Not really.  It is the first mention of a father obtaining a pure,
    holy, undefiled bride for his only begotten son through the aid of an
    unnamed servant.
    
>Especially when it conflicts with the clear teaching of the New Testament.
    
    If it was so clear, we wouldn't be discussing it.  Please clear it up
    for me in the light of scripture.  
    
    Mike

Re: .41  (Mike Heiser)

>>Can you demonstrate from the scriptures that God will remove believers from
>>this earth 7 years before Jesus visably appears the 2nd time?
>    
>    Yes I can demonstrate from the scriptures that God will remove
>    believers from His wrath (Great Tribulation) before the imminent 
>    return of Christ.  This was all detailed in a previous posting that
>    you probably skipped.  It just so happens that it will be ~7 years before
>    the Second Coming of Christ.

Yes, I did somehow miss it.  I see that your main presentation is in reply .7. 
My apologies. 

Perhaps you could cite where in that 259 line reply you presented any scripture
that demonstrates that God will rapture away believers 7 years before Jesus'
2nd coming.  I just read the whole reply and couldn't find it.

Also, as I was thinking about your challenge in the reply where you compared
pre-trib to the trinity, I thought of a counter-challenge for you:

At the risk of rousing a sleeping giant, I found your presentation to be full
of exactly the same sort of circumstantial reasoning that Jehovah's Witnesses
use to explain how Jesus returned invisibly in 1914.  My challenge to you
therefore, is this:  If your reasoning from the scriptures is valid to show
that there will be a rapture of believers 7 years before the 2nd coming of
Christ, then why is the Watchtower Society's reasoning invalid to show that
Jesus returned invisibly in 1914?  If you don't have their literature handy,
just contact your local Kingdom Hall, and I'm sure they will be happy to 
provide you with some.  I'll even loan you a copy of one of their books if
you don't want to do that.  

...and on and on it goes.

God wouldn't do this, and God wouldn't do that.  The Jews gotta be here and
the church gotta be there.  And just think of all those unmanned cars and
planes crashing and the newspaper headlines the next day.  What a sensation! 

But, I suppose I shouldn't poke fun at it, for I believed it all with my whole
heart at one time, a mere 8 years ago.  You could probably find me saying it
somewhere in Christian_V1, if you looked through my notes from back then.

Hi Mike,

�    If it was so clear, we wouldn't be discussing it.  
							;-)
When discussing this issue I invariably find that the pre-trib rapture view
is deeply ingrained from teaching with heavily humanistic typings - force
fitting into a theory.  It was because of this that some years back, I felt
it essential to separate the chaff from the wheat, and try to define
exactly what was in scripture, and what came from man's mind.  I don't
expect - or intend - to convince anyone, nor am I really interested in
discussing it, primarily because the personal investment (apart from any
scriptural investment) in the pre-trib rapture view generally means that
people find it difficult to release that view.  I would rather they found
out in God's timing than mine ;-) 

� Please clear it up for me in the light of scripture.  

Nevertheless, I have a screed which I'm, sure I've posted before, and
certainly Barry has seen before more than once!  It's simplistic, and
doesn't address all sorts of issues, like the compartmentalisation that the
pre- view makes in certain areas, but I don't have time for more just now. 
In fact I haven't even had time to focus it more just now.  However, I hope
it might at least give a glimpse that post-trib rapture is Biblically
founded (whether correctly or incorrectly), rather than merely reactionary ;-). 

    This reviews some of the records of the return of the LORD, with 
    respect to sequence, and who seems to be aware or present at the 
    different stages.  It endeavours to avoid concerns which stem from
    human reasoning in this connection.

 =============================================================================

Our LORD's teaching on the end of the church age is concentrated in the
Olivet discourse, as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.
Matthew 24, and the parallel Mark 13 are contiguous, publicly visible event
sequences.  Luke 21 has many points in common, and certain significant
differences.

Matthew 24 states in verses 24-29
	"Immediately after the distress of those days.... At that time ...
	 the sign of the Son of Man shall appear... They will see .... "

This is addressed to Christians - to the apostles, in the first instance,
that it might be recorded for us.  The significant features of the record in
this context are:

	� The return is publicly visible [ Contextually, 'They' includes 
	  other than Christians ].
	� The return is accompanied by the rapture of the saints, as the
	  "angels ... gather the elect", in v31.
	� This return 'immediately' follows the events of the tribulation, 
	  both in terms of human / demonic oppression, and in terms of the
	  visitation of divine physical catastrophe.

Mark 13 contains the same points, in verse 24...

Luke 21 refers to the events leading up to the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70.
This is followed by a reference to the days of the gentiles before it
continues with the return of the LORD.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 refers to a public event, when the "LORD ... comes
down from heaven with a shout", which is both totally unexpected to the world,
and not surprising to the Christians, with the implication that it is
experienced by both.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 equates the 'Day of the LORD', the physical and
visible return of the LORD Jesus to the earth, the presence of the elect, and
the destruction of the antichrist, as occurring in one event.  This
corresponds to Revelation 19:, which shows the return of the LORD, with the
specific destruction of the antichrist, leading on to the millennium.

I am aware that many would split these passages, and the events they contain,
but to me they read as meaning to portray a continuous sequence, which I see
no sound reason to break.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:7 there is the reference to the removal of restraint.
Some regard this as the removal of the Holy Spirit, assuming that this must
include the church, but this is not explicitly identified.  The 'removal' is
of 'He' (the Holy Spirit?) rather than 'they' (Holy Spirit and separately
identified church - admitedly an unlikely usage) or 'She' (which could be the
church alone).  One would imagine that as this portion of the letter is
specifically addressing the problem of what Christians on earth can expect to
be aware of concerning the LORD's return, that Paul would have highlighted
the fact if they were to be included in an earlier removal ('This is the bit 
you were asking about, the rest happens afterwards...').   Either way, this 
can be a pointer, but is not reason to distort the plain understanding of 
more explicit passages.  My personal view of this at the moment (and this is 
an area where I do not feel I yet have complete evidence), is that we have a 
different spiritual presence in each dispensation :

Old Covenant - The Holy Spirit affects activity on the earth, but does not
    commonly indwell people.  May annoint particular people for a role or task.

New Covenant - The Holy Spirit has a dwelling place within His own, who
    constitute the church.  He can also affect what happens on the earth in a
    physical dimension.

Tribulation - the Holy Spirit's restraining influence is removed from the
    world in general, although He still indwells His own.  This is in a measure
    in proportion to the increased faith and testing to be undergone, and in
    particular is a personal witnessing resource for use in worldly judgements.

Millennium - With Jesus' personal return to earth, the role of the Holy
    Spirit changes again.  In view of John 15, it may be a reversion to the Old
    Testament situation.  In any case, it is significantly different from
    what we know now.

The passages which refer to the separation of one from another (Matthew
24:37-41, Luke 17:26-29) are actually compared to the days of Noah and Lot,
when the righteous were preserved upon the earth while judgement was visited
upon the wicked.  These have been taken to support either view, but if the
subsequent state is taken to be the millennial reign, the preservation of the
righteous in situ seems more consistent with the picture.  Another relevant
passage here is the parable of the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30,36-43), where the
weeds are explicitly consigned to the fire *before* the good grain is
harvested (v41).

The church is not mentioned in the Old Testament, as it is part of the
'mystery' which is only unfolded with salvation, and therefore we would not
expect to find many direct clues there.  The reference to 'saints' in Daniel
could be a inclusive term to cover all of God's people at that time.
Interesting choice of word...

The idea that time has to be divided rigidly between 'church' and 'Israel'
does not allow for the progressive overlap which is evident at the margin of
the change-over.  If the church started at Pentecost, in Acts 2, it puts the
commission of Matthew 28 and Acts 1 under the Old Covenant.  If it started
at the Crucifixion, the 'uninspired' question of Acts 1:6 comes under the
church...  Either way, it puts Jesus' life into the Old Covenant.
I see the time from Jesus' life until Pentecost as an overlap, with a steady,
and at times rapid, progression is made, with the kingdom becoming
increasingly expressed in people's hearts.

I see a similar progression from the 'Times of the Gentiles' into the
Tribulation, with the (largely Gentile) church still present, but with the
Gentile emphasis fading, as the nations move away from Godly principles.
This also seems to be the principle pointed to in Romans 1, 1 Timothy 3:
Matthew 24: etc, where apostasy increases and faithfulness becomes scarce.

The enigma is that there were 2 comings foretold in the Old Testament, only
one of which was expected by the Jews.  Many now think there is a double
event in the record of Jesus next coming.  Because of the above, and in the
absence of any clear indication to the contrary, to date I only see this as a
single event.

								Andrew

    Andrew, if He who restrains (Holy Spirit) has to be taken away, and the 
    Holy Spirit indwells all of the believers that make up the church, then it
    is obvious that the church will be removed.
    
More reasons to ponder
----------------------
1. The church must be taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8).  The
   formation of the church is what suspended Daniel's 70th week.  The 70th
   week can't commence until God's people are out of the way.

2. Jesus Christ promised to come for us and bring us to heaven in John 14:2-3.
   He would personally come to take all believers at one time - both living
   and dead.

3. Christ must first come for all His saints before He can return with them
   and rescue Israel from Armageddon.  The Rapture takes place in the midst of
   peace (1 Thessalonians 5:3), the Second Coming in the midst of war
   (Revelation 19:11-21).  The Second Coming is solely to rescue Israel and
   destroy Antichrist.

4. Look at the typology of a Father helping His only Begotten Son obtain a
   Bride in Genesis 24.  The Bride is holy, pure, and undefiled.  The Father
   will not present a battered, beaten, bruised, and martyred Bride to the Son.

5. The Bride must be prepared for the War.  After the rapture will be the
   Bema Seat of Christ per 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15.  Then
   the Bride will get 7 days in the Father's house per the Jewish custom -
   this is the last week of Daniel.  At the end of the week, there is the
   marriage supper of the Lamb before Armageddon per Revelation 19:7-9.

6. Zechariah 14:5 says all the saints accompany Him to Armageddon.  The Church
   is required to have left already to return with Christ.

7. Jesus says in Luke 17:26-30, 21:34-36 that it will be business as usual when
   Christ returns.  He doesn't say He will return in an environment that
   describes the Great Tribulation.  Jesus says people will be eating, drinking,
   planting, building, buying, and selling.  He doesn't describe the economic
   situation or the mood of the earth during the Tribulation.  The Second Coming
   happens in Revelation 19.  Before then the devastation of earth and famine
   are described.  As early as Revelation 6:15-16 we read of the devastation of
   the earth.

8. The events of 1 Thessalonians 4 are: 1) Christ descends from Heaven to take
   His church out of the world.  2) He shouts and the trumpet sounds, shades of
   the Feast of Trumpets with the Shofar sounding.  The dead are raised to be
   with Him.  3) Those alive in Christ are caught up to be with Him.  4) The
   Lord takes the saints of all ages to heaven.

9. The strongest argument for post-trib is found in Matthew 24:29-31.  The
   proper interpretation of this verse is that this is the Second Coming of
   Christ since it follows the Great Tribulation.  The coming takes place with
   the visible signs associated with the Tribulation.  The rapture takes place
   when these signs aren't around and it's business as usual.  Just like in
   Noah's day, no tribulation had occured and the last thing expected is God's
   judgment.  The whole idea of the Rapture is imminency.

   to be continued...

Re: .16, .51  (Andrew)

I just want to let you know that I value the maturity of your contributions,
and that this maturity has not escaped my notice. 

I think that the thing that impresses me about your entries is that you are
able to be tactful and keep a tight reign on your tongue, while at the same
time speaking clearly and with conviction about God's words and his principles.
Usually, I've observed that people have either one or the other -- tact with
compromise, or lack of tact with no compromise.

Thanks for your example.  I hope to learn from it.

>At the risk of rousing a sleeping giant, I found your presentation to be full
>of exactly the same sort of circumstantial reasoning that Jehovah's Witnesses
>use to explain how Jesus returned invisibly in 1914.  My challenge to you
>therefore, is this:  If your reasoning from the scriptures is valid to show
>that there will be a rapture of believers 7 years before the 2nd coming of
>Christ, then why is the Watchtower Society's reasoning invalid to show that
>Jesus returned invisibly in 1914?  If you don't have their literature handy,
>just contact your local Kingdom Hall, and I'm sure they will be happy to 
>provide you with some.  I'll even loan you a copy of one of their books if
>you don't want to do that.  
    
    I don't need to know anything about a cult to know they were wrong,
    just need to know God's Word.  The signs that Christ told about were
    not in place then and Israel was not a nation.  Also, there were no
    signs afterwards to indicate a spiritual return of Christ.
    
    Mike

An "argument from silence" is when one argues and makes conclusions based on
what someone or some document does not say.

For example, the scripture does not mention that any of the early disciples
used musical instruments.  What, therefore, are we to conclude?

There are two fallacious lines of reasoning:

"The scriptures never say that they did, so we can assume that they didn't."

"The scriptures never say that they didn't, so we can assume that they did."

But in principle, silence proves nothing.

In pre-trib-rapture theory, an example of arguing from silence is as follows:

"The church isn't mentioned in Revelation chapters 8-18, so we can assume that
they are nowhere to be found upon the earth."

To which we might counter, fallaciously, "The church isn't mentioned as being
absent anywhere in Revelation chapters 8-18, so we can assume that they are
still there." 

But in principle, silence proves nothing.

Knowing this, let's look at the following example:

Re: .7  (Mike)

>Who will experience the wrath of God?
>-------------------------------------
>The Ungodly and the Unrighteous - Romans 1:18
>Children of Wrath, children of the world (those not born again) - Ephesians 2:3
>Sons of Disobedience - Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6
>Babylon the Great - Revelation 16:19
>The Nations (says Christ treads the winepress of the wrath of God almighty and
>        the nations of the Antichrist will be ruled with a rod of iron) -
>        Revelation 19:15
>Israel (two-thirds of the Jews will be wiped out) - Jeremiah 30:4-7,
>        Zechariah 13:8-9
>The Tribulation Saints (every tribe people and nation (Gentiles) will be in
>        the midst of this great tribulation)  - Revelation 13:7-10
>
>The Bible is very clear on who will experience the tribulation.  Do you fit
>into any of these categories?  You might say no, but that's an argument of
>silence.

So Mike, as you can see it is you who are forming an argument from silence.
This is because you have formed several catagories of people from the scripture
and implied that we must fit into one of them.  Any group of people that the
scriptures are silent about must not exist, you imply.

Do you see the fallacy?

Mike,

And are you suggesting that this second coming (from Matt 24)...

>    "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all
>the nations of the earth will mourn.  They will see the Son of Man coming on
>the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.  And he will send his 
>angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the
>four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
    
...is not the same as this second coming?...

>1 Thess 4:15
>    According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are alive, who
>are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have
>fallen asleep.  For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud
>command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and
>the dead in Christ will rise first.  After that, we who are still alive and are
>left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
>air.
    
Does 1 Thess 4:15 not say that the Lord himself will come down from heaven,
with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call
of God?

How can anybody miss it?  [Pun intended.]

>"The scriptures never say that they did, so we can assume that they didn't."
>
>"The scriptures never say that they didn't, so we can assume that they did."
>
>But in principle, silence proves nothing.
    
    ...but the OT speaks plenty of musical instruments in worshiping God
    and the OT where is the precedents are set by God.  Paul also writes of
    singing spiritual songs to the Lord.
    
>This is because you have formed several catagories of people from the scripture
>and implied that we must fit into one of them.  Any group of people that the
>scriptures are silent about must not exist, you imply.
    
    You missed the point.  We don't have to fit into one of them, because
    we don't fit into any of them.  To claim you do fit into one of those
    categories is an argument of silence.
    
    Mike

>And are you suggesting that this second coming (from Matt 24)...
>...is not the same as this second coming?...
    
    That is correct, they aren't the same.  One is an imminent return when
    the world isn't expecting it, where the Bride of Christ is raptured; the 
    other in Matthew is the Second Coming of Christ amid the signs at the end 
    of the Great Tribulation as described near the end of Revelation.
    
>Does 1 Thess 4:15 not say that the Lord himself will come down from heaven,
>with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call
>of God?

    And He will also come as a thief in the night when nobody expects it. 
    After this event, Daniel's 70th week starts and there is no imminency
    accompanying the Second Coming of Christ at the end of that week.
    
    At the Second Coming, He returns with His elect, who He took out of the
    world before the start of the Great Tribulation.  As is Jewish custom,
    the Bride goes to the Father's house for 1 week before the Marriage
    Supper of the Groom.
    
    Mike

Re: .58  (Mike)

>>Does 1 Thess 4:15 not say that the Lord himself will come down from heaven,
>>with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call
>>of God?
>
>    And He will also come as a thief in the night when nobody expects it. 
>    After this event, Daniel's 70th week starts and there is no imminency
>    accompanying the Second Coming of Christ at the end of that week.
    
But doesn't 1 Thess 4:15 say that the Lord himself will come down from heaven,
with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call
of God?

    It sure does, but there are at least 2 important distinguishing
    features about 1 Thess 4:15:
    
    1.  He doesn't touch down on the Earth as in the Second Coming.
    2.  The climate during this event is nothing like the climate during
        the Second Coming.

Re: .60  (Mike Heiser)

>>But doesn't 1 Thess 4:15 say that the Lord himself will come down from heaven,
>>with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call
>>of God?
>
>    It sure does, but there are at least 2 important distinguishing
>    features about 1 Thess 4:15:
>    
>    1.  He doesn't touch down on the Earth as in the Second Coming.

So let me get this straight.  The Lord himself comes down from heaven, but
doesn't touch down on earth.  In any case, nobody sees it.  It is with a loud
command, but nobody hears it. It is with the voice of the archangel, but nobody
hears that either.  And it is with the trumpet call of God, but nobody hears
that, either.  

Sounds quite analogous to the Jehovah's Witnesses "invisible presence" to me.

Anyway, as for Matt 24,

    "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all
the nations of the earth will mourn.  They will see the Son of Man coming on
the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.  And he will send his 
angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the
four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

Let's see if I get this straight.  The Lord himself comes down, and everyone
sees it.  It is with a loud trumpet call, and everyone hears it.  

    
    I have a problem with the idea of the "CHURCH" not going through the
    tribulation period. I look back at the deciples, apostles, and the
    early church (has any one read the book "foxs book of martyrs"). I
    can not find any answers why God would allow them to go through the
    trib. and us not to. 
    There are those who are being martyred in the name of Christ today.
    I do not believe the 144,000 are a part of the Jewish nation. I believe
    these people are those mentioned in scripture: " ...have no fault in
    them". I also believe the number is not literal but symbolic.
    
    Bruce
     
     

    But the Bible says specifically, 12,000 from each tribe of Isreal, and
    then proceeds to name the tribes.  I don't think this is symbolism.
    
    Also, the tribulations that the Apostles suffered came from the world,
    not from the wrath of God.  As with Noah, so shall it be with those in
    the time of the end (Noah was saved from God's wrath).
    
    We already suffer persecution and tribulations, but none of them are
    from God's wrath, but from the world.
    
    Although I lean towards a pre-trib rapture, I am not completely
    conviced that I am right.  I try to keep an open mind, and let God sort
    of His word in my heart and mind.
    
    -steve (who has no guts and is not taking a super-solid stance on this
    issue)  8^)

    when you speack of trib. are you speaking about the 7 last plauges in
    Revelation?
    
    Bruce
    

    Actually, I am speaking of pre-trib as being raptured before God begins
    His rightious wrath upon the earth.
    
    I guess that technically, only the last 3.5 years mentioned in
    Revelation is considered the Great Tribulation, after Satan is thrown
    down to the earth. 
    
    The ancient church of Christ believed that Jesus could return for them
    at any time (which suggests the rapture, rather than the end of the
    age, since many signs have to be fulfilled before the end of the age,
    as mentioned in Mark, Luke, etc.), so I feel that Christ will come back
    for His bride before God's wrath touches the earth.  Soon after, the
    Second Coming that will be seen by all.  One coming as a theif in the
    night, one coming in glory to be seen by all.
    
    FWIW.
    
    -steve (still somewhat wishy-washy)

>    I have a problem with the idea of the "CHURCH" not going through the
>    tribulation period. I look back at the deciples, apostles, and the
>    early church (has any one read the book "foxs book of martyrs"). I
>    can not find any answers why God would allow them to go through the
>    trib. and us not to. 
    
    Here's one answer most forget: the difference between God's Tribulation 
    and the world's tribulation.  Foxes Book of Martyrs is the world's
    tribulation as experienced by God's people and was limited in scope. 
    God's Tribulation is God's wrath poured out on all the unrighteous and
    is not limited in scope (worldwide).
    
    Mike

    Agreed, ....If your refering to the 7 last plagues mentioned in Rev.16
    vs. 2-21 these will be poured out upon the wicked and not the
    righteous. This does not mean that the "church" will be raptured up
    for this to happen. Psalms 91:7-9 "A thousand shall fall at thy side and
    tenthousand at thy right hand but it shall not come nigh thee. Behold
    and see the reward of the wicked."
    I do believe that the rightous will be persecuted by the world before
    the 7 last plagues are poured out. Once they begin (7 last plagues)
    Gods people will not be harmed.
    
    Bruce
    
     

The key here is that God does not have to rapture his people to protect them
from his wrath.

Next, let's dispense with the pre-trib "imminency" argument.

"Imminency" is actually a pre-trib-rapture problem.  Imagine the newspaper
headlines:  "Millions of Christians disappear.  Jesus to come in 7 years."

Keep in mind that imminency only applies to the unbelieving.  Those who
believe in Jesus are already prepared for Jesus' return, on account of their
faith.  For if we are justified and declared righteous on account of our faith,
it makes no difference whether Jesus comes today or tomorrow.

For the unbelieving and unrepentent, Jesus will come on a day that they are
not expecting.  They will be unprepared for it.

If the rapture is coincident with Jesus return, then surely the ungodly will
have no warning.

Hi Mike,

I can't come into this one too often, as the sound to noise level it's
likely to generate (ie light/heat ratio) is likely to be unhelpful.  
However I'll try to dip in from time to time...  I'll see if I can run 
through .52 usefully.

�    Andrew, if He who restrains (Holy Spirit) has to be taken away, and the 
�    Holy Spirit indwells all of the believers that make up the church, then it
�    is obvious that the church will be removed.

This does not follow.  I don't think you understood .51 on this issue.

� 1. The church must be taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8)....
Again, .51 addresses this.

� 2. Jesus Christ promised to come for us and bring us to heaven in John 14:2-3.
�    He would personally come to take all believers at one time - both living
�    and dead.
I agree that this is certainly the ultimate destiny of all Christians - to
accompany the LORD Jesus into His eternal heaven.  I am not aware of any 
other view held under Biblical Christianity.

� 3. Christ must first come for all His saints before He can return with them
�    and rescue Israel from Armageddon.  
References?

� The Rapture takes place in the midst of peace (1 Thessalonians 5:3), the
� Second Coming in the midst of war (Revelation 19:11-21).  

Now that's a more interesting one, Mike!  It vividly reflects the spirit of 
the age.  Remember that it does not say 'while there *is* peace and 
safety', but 'while people are saying peace and safety'.  This calls to 
mind certain Old Testament passages, like Jeremiah 6:14, 8:11, 14:13, 28:9...
['peace, peace they say, when there is no peace...]

The world and its prophets claim peace - the peace of the antiChrist, the 
peace of the new World order imposed on a seething and surging world, the 
peace obtained by getting rid, above all, of that pestering conscience in 
the midst, which is the Christians, and is the conviction of the Holy 
Spirit, Who is withdrawn so that sin multiplies unrestrained.

Remember Daniel 9:27, concerning the antiChrist :
 "He will confirm a covenant with many..."
 - implying that this is a majority decision rather than unanimous.  
Typical of todays' politics.  Also clearly expressed in the feet of
Nebuchadnezar's statue, where the iron and clay do not readily mix
together, meaning that the people are united in name only, as an empire,
but not in heart [Daniel 2:43].

Remember also Ezekiel 38:11, where an attack against Israel entered the mind 
of the enemy.  You might or might not see this as Armageddon - there are 
good arguments on both sides - but the principle holds, of outward, world 
presentation of peace, while the reality is war and destruction :

  "This is what the Sovereign LORD says, 'on that day thoughts will come into 
   your mind and you will devise an evil scheme.  You will say 'I will invade 
   a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting 
   people, all of them living without walls and gates and bars.  I will 
   plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the 
   people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods, living at 
   the centre of the land'....."

� 4. Look at the typology of a Father helping His only Begotten Son obtain a
�    Bride in Genesis 24.  
Can you point to any place in the new Testament where this passage is 
identified as typology, as Hagar is, in Galatians 4::24?  On what grounds 
do you take this as typological, rather than any other [bridal] passage?

� The Bride is holy, pure, and undefiled.  The Father will not present a
� battered, beaten, bruised, and martyred Bride to the Son. 
Mike, this is a typical argument from human emotional values.  The same
approach argues annihiliationism on the grounds of God's love.  This
argument is placing temporal wellbeing above spiritual and eternal
wellbeing.  I have heard it too often from people who should know better.
It is direct conflict with passages like :
  "Consider it pure joy, my brothers whenever you face trials of many kinds, 
   because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.  
   Perseverance must finish her work so that you may be mature and complete" 
							James 1:2
  "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are 
   suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.  But 
   rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that 
   you may be overjoyed when His glory is revealed."
							1 Peter 4:12-13
  "Blessed are you when  people insult you, persecute you and falsely say
   all kinds of evil against you, because of Me.  Rejoice and be glad, 
   because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they 
   persecuted the prophets who were before you."
							Matthew 5:11-12

		- You'd deny us that blessing,  that heavenly reward ... ? ;-}

� 5. The Bride must be prepared for the War.  After the rapture will be the
�    Bema Seat of Christ per 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15.  Then
�    the Bride will get 7 days in the Father's house per the Jewish custom -
�    this is the last week of Daniel.  At the end of the week, there is the
�    marriage supper of the Lamb before Armageddon per Revelation 19:7-9.

Again, this is what you have read into the passage, rather than what it
explicitly says.  In particular, Revelation 19:7-9 actually says that the
bride is ready.  Perfected.  Complete.  And the action that this
inmmediately and explicitly triggers - is the LORD's return to earth in
verse 11 onwards, to deliver His church from the trials under the
antiChrist.

I haven't time just now to address your other points (and I'm blowing the 
line number guidelines already), but they all break down similarly.  I 
would just emphasise Garth's reply on :
�    The whole idea of the Rapture is imminency.
Imminency is a false doctrine which misapplies and confuses the truths that
to the world, Jesus' return is totally unexpected and unanticipated, and to
the church, the precise day and hour are unpredictable.

�    to be continued...
			 ... i might know it ;-)


							Andrew

re .70

Andrew,

I felt compelled to make a reply to your comment...

;I agree that this is certainly the ultimate destiny of all Christians - to
;accompany the LORD Jesus into His eternal heaven.  I am not aware of any 
;other view held under Biblical Christianity.

Well the best place to look is the Bible itself and see what Our 
Grand Creator has purposed for those doing his will.

God's original purpose was for mankind to live forever on a 
paradise earth, In Genesis 1:28 God commissions Adam & Eve to 
fill the earth and to extend the boundaries of the garden of Eden...
"And God blessed them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the
earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, 
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth 
upon the earth." KJV. Did God allow the rebellion of the first human 
couple to change his purpose?. Isaiah 55:11 KJV answers this question, 
"So shall my word be that goeth forth from out of my mouth : it shall 
not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, 
and it shall proper in the thing whereto I sent it." God's original 
purpose for a paradise earth will succede and Adam's offspring will
be involved in this.

In line with this topic, Proverbs 2:21,22 KJV shows that there will be 
some righteous ones who will remain on earth when the wicked are cut off....
"For the upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain on
it. But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors 
shall be rooted out of it." Psalms 37 confirms this, verses 9-11 KJV reads 
"For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they 
shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not 
be: yea, thou shalt dilligently consider his place, and it shall not be. 
But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the 
abundance of peace." Jesus himself confirmed that "Blessed are the meek: 
for they shall inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5 KJV.

But the scriptures do indicate that a "little flock" of Christians will go 
to heaven (Luke 12:32). With what purpose?, Revelation 5:10 KJV answers 
"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the 
earth." What blessings will come for those that subject themselves here on 
earth to this heavenly kingdom of kings and priests!. John 10:16 mentions
"other sheep" are these to be the earthly subjects?.

On a final note, Peter shows that there are two different hopes for 
believers. 2 Peter 3:13 KJV reads "Nevertheless we, according to his 
promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
rightousness." Now setting a side any issue of these being literal
new heavens and earth, Peter is telling us that rightous ones will
reside in "a new earth" as well as "a new heaven". Thus God's original 
purpose will be fulfilled with righteous mankind (or believers) living 
forever on a paradise earth.

Phil. 

Hi Phil,

This is getting complicated - the pre- post- tribulational rapture
discussion is very specialised, and really only valid in the context of the
premillemial view.  To introduce another totally different viewpoint is
rather a red herring, and ought to have a different note.  However, I can
see that you would not feel happy to let my comment pass.  In fact, as I
typed it, you [and Mark] crossed my mind.  Perhaps I should have listened
more carefully! ;-} 

� God's original purpose was for mankind to live forever on a 
� paradise earth, 

Phil, in Genesis 1:28, God does not specify any timescale or ultimate
purpose for His instruction.  He only says that is how they are to live and 
work.  They are only given instructions for time, because they only needed
instructions for time just then.  That's all that was relevant before the
fall. 

In fact, you answer it yourself in the same paragraph :

� Did God allow the rebellion of the first human couple to change his
� purpose?. Isaiah 55:11 KJV answers this question, 
� "So shall my word be that goeth forth from out of my mouth : it shall not
� return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it
� shall proper in the thing whereto I sent it." God's original purpose ...
� ...... will succede and Adam's offspring will be involved in this. 

	� God's Word does not change
	� God's original purpose stands

John is very good at saying exactly why he is writing.  1 John 5:11 says :
  "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son"

Matthew 25:46 records of the saved, that they go to eternal life.

ie, omitting your words denoted by dots above [and not trying to misquote
you, but to apply your principle], God's original purpose will succeed, and
we can conclude that his original purpose was to sanctify for Himself a
people to populate eternity, as per Ephesians 1:4, for instance "He chose 
us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His 
sight..."

Many other references, but lack of time just now!  The reason why I excluded
the Jehovah's Witness stance in my generalisation was because I felt it was
not a mainstream belief of Christianity, and was, myself, considering the
range of millennial stances - a-, post- and pre-. 

If you want to pursue this, we should move it to another note so that we 
don't confuse the issues!

					God bless
							Andrew

>In fact, as I typed it, you [and Mark] crossed my mind.  Perhaps I should 
>have listened more carefully! ;-} 

To be more specific, since Mark *Sornson* hasn't frequented this file
(visibly) for a while (I have seen and spoken to him in the halls of ZKO),
the Mark to which Andrew is referring is Mark Sornson who shares the same
faith (Jehovah's Witness) as Phil Yerkess.  It's not that I don't want to
be known as Mark Sornson, mind you, but that we do have distinctly different
viewpoints based on our bases.

Mark M (who has been the only Mark here for a while)

re .72

Hi Andrew,

;This is getting complicated - the pre- post- tribulational rapture
;discussion is very specialised, and really only valid in the context of the
;premillemial view.  To introduce another totally different viewpoint is
;rather a red herring, and ought to have a different note.  

No problem, just felt compelled to make a comment.

; In fact, as I typed it, you [and Mark] crossed my mind. 

It was good to hear that we are still in your thoughts,
as Mark M. commented it has been sometime since Mark
has posted a note. This is true of myself.

� God's original purpose was for mankind to live forever on a 
� paradise earth, 

;Phil, in Genesis 1:28, God does not specify any timescale or ultimate
;purpose for His instruction.  He only says that is how they are to live and 
;work.  They are only given instructions for time, because they only needed
;instructions for time just then.  That's all that was relevant before the
;fall.

Andrew I understand what your saying, but the point is that even
mainstream Christianity acknowledge that Adam was originally designed to 
live forever, if he stayed obedient then he would still be around today.
With this in mind it gives us an insight to God's purpose for the earth,
for Adam and his offspring would still be following through with that
commission. 1 John 3:8b KJV reads "For this purpose the Son of God was 
manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil." The Devil's work 
in this instance was to temporarily bring a halt to these instructions
for a paradise earth, but through Christ it will be accomplished.
 
; If you want to pursue this, we should move it to another note so that we 
; don't confuse the issues!

Well I have pursued it a little in my previous paragraph (I hope you forgive
my indulgence), but I'm willing to leave it at that and let you have the last 
say. I am willing to discuss it, if yourself or others have interest to 
discuss in another note.


Phil.

    Garth, 
    
>So let me get this straight.  The Lord himself comes down from heaven, but
>doesn't touch down on earth.  In any case, nobody sees it.  It is with a loud
>command, but nobody hears it. It is with the voice of the archangel, but nobody
>hears that either.  And it is with the trumpet call of God, but nobody hears
>that, either.  
>
>Sounds quite analogous to the Jehovah's Witnesses "invisible presence" to me.
>
>Let's see if I get this straight.  The Lord himself comes down, and everyone
>sees it.  It is with a loud trumpet call, and everyone hears it.  

    Would you like an explanation of Rosh HaShanah (Feast of Trumpets -
    which is one of the prophetic fall feasts of Israel pointing to the
    return of Christ) and the procedure for using the Shofar or would you 
    rather research it yourself?  
    
    Also, can you think of other passages that talk of the trumpet sound
    not being heard by all?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>The key here is that God does not have to rapture his people to protect them
>from his wrath.
    
    Then God Himself would've used the proper Greek word in this passage to
    state that.  Instead, the Almighty chose the word for "REMOVAL."
    
Revelation 3:10
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the
hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell
upon the earth.

    

	Mike,

>   Would you like an explanation of Rosh HaShanah (Feast of Trumpets -
>    which is one of the prophetic fall feasts of Israel pointing to the
>    return of Christ) and the procedure for using the Shofar...

	I would, because like you I believe there is a time difference between
the harvest of the believers and the great winepress upon the nations. 

	Would you be so kind? Here or offline makes no difference.

Thanks,
ace

Re: .75  (Mike)

>    Would you like an explanation of Rosh HaShanah (Feast of Trumpets -

No, because this discussion, conference, and my intent is to focus on what
the scriptures say.  Scripture is not interpreted in light of non-scripture.
That is what the cults do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've presented pre-trib-rapture as something
which the scriptures teach.  If we are to understand that one trumpet is
heard by all and another by some, then what I want is a scripture reference
to that effect.

Re: .76  (Mike)

>>The key here is that God does not have to rapture his people to protect them
>>from his wrath.
>    
>    Then God Himself would've used the proper Greek word in this passage to
>    state that.  Instead, the Almighty chose the word for "REMOVAL."
>    
>Revelation 3:10
>Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the
>hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell
>upon the earth.
    
But the scripture does not say "rapture".  Even if all the Greek translators
are wrong and the word is "removal", this does not necessitate removal to
heaven.  Even Noah was not removed from the earth while it was being destroyed
out from under him. 

Also, I find it interesting that the dispensationalists claim that the messages
to the churches in Revelation are prophetic, each relating to a time period of
church history, then use the second to last one to justify the 
pre-trib-rapture, the one supposedly relating to the great evangelistic
movement of the 1800s.

Perhaps, if the sequence of churches represents the history of the church,
then those who were addressed by Rev 3:10 are all dead, fulfilling the
prophecy that they will be "kept from" the hour of temptation!

So I ask a more general question:  What does Rev 3:10 have to do with the
end times anyway?  Scripture references, please.

�>    Would you like an explanation of Rosh HaShanah (Feast of Trumpets -
�
�No, because this discussion, conference, and my intent is to focus on what
�the scriptures say.  Scripture is not interpreted in light of non-scripture.
�That is what the cults do.
    
    Are you saying the Feasts of Israel, and all that they include, are not 
    prescribed by the Lord in the Torah?

    Mike

>heaven.  Even Noah was not removed from the earth while it was being destroyed
>out from under him. 
    
    Noah is a type of Israel who goes through the Tribulation.  Enoch is a
    type of the church, who was raptured before the flood.  This is basic
    Bible study, Garth.

>Also, I find it interesting that the dispensationalists claim that the messages
>to the churches in Revelation are prophetic, each relating to a time period of
>church history, then use the second to last one to justify the 
    
    They're not only prophetic, they're symbolic.  Many look to Laodicea as
    the Health & Wealth movement.
    
>So I ask a more general question:  What does Rev 3:10 have to do with the
>end times anyway?  Scripture references, please.
    
    ...and you said you read my original entry.  It's all in there.
    
    Mike

MH�>    Would you like an explanation of Rosh HaShanah (Feast of Trumpets -
�
GW�No, because this discussion, conference, and my intent is to focus on what
GW�the scriptures say.  Scripture is not interpreted in light of non-scripture.
GW�That is what the cults do.

Surely understanding the context of Scripture is important, isn't it?

MM

Re: .80  (Mike)

>�>    Would you like an explanation of Rosh HaShanah (Feast of Trumpets -
>�
>�No, because this discussion, conference, and my intent is to focus on what
>�the scriptures say.  Scripture is not interpreted in light of non-scripture.
>�That is what the cults do.
>    
>    Are you saying the Feasts of Israel, and all that they include, are not 
>    prescribed by the Lord in the Torah?

I am interested in scripture that demonstrates that the prophecy of Matt 24
concerning the Lord's 2nd coming is a different event than the prophecy of 1
Thess 4 concerning the Lord's 2nd coming.  If there is an explanation in the
Torah of why these must be separate events, then I am interested.  I haven't
found it in the few paragraphs of scripture that document the Feast of
Trumpets.  Therefore, I assume that your intent is to elaborate on some aspect
of Jewish tradition concerning this event. 

As for prophetic speculation, I am interested in it -- don't get me wrong -- as
long as it is called speculation by the speculator.  I have some speculations
of my own, too.  But I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to present it as fact.

Re: .81  (Mike)

>>Even Noah was not removed from the earth while it was being destroyed
>>out from under him. 
>    
>    Noah is a type of Israel who goes through the Tribulation.  Enoch is a
>    type of the church, who was raptured before the flood.  This is basic 
>    Bible study, Garth.

Scripture reference to support this, please.

>>So I ask a more general question:  What does Rev 3:10 have to do with the
>>end times anyway?  Scripture references, please.
>    
>    ...and you said you read my original entry.  It's all in there.
    
Hand waving.  Be specific.  Extract the scripture reference from your 259-line
note.  Demonstrate that Rev 3:10 is a prophecy of the end times church.  I 
re-read the entire 259-line note (.7), and have only found your own statements
claiming that Rev 3:10 speaks to the end-times church.  I have found no
scripture in your note to support this. 

Re: .82  (Mark)

>Surely understanding the context of Scripture is important, isn't it?

Isogogical study is edifying, but not essential.  Surely you are not saying
that the scriptures cannot be understood without extrabiblical material?  How
can the inspired be interpreted in light of the uninspired?

      I have read just a couple replies and I just want to reply
      about Enoch.  I think it can be very fruitful to seek deeper
      symbolisms which I know are throughout the scriptures.
    
      Regarding Enoch and his link to the raptured ones, well, it
      might be good to also look at the life of a raptured person -
      that being Elijah.
    
      I think Elijah says quite a bit about apocalyptic events and the
      last generation that witnesses them.
    
                                                Tony

      re: .46
    
      Just read this one.
    
      Actually, if you believe in a great controversy of issues ala
      Job (and elsewhere), its settling will not result in a beaten
      up bride, but rather a bride victorious and standing as the sun.
    
      There are two houses.  One built on sand and the other on the Rock.
      The storm hits both houses.  The house that stands is not beaten
      down one iota.  The gates of hell cannot prevail against it.
    
      Scripture repeatedly uses the imagery of the building of structures
      (among other things) as the maturity of God's people and the comple-
      tion of said building as an apocalyptic event.
    
      When the house is fully built, it endures the exact same storm that
      destroys the house built on sand.  
    
                                                     Tony

    Re: Note 644.83 by NETCAD::WIEBE
    
�I am interested in scripture that demonstrates that the prophecy of Matt 24
�concerning the Lord's 2nd coming is a different event than the prophecy of 1
�Thess 4 concerning the Lord's 2nd coming.
    
    Garth,
    
    While I've stayed out of the fray this go-round I would like to share
    my understanding of Matt 24 with you. I have written a paper that I
    think properly explains the Olivet Discourse, and wouldn't you know it
    - it supports a pre-trib rapture position :-). I don't expect it will
    change a died-in-the-wool post-tribber (it didn't change Andrew's
    mind), but I still think it's right. I'll mail you a copy under
    separate cover. If anyone else is interested, it's yours for the
    asking. It's in PostScript.
    
    	BD�

    I've been wanting to get in here and write what I've studied from
    the Bible but haven't had the time. I'm VERY thankful to read this
    and seeing very little if any SHOUTING going on. Praise God!!! It
    is good to share what we believe without getting defensive etc.
    
    I do not know where the "Rapture" came from when I was a kid going
    to a Baptist Church I never heard the word Rapture. It was always
    the Second Comming of the Lord. Not untill Hal Linsay(sp?) did I
    hear about the Rapture. At that time it was "The Secret Rapture"
    but that has kinda faded away.
    One reason why I believe (there are several) that Christ will only
    come once to recieve his Church, is the parable of the harvest.
    During the harvest the fruit is picked and the chaff/weeds are
    burned or destroyed. This picture shows of "ONE" harvest When Christ
    recieves His people and the Weeds/chaff are the wicked and they are
    represented and being burned in Hell. 
    Also I believe the 144,000 is a symbolic number as well as the 12
    tribes in Revelation. Revelation is full of symbalisum(sp). And why
    I believe it is symbolic is because in the book of Hebrews 8:8 it speaks
    about Israel will recieve the second or New covenant if that were the
    case we are out of luck. I believe that Israel means "overcommer" and
    not a tribe. Every person who asks God into their lives and have become
    converted are overcommers.
    Just some thoughts....
    
    Bruce
    

Re: .88  (Barry)

>    While I've stayed out of the fray this go-round I would like to share
>    my understanding of Matt 24 with you. I have written a paper that I
>    think properly explains the Olivet Discourse, and wouldn't you know it
>    - it supports a pre-trib rapture position :-). I don't expect it will

I printed out and read your paper.  Pretty good job.

I didn't find anything in the paper that discussed the rapture, however.

    re .49 (NETCAD::WIEBE)
    
>At the risk of rousing a sleeping giant, I found your presentation to be full
>of exactly the same sort of circumstantial reasoning that Jehovah's Witnesses
>use to explain how Jesus returned invisibly in 1914.  
    
    	Though I am tired today, I wouldn't say that I am "sleeping"; but
    does being 6'2" make me a giant?  ;-)
    
    	No matter ... consider this "sleeping giant" to be unawakened.  If
    anyone would care to discuss JW-related matters, feel free to send me
    (or Phil Y.) e-mail.
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .73 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>To be more specific, since Mark *Sornson* hasn't frequented this file
>(visibly) for a while (I have seen and spoken to him in the halls of ZKO),
>the Mark to which Andrew is referring is Mark Sornson who shares the same
>faith (Jehovah's Witness) as Phil Yerkess.  It's not that I don't want to
>be known as Mark Sornson, mind you, but that we do have distinctly different
>viewpoints based on our bases.
    
    	Well, you know that we JWs have this thing about 'invisible
    presence' ... ;-)  Just because we aren't seen doesn't mean we aren't
    here.
    
    								-mark.

    Re: Note 644.90 by NETCAD::WIEBE
    
�I printed out and read your paper.  Pretty good job.

�I didn't find anything in the paper that discussed the rapture, however.
    
    Thanks for the compliment. It has been a while since I wrote/read it,
    so my memory is obviously playing tricks on me. Now that you've made me
    think about it, the emphasis of my paper is to distinguish the pre-AD70
    stuff from the post-AD70 stuff. I guess you're right - it doesn't
    address the two phases of the Second Coming explicitly. I'm tempted to
    add that for my next edition, but then you post-tribbers probably
    wouldn't want to read it :-). Sorry for misleading anyone.
    
    	BD�

Re: .93  (Barry)
    
>    add that for my next edition, but then you post-tribbers probably

Before you call me a "post-tribber", you ought to find out whether I buy into
your definition of what a "trib" is.

    Garth,
    
    Sorry if I caused you offense. I assure you that none was intended.
    Rightly or wrongly (and apparently in your case, it's the latter) I use
    the term post-tribber for anyone who doesn't accept that there will be
    a removal of the Church prior to Daniel's 70th week (what I believe is
    the generally accepted definition for the Tribulation). If that label
    isn't appropriate for you please accept my apologies.
    
    	BD�

Re: .95  (Barry)

>    Sorry if I caused you offense. I assure you that none was intended.
>    Rightly or wrongly (and apparently in your case, it's the latter) I use
>    the term post-tribber for anyone who doesn't accept that there will be
>    a removal of the Church prior to Daniel's 70th week (what I believe is
>    the generally accepted definition for the Tribulation). If that label
>    isn't appropriate for you please accept my apologies.
    
No offense taken, I can assure you.  And no apologies needed.  I just don't
agree to wearing a "post-trib" label. 

I would question whether it is appropriate to attach the label "Tribulation"
to Daniel's 70th week, so I don't buy into your "-trib" any more than I buy 
into your "pre-."

But then, "pre-70th" vs. "mid-70th" vs. "post-70th" would cause one to lose
sight of the passion of the "God would allow..." vs. "God wouldn't allow..."
debate, don't you think? 

??

Garth, he's fallen back on his trump card and been raptured ;-)

					Andrew [ with apologies .... ]

No .... not actually raptured.  At least, not yet.  Not according to what
he said on the phone.  I just checked, and he was very much there (once I'd 
explained that was just how I pronounce my name ;-)

Yuille is a very seasonal name.  It's pronounced like 'Yule', but without 
the frosting.  But then, imagine it said in an English accent....  That, 
I'll have to leave Mike to explain....  ;-)

					Andrew (spoken without any accent)

 Rapture snarf!

Trust you feel really uplifted by that one, Jim.... ;-)



...and I'd never noticed!

					&

    >                          -< Calling Mike Heiser... >-
    
    Still here, Garth.  Since it appears that you even have different
    terminology, not to mention beliefs, perhaps you would enlighten us as
    to what you actually believe in the light of God's Word.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Re: .102  (Mike)
    
>    Still here, Garth.  Since it appears that you even have different
>    terminology, not to mention beliefs, perhaps you would enlighten us as
>    to what you actually believe in the light of God's Word.
    
I believe that there is no scriptural support for the idea that the church will
be raptured up to heaven 7 years or more before the visible, public, 2nd coming
of the Lord. 

Terminology:

"church" = true New Testament believers
"rapture" = snatched out of this physical world
"tribulation" = time of trouble (generically).  Your camp uses this word to 
refer to Daniel's 70th week, 7 years immediately preceeding the visible 2nd
coming of the Lord.

Now, I believe that we left off our discussion before the Christmas holidays
with my response to you in replies .83 and .84.  

� Now, I believe that we left off our discussion before the Christmas holidays
� with my response to you in replies .83 and .84.  

...and mine in .70 ....  in fact, your replies since .51 didn't seem to 
have taken in what I put there either ... ;-}

								Andrew

    Garth, please state what *YOU* believe.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Short side question:

What is the purpose of knowing which it is?

MM

Re: .105  (Mike)

>                    -< seem to be different from Andrew's >-

I've found nothing in his entries here to take issue with.  In fact I've found
his entries quite sound. 

>    Garth, please state what *YOU* believe.
    
Okay, let's try this again:

I believe that there is no scriptural support for the idea that the church will
be raptured up to heaven 7 years or more before the visible, public, 2nd coming
of the Lord. 

Now, we left off our discussion before the Christmas holidays with my response
to you in replies .83 and .84. 

    Mark, the purpose of this question is to prevent this from becoming a
    "let's bash Heiser" topic.  
    
    Garth, maybe I wasn't specific enough.  When and how does the Bride of 
    Christ (His Church) get to heaven?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

�    Garth, maybe I wasn't specific enough.  When and how does the Bride of 
�    Christ (His Church) get to heaven?

Hi Mike,

If I can pose as Garth for a moment, Revelation 19 is probably as clear a 
passage as any on this, but I need to separate out your questions :

� When does the Bride of Christ (His Church) get to heaven?

When the righteousness and evil of this current age are fulfilled (cf 
Genesis 15:16).  Revelation 19 follows the condemnation of the Babylon of 
materialism and idolatry (chapter 18), and rejoices in the completion of 
the LORD's work.  In verse 7 is announced the readiness of the bride, which 
wonderfully coincides with the completion of the other plans for creation.

The consequence is then given in verses 11-21, where the LORD Jesus comes 
forth from heaven with the angelic army to confront the antichrist, and 
overthrow him by the power & splendour of His coming (cf 2 Thessalonians 
2:8, Daniel 8:25, 11:45 etc...)

� How does the Bride of Christ (His Church) get to heaven?
Possibly by horse, as that's the way referred to in Revelation 19:11,14.

However the first part of the journey at least is by being caught up into 
the air, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:17

Note that the LORD Jesus descends from heaven to oppose the antichrist and 
his armies, but no physical fighting takes place.  Although the antichrist 
turns all his weaponry against the LORD, it is ineffective (after all, 
they have eternal, resurrection bodies, both the LORD Jesus, the angels, 
and the church which is then joining Him in teh air - cf 1 Corinthians 
15:51-55, where we are all changed 'in the twinkling of an eye', to 'put on
immortality' etc etc.  Meanwhile, the a/c (and his prophet) is totally
blown out of the water by the LORD Jesus, by 'the breath of His mouth and
the splendour of his coming (2 Thessalonians 2:8), and consigned to Gehenna
in his living body (Revelation 19:20), while the rest of the army is 
destroyed in a more usual way (?) by 'the sword that came out of the mouth' 
of the LORD Jesus.  The different treatment of the antichrist is presumably 
because of his direct satanic origin and power, per Revelation 13:4, Daniel 
8:24, etc).

This is also summarised in Zechariah 14, which says :

:2
 "I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it..."
:3
 "Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations as He fights in 
the day of battle.  On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, 
east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will split in two from east to 
west, forming a great valley ...." through which people will flee.
This passage contains a lot more detail, eg the destruction of the opposing 
army by plague, and turning on each other.  It also emphasises the ensuing 
reign of the LORD over all the earth, and the worship of the nations.

I have commonly heard those who hold to a different return of the LORD for 
His church attempt to ridicule the above on the basis that the church 
ascends to the LORD, only to immediately descend with Him.  There are [at 
least] two things they overlook in this.

i)  It is natural and honouring to go out to welcome the return of the LORD 
    to His creation, where He is to reign awhile.  It would be rather an 
    insult to His glory if His return to His creation was acknowledged more 
    by His enemies than by His bride.

ii) Whichever view is held, one party has to return from part way.  If 
    1 Thessalonians 4:17 referred to the LORD taking the saints out of this
    earth and into heaven, then the LORD Jesus Himself would be doing the 
    about turn in mid air.  Neither view is a subject for ridicule.

When my sons come hoome from University, I go to the railway station to
meet them (unless their luggage merits me going all the way there).  Then I
just turn round to return home with them.  Now you go to a railway station
to make a journey by train.  Not just to turn round and come home again. 
But I do!  The same happens to many people... 

Meanwhile, it seems that the bride has a special relationship to the LORD 
Jesus, and is active with Him during the millennium (in glorified bodies), 
following the sheep and goats judgement (Matthew 25, and preceding the 
great white throne judgement (Revelation 20:11...).

The passing of the physical, temporal creation is referred to in 
Revelation 19:11, not as the eternal beings physically moving away from it 
and into heaven, but as the material dissolving away, as it is no longer
needed - its purpose is complete.  There is also some description of this
in Isaiah 34:4 and Revelation 6:12-14, and it is referred to as having
'passed away' in Revelation 21:1.  

It is no longer relevant for the bride to move from earth to heaven; she is 
with the LORD for ever (1 Thessalonians 4:17); His presence *is* heaven, 
not merely implying that it's great to be with Him, but meaning that where 
God is, there is completion of perfection and peace.  

Then, Revelation 21 starts with a description of the eternal domain,
including the presence of the Bride, the New Jerusalem.  I am not quite 
clear on the equating of the two, and the position of the church in this; I 
have to wait on the LORD here.  I don't know whether 'the New Jerusalem' 
is, say, the bridal suite, or whether it is an actual description of the 
church.  I have not yet heard any explanation of this that witnesses within 
me.  The glimpse of heaven given on continuing into Revelation 22 is 
wrestling with the limits of our comprehension, as it enters the unknowable 
state of sinless perfection with God Himself....

Times up, lines [more than] up.  I hope this is of some help in clarifying
my (and maybe Garth's) understanding here. 

						God bless
							Andrew

    Andrew, thanks for your post-trib rapture view.  My answer to your
    question(s) are forthcoming (just have to type in my research).
    
    Mike

Re: .108  (Mike)

>    Mark, the purpose of this question is to prevent this from becoming a
>    "let's bash Heiser" topic.  
    
Well, perhaps you could invite Barry Dysert, or Hal Lindsay, or C.I. Scofield
for that matter, to help you out.

>    Garth, maybe I wasn't specific enough.  When and how does the Bride of 
>    Christ (His Church) get to heaven?
    
I don't see why in principle I should be obligated to provide a counter-
proposal.  You stated in public and with confidence that there will be a
rapture 7 years before the 2nd coming of the Lord, and I stated that the Bible
says no such thing.  I am justified in questioning whether you can substantiate
your proposal, and you should be prepared to give a defense for this particular
hope that is within you.  The burden of proof rests clearly on you. 

After getting my own fingers burnt when I myself touted the pre-trib-rapture
theory, I should hope that I have learned a lesson and will now be more careful
in elaborating on prophetic events of the future.  Should I now replace my
former pre-trib-rapture beliefs with more speculation?  Don't expect me to
jump on the bandwagon again.  Besides, Andrew Yuille is doing a much better
job than I could do of elaborating on the end-times prophecies.  He has 
clearly thought things out better than either you or I, so I am going to let
him do that dialogue with you.

I've come to the realization that prophetic scripture is like a jigsaw puzzle,
in that you tend to say "Ahah!" after the prophecy is fulfilled.  When the
pieces have all been put together, you see the picture clearly and you see
that it could not have been put together any other way, but that it was all
part of a master plan by the Creator.  Beforehand, you see bits and pieces, and
the picture becomes clearer as the puzzle is put together. 

History has shown time and again how God has outsmarted (for lack of a better
word) all of mankind and the devil, demonstrating his wisdom and foreknowledge
and our lack of it.  If I had lived in Jesus' day, I probably would have made
the same mistakes that the rest of his disciples made in predicting what he was
about to accomplish, painting for myself a superficially rosy picture based on
my own desire to be delivered from earthly trials and tribulation.  Then it was
Rome, and in the future it appears that it will be the Beast and the False
Prophet and their terrible "Roman empire," so to speak. 

In any case, you may be missing the spirit and intent of my entries here.
I am not so concerned with the timing of the rapture and the Lord's coming
as I am concerned with bad exegesis.  It concerns me when people misuse the
scriptures to further their own agendas, reading into it what they will when
it says nothing of the sort.  And others rally about them, because the story
is so appealing.

As for the rapture, I have no reason to doubt that you and I will be ready
either way, so long as we place our faith in Jesus, and not the rapture itself.
It will be the unbelievers who will be caught by surprise and unprepared
when the Day arrives.

So now, I believe that we left off our discussion before the Christmas holidays
with my response to you in replies .83 and .84.  I am intent on pushing this
controversy to a resolution.  What have you to say about my objections to your
reasoning?

    Re: Note 644.111 by NETCAD::WIEBE
    

�Re: .108  (Mike)

�>    Mark, the purpose of this question is to prevent this from becoming a
�>    "let's bash Heiser" topic.  
    
�Well, perhaps you could invite Barry Dysert, or Hal Lindsay, or C.I. Scofield
�for that matter, to help you out.

    I'm honored to be included with Scofield! (Lindsay, too, since he's a
    decent author; although he and I don't intrepret Revelation the same
    way.) I don't mind being bashed, either. So long as it's done
    electronically (I have a low pain tolerance :-).
    
    	BD�

>What is the purpose of knowing which it is?
>
>    Mark, the purpose of this question is to prevent this from becoming a
>    "let's bash Heiser" topic.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.  I mean, what is the purpose to knowing whether
Christ's return will be before or after the tribulation?

Mark

� I've come to the realization that prophetic scripture is like a jigsaw puzzle,
� in that you tend to say "Ahah!" after the prophecy is fulfilled.  When the
� pieces have all been put together, you see the picture clearly and you see
� that it could not have been put together any other way, but that it was all
� part of a master plan by the Creator.  Beforehand, you see bits and pieces, 
� and the picture becomes clearer as the puzzle is put together. 

Now that sums it up marvellously, Garth!  It most clearly shows up the 
difference between :
    pre-millenialism 
	- which can point to a fulfillment as exactly matching the prophecy
 and 
    a-millenialism
	- which can point to a host of events and say, well, they might have 
	  fulfilled this or that if you take x to mean y, and # to denote �.

- While all the messianic prophecies are unmistakable.  To the point that
for some, we only realise afterwards that something *was* a prophecy, by
its precise fulfillment.  Still, I digress.... 

� Beforehand, you see bits and pieces, and the picture becomes clearer as
� the puzzle is put together.

There are a number of reasons for this.  One is that we aren't meant to be 
carrying the burden of the last days, and in particular, the tribulation, 
until it is close.  For instance, when Daniel was written, he was told 
explicitly that he wasn't eevn meant to understand what he himself had been 
given to write!  Daniel 12:9 :
  "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the 
   time of the end."

Much of the book of Daniel only clarifies in meaning (and how it does!!!) 
when the book of Revelation is opened too.

Another reason for the obscurity of prophecy is because it is to remain 
misunderstood and disbelieved by the unregenerate.  That is why they are 
taken by surprise....  

We understand it by the revelation of the Spirit, to the degree that our
eyes are opened.  The fact that we understand different details differently
can be due to areas where our humanity clouds our acceptance.  I'm not
suggesting a spirituality comparison here, so much as the specific and
personal individuality God has for each one of us.  Neither am I claiming 
to 'be right' (even if - though - I am ;-).

� When the pieces have all been put together, you see the picture clearly
� and you see that it could not have been put together any other way, but
� that it was all part of a master plan by the Creator.  

Now this is where the real richness of God's plan and His Word light up!
There is one unique reality that God's Word reveals.  Often we get one or 
another little bit of the picture, but can't quite fit the whole together - 
I know I have many gaps in understanding.  BUT - I believe that God's Word 
was given to us to understand, and that He reveals more and more of it as 
the time comes right, that we should be prepared, tht we should recognise 
the times, and that we should be ready to welcome Him back.  Also, that 
recognising his Word being fulfilled, we are not discouraged (Luke 21:28), 
but spurred on to be yet more like Him....

The Bible was written for us to read and understand.  Not a memo to remind
God what He has to do next.  Not for eternity, to remind us what we went
through, but for us now, in time.  To shrug off prophecy as too divisive or
obscure for real Christians to bother with, is to tell God that He made a
mistake in including it in His Word.  He put it there for us to study and
learn to understand under Him.  And not even so much to know 'facts', as to
know the One Who designed the facts... 

There is a special blessing pronounced on those who study one book of the 
Bible :

  "Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are 
   those who hear it and take to hearts what is written in it, because the 
   time is near."
							Revelation 1:3

Now that's a free gift I find it hard to refuse ... ;-)

						God bless
								Andrew

>I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.  I mean, what is the purpose to knowing
    >whether Christ's return will be before or after the tribulation?
    
    To watch and be ready and to rightly interpret God's Word.

    Okay Andrew and Garth, I believe this should answer your questions to
    me from .70, .83, and .84.
    
When will the Rapture take place?
---------------------------------
Jesus said, "No man knows the day or hour," and for us to presume to declare
some date or some hour would be an unscriptural presumption.  If we say we know
the hour, we're boasting of knowledge superior to Christ's when He was upon
earth.  Although we do not know the exact time of the Rapture, in 1
Thessalonians 5 Paul said, "But the times and seasons, brethren, you have no
need that I write unto you.  For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of
the Lord is coming as a thief in the night.  For when they will say, Peace and
safety; then comes sudden destruction...*But ye, brethren, are not in darkness
that that day should overtake you as a thief.*"  The Bible is saying that the
Rapture shouldn't come to you as a surprise.

Why should "that day" not overtake us as a thief?
-------------------------------------------------
God has given to us the warnings that would precede the coming of Jesus Christ.
One of the greatest signs to the world today is the reestablishment of the
nation Israel.  For years Bible scholars had looked forward to the regathering
of the nation Israel based on many Scriptures (including Matthew 24:32), and
applying expositional constancy (fig tree or figs in parables symbolize the
nation Israel).  Skeptics ridiculed this prophecy.  Never in history had a
nation been born out of the past, but a miracle has taken place and a nation has
been reborn.  God has reestablished Israel among the family of nations on the
earth.  God has fulfilled His promise even as He said He would.  Psalm 102:16
declares, "When the Lord shall build up Zion, He shall appear in His glory."
Because the Lord is building up Zion, the orthodox Jew today is looking for his
Messiah.  We are too!  We're looking forward to this fulfillment of God's
promise - the coming again of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.  "Now learn
a parable of the fig tree; when its branch is yet tender, and putteth forth
leaves, you know that summer is nigh...even know that it [My coming] is near,
even at the doors.  Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till
all these things be fulfilled" (Matthew 24:32-35).

What "generation"?
------------------
Not the generation Christ was talking to, because they've passed - but the
generation that saw the fig tree budding forth.  The coming of Jesus Christ is
"even at the doors."  The rebirth of Israel should be a sign to every child of
God!  Jesus said throughout the rest of Matthew 24, "Watch...be ye also ready."
That was the constant warning to the Church: *watch and be ready.*  In Luke
21:28 when Jesus was speaking of these same things, using again the parable of
the fig tree, He said, "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look
up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh."

Will the Rapture precede the Great Tribulation?
-----------------------------------------------
There are arguments and Scriptures that people can present for pre-, mid-, and
post-Tribulation theories.  My personal opinion is that Jesus will come before
the Great Tribulation to rapture His Church.  I don't believe that the Church
will go through the Great Tribulation period.  In 1 Thessalonians 5:9 Paul
wrote, "For God who has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by
our Lord Jesus Christ."  Paul said the same in Romans 5:9 - we've not been
appointed to wrath.  Jesus, in the whole context of the Tribulation, said, "Pray
always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall
come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man" (Luke 21:36).  My prayer is
that I will be accounted worthy to escape all of these things that are going to
come to pass upon the earth.

The Lord divided the Book of Revelation into 3 sections: "1) Write the things
which thou hast seen, 2) and the things which are, 3) and the things which shall
be after these things ('meta tauta')" (Revelation 1:19).  John in obedience to
the commandment, wrote in chapter 1 the vision of Christ that he saw on the
island of Patmos.  In chapters 2 and 3 he wrote of the Church and the message of
Jesus to the 7 churches.  Let's look at 2 of these messages where Jesus made
reference to His coming again.

1. The church of Thyatira had introduced the worship of idols within the church.
Jesus said, "I have this against thee because thou sufferest that woman,
Jezebel...to seduce my servants to commit fornication...I gave her space to
repent of her fornication, and she repented not.  Behold I will cast her into a
bed and them that commit adultery with her into *great tribulation,* except they
repent of their deeds" (Revelation 2:20-22).  The unrepentant church of
Thyatira, which had gone into spiritual "fornication" (idolatry and
saint-worship), was to be cast into the Great Tribulation unless, the Lord said,
she repented.

2. To the church of Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10 Jesus said, "Because you
have kept the word of my patience, I also will keep you from the *hour of
temptation* which is coming to try them who dwell upon the earth."  The Rapture
can happen at *any moment* - and it's exciting to realize that as a Christian
you may never finish reading this article!  After the close of the messages to
the churches, Revelation 4:1 begins and ends with the Greek phrase 'meta tauta.'
"After these things," John said, "behold, a door was opened in Heaven: and the
first voice which I heard was a trumpet saying unto me, Come up hither, and I
will show you things which must be after these things ('meta tauta')."

After what "things"?
--------------------
Jesus spoke of Church things in chapters 2 and 3.  These must be the things that
will take place after the Church is taken out of the earth.  I believe that 4:1
of the Book of Revelation is the place of the Rapture of the Church.  That
"voice" in Heaven and "trumpet" are the same as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.  With
the trump of God and the archangel saying, "Come up hither," we the Church will
be gathered together with the Lord in the heavens.

After what "things"?
--------------------
Jesus spoke of Church things in chapters 2 and 3.  These must be the things that
will take place after the Church is taken out of the earth.  I believe that 4:1
of the Book of Revelation is the place of the Rapture of the Church.  That
"voice" in Heaven and "trumpet" are the same as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.  With
the trump of God and the archangel saying, "Come up hither," we the Church will
be gathered together with the Lord in the heavens.

What happens after Revelation 4:1?
----------------------------------
John describes the heavenly scene in chapter 4.  In chapter 5 he saw the scroll
with 7 seals in the right hand of Him Who is sitting upon the throne.  An angel
proclaimed with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll, and to loose
its seals?"  John began to sob convulsively, because no one in Heaven or earth
nor under the earth was found worthy to even look upon the scroll (Revelation
5:2-4).  Then one of the elders said, "Weep not, behold, the Lion of the tribe
of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its
7 seals."  John turned and saw Jesus as a Lamb that had been slain, "and He came
forth and He took the scroll out of the right hand of Him Who sat upon the
throne."  Immediately they brought forth the "vials full of odors which are the
prayers of the saints.  And they sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to
take the book, and open its seals; for Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to
God by Thy blood out of ever kindred, and people, and tongue, and nation; and
made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign [with Him] upon the
earth" (Revelation 5:5-10).  Notice the song that is being sung.

Who can sing that song?
-----------------------
It's not the song of Israel and the covenant relationship with God.  People from
all the families of the earth, not just one family of Abraham, are singing.
It's a people who have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.  Only the
Church can sing that song.  In Revelation 5:11 after Jesus takes the scroll,
John said that innumerable multitudes, "10,000 times 10,000" worship the Lamb,
declaring His worthiness to receive the honor, and the authority, and the glory.
In Revelation 6 Jesus proceeds to loose the seals of the scrolls.  With the very
first seal there comes forth the white horse rider, going "forth conquering, and
to conquer."  This, I believe, is the entrance of the Antichrist, because he's
followed by wars, death, famine, and desolation.  Certainly, the Second Coming
of Christ isn't going to be followed by such events, but by the glorious
establishment of the Kingdom.

Now where's the Church?
-----------------------
Before the Tribulation ever begins the Church is in Heaven singing and praising
the Lord for His worthiness to take the scroll and loose the seals.  The
Tribulation doesn't start until the 7 seals begin to be broken.

Then Why all the confusion concerning pre-Trib, mid-Trib, and post-Trib Rapture?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 13:7 of the Book of Revelation reference is made to the beast making "war
with the saints," and he is given power "to overcome them" during the middle of
the Tribulation period.  Jesus in Matthew 24:29-31 said about His Second Coming,
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days...they shall see the Son of Man
coming in the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory."  Then shall He
"gather together His elect from the 4 winds."  By defining "the saints" and "His
elect" as being the Church you would have the Church in the Tribulation period.
I believe "His elect" is a reference to the nation Israel, if you read it in
context.

Christ said, "Pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the Sabbath day"
when fleeing out of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:16-20).  How many in the Church expect
to be in Jerusalem fleeing when the Antichrist sets up his image within the
temple?  How many of you would be praying, "O God, don't let it be on the
Sabbath day"?  The Church doesn't keep the Sabbath; that's God's covenant
relationship with Israel.  The fact is that Israel is "His elect."  He's going
to gather them back into their land for the Kingdom Age at His return.  As Paul
said in Romans 11:25-26, "That blindness in part is happened to Israel, until
the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.  And so all Israel shall be saved; as
it is written, there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away
ungodliness from Jacob."

"The saints" of Revelation 13:7 are also the same.  They are God's nation Israel
which He has now established again in a priority basis upon the earth during
this last 7-year Tribulation period.  The mistake and confusion regarding the
Church's place in the last times arise our of a misunderstanding of God's full
prophecies concerning the nation Israel.  Israel will be going through the Great
Tribulation.  This will be the time of Jacob's Trouble spoken of in Scripture
(Jeremiah 30:7).  This will be the time when, as even Jesus said, "You will not
see Me henceforth, until you shall say, Blessed is He Who comes in the name of
the Lord" (Matthew 23:29).  After the Great Tribulation period Israel will be
saying, "O blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord!"  Jesus shall return
again *with His Church* at the Second Coming of Christ.

Zechariah the prophet said, "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds
in your hands?  Then He shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the
house of my friends" (Zechariah 13:6).  Thus, the glorious first recognition of
Jesus as Israel's Messiah when He comes the second time with the Church to
establish His reign upon the earth.

>>I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.  I mean, what is the purpose to knowing
>>whether Christ's return will be before or after the tribulation?
 >   
 >   To watch and be ready and to rightly interpret God's Word.

Well, I have been watching for Christ's return and am ready.
It still doesn't matter to me whether he comes before or after
the tribulation.  Distilled: be ready, is the theme.

Rightly interpreting God's word regarding this matter: for what 
purpose?  To be ready or to get ready?  We know that Christ will return.
No one knows the day nor the hour, although we can probably know the
season (Jesus said we can interpret the signs).  But for what?  To 
watch and be ready.  Okay.  We're ready.

In other words, I find it an interesting exercise to try to determine 
whether God's Word says Jesus will come again before or after the
tribulation but it is beside the point of the message.

I just want to be clear that it is okay to divide the word of Truth 
to see whether it is conclusive as to when Jesus will appear, but let's
ensure that we never forget the message because we're spending a whole
lot of energy on it.  And let's be careful to discern when we've spent 
too much time on nits than on other things that require our attentions.
And I'm calling the kettle black and guilty as the next person - I've 
done it too.  I don't intend to even slow this debate down - I just wanted
to know why the point was being debated.

Mark

    Mark, when doing a jigsaw puzzle, what do you do first?  You complete the 
    frame or border first.  Jesus Christ is the frame around the entire Bible.  
    Under Christ, all the pieces fit.  Under Christ, the picture is complete 
    since Christ fulfills all.  This is especially true when putting together 
    the pieces of prophecy.  If you miss any piece or ignore pieces, the 
    picture isn't complete.  Ignoring Israel in prophecy is a huge mistake. 
    I believe that is what those who support mid- or post- are doing:
    ignoring Israel.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Re: .116, .117  (Mike)

>    Okay Andrew and Garth, I believe this should answer your questions to
>    me from .70, .83, and .84.

I've read your two-part reply and can't find answers to the questions that I
asked you in my replies .83 and .84.  In fact, it appears that you haven't even
attempted to address the questions I posed. 

Let me makes this even easier and focus on just one point at a time.  I'll
start with the last point in my reply .84.  All I'm asking for right now is
that you explicitly address this point: 

Rev 3:10 documents Jesus telling the church of Philidelphia that they
would be "kept from the hour of trial".  You assume that this supports the
idea that the end-times church will be raptured 7 years before the 2nd
coming of Christ.

Question 1:  Why must "kept from" mean "rapture"?

Question 2:  How do you know that Rev 3:10 speaks to the end times church?

Question 3:  How do you know that "hour" means 7 years, as opposed to some
             other sufficiently shorter period of time?

You have hand-waved this off twice now, first claiming that the answer is
somewhere in your 259-line reply .7, and now claiming that the answer is
somewhere in your 186-line two-part reply .116 and .117.  

I can't find it.  All I can find are your own statements claiming that
Rev 3:10 supports the pre-trib rapture.

Please be explicit.  Thanks.

Hi Mike,

�    Okay Andrew and Garth, I believe this should answer your questions to
�    me from .70, .83, and .84.

Mike, I am left with the impression that you haven't actually read .70,
.83, and .84, let alone .51, .109 ....  You appear to have a preconceived
idea of what a post-trib rapture would imply, and are reacting against
that, rather than responding to what we have entered here. 

.116 and .117 appear to cloud the issue by diverting to an old argument
based on a misunderstanding of certain other principles.  A multiplicity of
words doesn't establish a law...  Especially when you use an implied cyclic
argument!

� By defining "the saints" and "His elect" as being the Church you would have 
� the Church in the Tribulation period. I believe "His elect" is a reference 
� to the nation Israel, if you read it in context. 


If you like, I'll take your input away and look at it (today an urgent job
has cropped up, so I can't be in here much), but as I stated in .5, .16 and
.51, I don't think it's profitable just to hammer away blindly.  If we can
study together point by point, not necessarily coming to the same
conclusion, but understanding where the other comes from, there can be some
benefit.  There isn't any benefit in emphasising division, which happens
when either side merely reproduces their own basics without studying its
problems. 


Hi Mark,
re 644.118, as I pointed out to Phil, this is a rather specific discussion.
It is meaningless - and probably looks petty - to anyone who hasn't
experienced the background of exploring the literal interpretation of
prophetic scripture with considerable conviction.  We don't ask everyone to 
be involved or even interested.  We certainly don't either condemn anyone 
for not having an opinion in this area, nor anticipate that anyone would 
mistakenly give this a priority comparable to the essentials of salvation.  
In fact, I would expect persons not involved to skim over this, rather than 
waste their time on something which is a degree removed from their
particular area of study.  However, neither would I expect them to react
against anyone having an opinion about this, or to question its discussion
in considerable depth.  The return of our LORD is a key aspect of our
faith, not only because we celebrate communion 'until He come', but also
because He has given us much detail about this, not to make our Bibles
impressively bulky, but for us to study to understand.  Remember Revelation
1:3, as I referenced in .114.  

Where discussion *is* unprofitable, is when it degenerates to pushing a
particular view, instead of attempting to understand each other's
understanding. I am anxious to avoid that here.  But then, discussion on
even the most glorious elements also become unedifying when conducted in
the wrong spirit. 

						God bless
								Andrew 

>However, neither would I expect them to react against anyone having an opinion
>about this, or to question its discussion in considerable depth.

Relax, Andrew.  It isn't a criticism as much as it is seeing something
hotly debated and wondering if I need to position *myself* based on
a *need* to know.  I don't care what you debate, truthfully.  But if
there is a "need-to-know" topic, I'd like to know why I need to know it.
This discussion (skimmed only by me) seems to be nothing more than the
persons involved have indicated: attempting to piece together a puzzle.
I don't need to know whether Christ will return before or after the 
tribulation.  I only need to be ready for either.

I like puzzles, but it is okay by me to know that God hasn't clouded the
essentials but only had kept some of His mind about some things from the 
rest of us.

Mark

>I've read your two-part reply and can't find answers to the questions that I
>asked you in my replies .83 and .84.  In fact, it appears that you haven't even
>attempted to address the questions I posed. 
    
    You voiced some confusion about Christ gathering the "saints" and
    "elect" earlier in this topic at the Second Coming of Christ so I know
    I at least addressed that rhetorical question.

>Rev 3:10 documents Jesus telling the church of Philidelphia that they
>would be "kept from the hour of trial".  You assume that this supports the
>idea that the end-times church will be raptured 7 years before the 2nd
>coming of Christ.
    
    I believe the letters to the churches are symbolic as well as prophetic
    as well as appropriate for the churches it addressed in the first
    century.  You yourself said you identified with Ephesus so I know you
    must believe they are symbolic as well as appropriate for the churches
    when written.  They are also prophetic.  Every church today fits one of
    those models.  Laodicea is a mirror of the Prosperity Faith movement. 
    Thyatira mirrors Catholicism.  Philadelphia mirrors the true
    Christians.

>Question 1:  Why must "kept from" mean "rapture"?
    
    God has not destined His children for wrath (1 Thess. 5:9, Romans 5:9
    to name a couple).  The Greek preposition "from" is the same one used
    in John 12:27.  It means total removal from.  Why this means rapture is
    because God's wrath is global in scope and there will be no place to
    hide (Jeremiah 49).  As Enoch, the Church must be removed to be saved
    from His wrath.

>Question 2:  How do you know that Rev 3:10 speaks to the end times church?
    
    This was answered in my last 2-reply response which you stated you read.  

>Question 3:  How do you know that "hour" means 7 years, as opposed to some
>             other sufficiently shorter period of time?

    The Greek word used, whether literally or figuratively in context,
    means day, hour, instant or season.  However, the context of the
    paragraph, letter, Revelation, and the entire Bible state that this is
    the Great Tribulation (Luke 21:36).  This is especially clear in
    Revelation 14:7 where John through the Holy Spirit uses the same figure
    of speech for the Great Tribulation.  
    
    Mike

    >            <<< Note 644.51 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>
    
>	� The return is publicly visible [ Contextually, 'They' includes 
>	  other than Christians ].
    
    Agreed.
    
>	� The return is accompanied by the rapture of the saints, as the
>	  "angels ... gather the elect", in v31.
    
    If you mean the Church is raptured prior to the Second Coming then we
    agree.  We seem to disagree on who the "elect" is in this context.
    
>	� This return 'immediately' follows the events of the tribulation, 
>	  both in terms of human / demonic oppression, and in terms of the
>	  visitation of divine physical catastrophe.
    
    This is the Second Coming of Christ so it appears we agree here.  
    
>The enigma is that there were 2 comings foretold in the Old Testament, only
>one of which was expected by the Jews.  Many now think there is a double
>event in the record of Jesus next coming.  Because of the above, and in the
>absence of any clear indication to the contrary, to date I only see this as a
>single event.
    
    All the more reason to me to believe that His next coming is in 2
    phases.  My personal walk with the Lord and studying His word tells me
    that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Just as first
    century Israel ruled out a dual-coming of the Messiah, Christians today
    are falling into the same mistake.  There were no excuses for their
    miscalculations since the OT prophecies were clear (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9) 
    that Messiah must be killed first.  Unfortunately, some within the
    Bride of Christ appear to be making the same miscalculation.
    
    Mike

>            <<< Note 644.70 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>
    
    Some of this I'm skipping since my last 2-note response covered my
    stance in detail with references.
    
>� 3. Christ must first come for all His saints before He can return with them
>�    and rescue Israel from Armageddon.  
>References?
    
    Once again, this appears to hinge on our different interpretation of
    "saints" and "elect" in Matthew 24 and Revelation 13.

>� The Rapture takes place in the midst of peace (1 Thessalonians 5:3), the
>� Second Coming in the midst of war (Revelation 19:11-21).  
>
>Now that's a more interesting one, Mike!  It vividly reflects the spirit of 
>the age.  Remember that it does not say 'while there *is* peace and 
>safety', but 'while people are saying peace and safety'.  This calls to 
>mind certain Old Testament passages, like Jeremiah 6:14, 8:11, 14:13, 28:9...
>['peace, peace they say, when there is no peace...]

    It could also vividly reflect the spirit of today with respect to the
    Israel-PLO negotiations.  Jesus Christ could rapture us before you
    finish reading this sentence.  
    
>The world and its prophets claim peace - the peace of the antiChrist, the 
>peace of the new World order imposed on a seething and surging world, the 
>peace obtained by getting rid, above all, of that pestering conscience in 
>the midst, which is the Christians, and is the conviction of the Holy 
>Spirit, Who is withdrawn so that sin multiplies unrestrained.
    
    Ironically enough, I believe the current negotiations and turmoil is 
    paving the way for the antiChrist to step in with his proposal for 
    international peace.  I'm glad we agree that we won't be around when he
    implements it since you said Christians are in the way ;-)

>Remember also Ezekiel 38:11, where an attack against Israel entered the mind 
>of the enemy.  You might or might not see this as Armageddon - there are 
>good arguments on both sides - but the principle holds, of outward, world 
>presentation of peace, while the reality is war and destruction :

    I tend to believe Ezekiel 38-39 is Armageddon.  It looks like now that
    Islamic ties could be the hook that draws Russia to attack Israel
    instead of the oil issue we all thought back in the '70s.  Russia's
    recent treaty with Iran for nuclear weapons purchase included military
    protection for Iran regardless of who Iran is in conflict with.  If
    Iran attacks Israel, Russia must join them under this treaty.
    
>� 4. Look at the typology of a Father helping His only Begotten Son obtain a
>�    Bride in Genesis 24.  
>Can you point to any place in the new Testament where this passage is 
>identified as typology, as Hagar is, in Galatians 4::24?  On what grounds 
>do you take this as typological, rather than any other [bridal] passage?

    Actually the typology of the book of Ruth is more closely related to the 
    "romance of redemption" in which Christ the kinsman-redeember takes a
    Gentile bride.  Ruth is a very prophetic book, if you haven't yet
    noticed.  Moses also took a Gentile bride while in exile.  It was these
    symbols/pictures that convinced me of the parallel with Issac and
    Rebekah.  It may or may not be defined in the NT, but I can clearly see
    the pattern with my gospel glasses on ;-)
    
>� The Bride is holy, pure, and undefiled.  The Father will not present a
>� battered, beaten, bruised, and martyred Bride to the Son. 
>Mike, this is a typical argument from human emotional values.  The same
>approach argues annihiliationism on the grounds of God's love.  This
>argument is placing temporal wellbeing above spiritual and eternal
>wellbeing.  I have heard it too often from people who should know better.
    
    I don't think so.  If there was only 1 case of it, I might agree with
    you.  However, there is Issac-Rebekah, Moses-Zipporah, Boaz-Ruth,
    Christ-Church.  Can you see the pattern?  Remember, God is the same
    yesterday, today, and forever.
    
>It is direct conflict with passages like :
>  "Consider it pure joy, my brothers whenever you face trials of many kinds, 
>   because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.  
>   Perseverance must finish her work so that you may be mature and complete" 
>							James 1:2
>  "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are 
>   suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.  But 
>   rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that 
>   you may be overjoyed when His glory is revealed."
>							1 Peter 4:12-13
>  "Blessed are you when  people insult you, persecute you and falsely say
>   all kinds of evil against you, because of Me.  Rejoice and be glad, 
>   because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they 
>   persecuted the prophets who were before you."
>							Matthew 5:11-12
>
>		- You'd deny us that blessing,  that heavenly reward ... ? ;-}
    
    Nope, I refuse to confuse the persecution of the world with the wrath
    of God.  One we will endure as Christ did.  The other God gives His
    children a way of escape because we accept what Christ did.  Just like
    Enoch and Lot.

>� 5. The Bride must be prepared for the War.  After the rapture will be the
>�    Bema Seat of Christ per 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15.  Then
>�    the Bride will get 7 days in the Father's house per the Jewish custom -
>�    this is the last week of Daniel.  At the end of the week, there is the
>�    marriage supper of the Lamb before Armageddon per Revelation 19:7-9.
>
>Again, this is what you have read into the passage, rather than what it
>explicitly says.  
    
    Sometimes we have to understand the culture to derive the full meaning
    of what is being said.  You can't read the Bible and understand it all
    without some knowledge of the culture.
    
    >               In particular, Revelation 19:7-9 actually says that the
>bride is ready.  Perfected.  Complete.  And the action that this
>inmmediately and explicitly triggers - is the LORD's return to earth in
>verse 11 onwards, to deliver His church from the trials under the
>antiChrist.
    
    After 7 years in heaven we ought to be complete and perfect since we're
    in our glorified bodies then.  ;-)  The antiChrist will not get to
    touch God's children.  He will however get to torment Israel.

>�    The whole idea of the Rapture is imminency.
>Imminency is a false doctrine which misapplies and confuses the truths that
>to the world, Jesus' return is totally unexpected and unanticipated, and to
>the church, the precise day and hour are unpredictable.

    Matthew 24:40-42 is dripping with imminency.
    
    Mike

Hi Mark,

644.122 � wondering if I need to position *myself* based on a *need* to know...

Ah!  It came over a bit differently, seeming to trivialise the Word of God.
If the quote above was your intent, I can understand it.  It came over
rather differently, however.  When I see some aspect of the Bible dismissed
as unimportant by mature Christians, I feel it is to be vigorously defended, 
because they, above all, should hold it precious.

� This discussion (skimmed only by me) seems to be nothing more than the �
persons involved have indicated: attempting to piece together a puzzle.
That is the fascinating part.  I thought of all of eschatology in that way,
until the picture forming in my understanding illuminated more than the sum
of the parts, reflecting back the glory of the God Who has prepared so
complete an expression of His love for mankind. 

							Andrew 

Re: .123  (Mike)

>>Rev 3:10 documents Jesus telling the church of Philidelphia that they
>>would be "kept from the hour of trial".  You assume that this supports the
>>idea that the end-times church will be raptured 7 years before the 2nd
>>coming of Christ.
>    
>    I believe the letters to the churches are symbolic as well as prophetic
>    as well as appropriate for the churches it addressed in the first
>    century.  You yourself said you identified with Ephesus so I know you
>    must believe they are symbolic as well as appropriate for the churches
>    when written.  They are also prophetic.  Every church today fits one of
>    those models.  Laodicea is a mirror of the Prosperity Faith movement. 
>    Thyatira mirrors Catholicism.  Philadelphia mirrors the true
>    Christians.

Which church is that?  And does that mean that neither the Catholics nor those
caught up in the Prosperity Faith movement are true christians?  Perhaps I, a
self-proclaimed "Ephesian" so to speak, am not a true christian?

Or perhaps that's not what you meant to imply.  Perhaps there are "true
christians" in these other prophetic churches.  If so, then would you suppose
that they will be left behind when the "Philadelphians" are raptured?

I'm looking for some consistency in your logic and application of scripture
here.
                             
>>Question 1:  Why must "kept from" mean "rapture"?
>    
>    God has not destined His children for wrath (1 Thess. 5:9, Romans 5:9
>    to name a couple).  The Greek preposition "from" is the same one used
>    in John 12:27.  It means total removal from.  Why this means rapture is
>    because God's wrath is global in scope and there will be no place to
>    hide (Jeremiah 49).  As Enoch, the Church must be removed to be saved
>    from His wrath.

I know that God has not destined His chidren for wrath.  But Rev 3:10 says that
the Philadelphians would be kept from the hour of "trial."  Nothing is said
about God's "wrath."  Since when does "trial" = "wrath"? 

In fact, Rev 3:10 says this "hour of trial" is to "test" those that live upon
the earth.  It does not say it is to "punish" those that live on the earth.

Your citation of 1 Thess. 5:9 and Romans 5:9 is therefore an example of a
scripture misreading called "collapsing contexts."  Here's another example:

        Matt 27:5:  "Then he went away and hanged himself."
        Luke 10:37: "'Go and do likewise.'"

In any case, your logic is that the only way to get out of something that is
to happen to the whole world is to be raptured from it.  Death and Noah's
Ark are two other examples of how to get out of something that is to happen
to the whole world.  And I'm sure that God can think up others that we haven't
yet thought of.

So the question remains:  How do you know that "kept from" must mean "rapture?"

>>Question 2:  How do you know that Rev 3:10 speaks to the end times church?
>    
>    This was answered in my last 2-reply response which you stated you read.  

Please extract and post what you say I missed.  All I could find were your own
statements making Rev 3:10 out to be addressed to the end times church. 

>>Question 3:  How do you know that "hour" means 7 years, as opposed to some
>>             other sufficiently shorter period of time?
>
>    The Greek word used, whether literally or figuratively in context,
>    means day, hour, instant or season.  However, the context of the
>    paragraph, letter, Revelation, and the entire Bible state that this is
>    the Great Tribulation (Luke 21:36).  

This is what Luke 21:36 states:

	"Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all
	that is to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son
	of Man."

Luke 21:36 does not say anything about "7 years."

>This is especially clear in
>    Revelation 14:7 where John through the Holy Spirit uses the same figure
>    of speech for the Great Tribulation.  

This is what Rev 14:7 says:

	"He said in a loud voice, 'Fear God and give him glory, because the
	hour of his judgment has come..."

Rev 14:7 does not say anything about "7 years."

Please provide scripture to show that the "hour of trial" of Rev 3:10 is 
7 years long.

               <<< Note 644.127 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
    
    Looks like more questions I've already answered in both lengthy posts. 
    I'm surprised at you, Garth.
    
>Which church is that?  And does that mean that neither the Catholics nor those
>caught up in the Prosperity Faith movement are true christians?  Perhaps I, a
>self-proclaimed "Ephesian" so to speak, am not a true christian?
>
>Or perhaps that's not what you meant to imply.  Perhaps there are "true
>christians" in these other prophetic churches.  If so, then would you suppose
>that they will be left behind when the "Philadelphians" are raptured?

    Jesus Christ describes the churches and what will happen to them, use
    His logic, not mine.
    
>I know that God has not destined His chidren for wrath.  But Rev 3:10 says that
>the Philadelphians would be kept from the hour of "trial."  Nothing is said
>about God's "wrath."  Since when does "trial" = "wrath"? 
>
>In fact, Rev 3:10 says this "hour of trial" is to "test" those that live upon
>the earth.  It does not say it is to "punish" those that live on the earth.
    
    There are many synonyms for the Great Tribulation.  Besides, given the
    context and position of this verse, the Tribulation starts in the next
    chapter.  Other synonyms for the Great Tribulation are:
    
A Time of Trouble - Daniel 12:1
The Time of Jacob's Trouble and Distress- Jeremiah 30:4-7
The Great Day of the Lord - Zephaniah 1:14-18, I Thessalonians 5:2
Day of Wrath - Revelation 6:16-17
The Great Tribulation - Matthew 24:21,29; Revelation 2:22, Revelation 7:14
The Wrath of God - Zephaniah 1:15, Revelation 6:16-17, 14:10, 15:1, 16:1, 11:18

    One of the major reasons for this event is for God to test those who
    remain on the earth.

>Your citation of 1 Thess. 5:9 and Romans 5:9 is therefore an example of a
>scripture misreading called "collapsing contexts."  Here's another example:

    Yeah, sort of like saying the saints and the elect during the
    Tribulation is the Church.

>In any case, your logic is that the only way to get out of something that is
>to happen to the whole world is to be raptured from it.  Death and Noah's
>Ark are two other examples of how to get out of something that is to happen
>to the whole world.  And I'm sure that God can think up others that we haven't
>yet thought of.
    
    Noah went through the world's first judgement just as Israel will go
    through the final judgement.  Enoch was raptured before the flood. 
    Enoch is a type of the church.  Noah is a type of Israel.  

>So the question remains:  How do you know that "kept from" must mean "rapture?"

>Please extract and post what you say I missed.  All I could find were your own
>statements making Rev 3:10 out to be addressed to the end times church. 
    
Will the Rapture precede the Great Tribulation?
-----------------------------------------------
There are arguments and Scriptures that people can present for pre-, mid-, and
post-Tribulation theories.  My personal opinion is that Jesus will come before
the Great Tribulation to rapture His Church.  I don't believe that the Church
will go through the Great Tribulation period.  In 1 Thessalonians 5:9 Paul
wrote, "For God who has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by
our Lord Jesus Christ."  Paul said the same in Romans 5:9 - we've not been
appointed to wrath.  Jesus, in the whole context of the Tribulation, said, "Pray
always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall
come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man" (Luke 21:36).  My prayer is
that I will be accounted worthy to escape all of these things that are going to
come to pass upon the earth.

The Lord divided the Book of Revelation into 3 sections: "1) Write the things
which thou hast seen, 2) and the things which are, 3) and the things which shall
be after these things ('meta tauta')" (Revelation 1:19).  John in obedience to
the commandment, wrote in chapter 1 the vision of Christ that he saw on the
island of Patmos.  In chapters 2 and 3 he wrote of the Church and the message of
Jesus to the 7 churches.  Let's look at 2 of these messages where Jesus made
reference to His coming again.

1. The church of Thyatira had introduced the worship of idols within the church.
Jesus said, "I have this against thee because thou sufferest that woman,
Jezebel...to seduce my servants to commit fornication...I gave her space to
repent of her fornication, and she repented not.  Behold I will cast her into a
bed and them that commit adultery with her into *great tribulation,* except they
repent of their deeds" (Revelation 2:20-22).  The unrepentant church of
Thyatira, which had gone into spiritual "fornication" (idolatry and
saint-worship), was to be cast into the Great Tribulation unless, the Lord said,
she repented.

2. To the church of Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10 Jesus said, "Because you
have kept the word of my patience, I also will keep you from the *hour of
temptation* which is coming to try them who dwell upon the earth."  The Rapture
can happen at *any moment* - and it's exciting to realize that as a Christian
you may never finish reading this article!  After the close of the messages to
the churches, Revelation 4:1 begins and ends with the Greek phrase 'meta tauta.'
"After these things," John said, "behold, a door was opened in Heaven: and the
first voice which I heard was a trumpet saying unto me, Come up hither, and I
will show you things which must be after these things ('meta tauta')."

After what "things"?
--------------------
Jesus spoke of Church things in chapters 2 and 3.  These must be the things that
will take place after the Church is taken out of the earth.  I believe that 4:1
of the Book of Revelation is the place of the Rapture of the Church.  That
"voice" in Heaven and "trumpet" are the same as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.  With
the trump of God and the archangel saying, "Come up hither," we the Church will
be gathered together with the Lord in the heavens.

What happens after Revelation 4:1?
----------------------------------
John describes the heavenly scene in chapter 4.  In chapter 5 he saw the scroll
with 7 seals in the right hand of Him Who is sitting upon the throne.  An angel
proclaimed with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll, and to loose
its seals?"  John began to sob convulsively, because no one in Heaven or earth
nor under the earth was found worthy to even look upon the scroll (Revelation
5:2-4).  Then one of the elders said, "Weep not, behold, the Lion of the tribe
of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its
7 seals."  John turned and saw Jesus as a Lamb that had been slain, "and He came
forth and He took the scroll out of the right hand of Him Who sat upon the
throne."  Immediately they brought forth the "vials full of odors which are the
prayers of the saints.  And they sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to
take the book, and open its seals; for Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to
God by Thy blood out of ever kindred, and people, and tongue, and nation; and
made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign [with Him] upon the
earth" (Revelation 5:5-10).  Notice the song that is being sung.

Who can sing that song?
-----------------------
It's not the song of Israel and the covenant relationship with God.  People from
all the families of the earth, not just one family of Abraham, are singing.
It's a people who have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.  Only the
Church can sing that song.  In Revelation 5:11 after Jesus takes the scroll,
John said that innumerable multitudes, "10,000 times 10,000" worship the Lamb,
declaring His worthiness to receive the honor, and the authority, and the glory.
In Revelation 6 Jesus proceeds to loose the seals of the scrolls.  With the very
first seal there comes forth the white horse rider, going "forth conquering, and
to conquer."  This, I believe, is the entrance of the Antichrist, because he's
followed by wars, death, famine, and desolation.  Certainly, the Second Coming
of Christ isn't going to be followed by such events, but by the glorious
establishment of the Kingdom.

Now where's the Church?
-----------------------
Before the Tribulation ever begins the Church is in Heaven singing and praising
the Lord for His worthiness to take the scroll and loose the seals.  The
Tribulation doesn't start until the 7 seals begin to be broken.

>Luke 21:36 does not say anything about "7 years."
    
    No but Daniel and Revelation do.

    Your stance of playing "obtuse" is disappointing.  I expected more from
    someone who authored the fine Creation paper.  There are many things
    that we believe that aren't spelled out in black and white like you are
    asking for.  One is the triune nature of God.  Yet with proper
    expository techniques and research, we know these things to be true. 
    The same applies to eschatological events.
    
    Mike

Re: .128  (Mike)
    
>    Jesus Christ describes the churches and what will happen to them, use
>    His logic, not mine.
    
Jesus describes churches that existed in the first century A.D.  He does not
offer any logic to prophetically explain them.  That logic is yours, and you
must explain it.

I was looking for some sort of logical consistency in your labelling the
Philadelphian church "the true believers."  That may be a convenient
catagorization to go along with your rapture theory, but thus far I see no
scriptural support offered for such a broad generalization. 

The fallacy of your logic is as I stated and to which you did not rebut,
instead making an unspecific comment about Jesus' "logic."  Again, if
Philadelphia has all the "true believers" (so that they can all be raptured),
then the other churches must not have any.  Or, if the other churches have some
"true believers," then we are forced to conclude that not all true believers
will be raptured. 

I also neglected to call attention to the church at Smyrna, which is also held
blameless in Jesus' sight.  Are these members "true believers"?  And when will
they be raptured?  This adds to your dilemma.

In any case, I suspect that your catagorization ("Philadelphia" = "the true
believers") is an agenda-driven conclusion. 

>>I know that God has not destined His chidren for wrath.  But Rev 3:10 says that
>>the Philadelphians would be kept from the hour of "trial."  Nothing is said
>>about God's "wrath."  Since when does "trial" = "wrath"? 
>>
>>In fact, Rev 3:10 says this "hour of trial" is to "test" those that live upon
>>the earth.  It does not say it is to "punish" those that live on the earth.
>    
>    There are many synonyms for the Great Tribulation.  Besides, given the
>    context and position of this verse, the Tribulation starts in the next
>    chapter.  Other synonyms for the Great Tribulation are:
    
I really didn't ask about "The Tribulation" or "The Great Tribulation."  What
I asked for was a justification for assuming "trial" = "wrath" in Rev 3:10.
Again, this seems to be agenda-driven.  

>>In any case, your logic is that the only way to get out of something that is
>>to happen to the whole world is to be raptured from it.  Death and Noah's
>>Ark are two other examples of how to get out of something that is to happen
>>to the whole world.  And I'm sure that God can think up others that we haven't
>>yet thought of.
>    
>    Noah went through the world's first judgement just as Israel will go
>    through the final judgement.  Enoch was raptured before the flood. 
>    Enoch is a type of the church.  Noah is a type of Israel.  

You've repeated your statement about Noah vs. Enoch up twice now since I asked
you to justify it in reply .84.  I've been trying to focus on Rev 3:10 for the
moment.  But I've got it on my list to get back to the Noah vs. Enoch thing.

>>So the question remains:  How do you know that "kept from" must mean
>>"rapture?" 
>
>>Please extract and post what you say I missed.  All I could find were your own
>>statements making Rev 3:10 out to be addressed to the end times church. 
    
Well, you re-posted 88 lines, but I still could find no specific justification
for either "kept from" = "rapture" or Rev 3:10 = end-times.  All I could find
were your own _ad hoc_ "just so" statements describing your pre-trib-rapture
scenario, and how Rev 3:10 plays into it.

>>Luke 21:36 does not say anything about "7 years."
>    
>    No but Daniel and Revelation do.

Revelation says nothing about anything lasting 7 years.

Daniel's 70th week is 7 years, but nothing is mentioned there about the whole
week being "tribulation".  That's why I've got a problem with the "-trib" as
well as the "pre-".  The scripture does not say that there will be 7 years of
"tribulation."  For post-tribbers, my quibble is merely with the semantics.
For pre-tribbers, the issue is very significant, since they operate on the
premise that the whole of the final 7 years is so bad that the church must be
saved from out of it.

Somehow, you've got to coherently link up Daniel's 70th week to the "hour" of
Rev 3:10.  Not only do you have to make the "hour" equal Daniel's 70th week,
but you've got to make the 70th week into "tribulation" as well.  You haven't
done that. 

Re: .128  (Mike)

>    Your stance of playing "obtuse" is disappointing.  I expected more from
>    someone who authored the fine Creation paper.  There are many things

Actually, I find the pre-trib-rapture story like evolution.  They say, "the
evidence is all there," and then they do all this hand-waving about fossils,
strata, dating, and etc., and ice it up with a nice taxonomic chart showing
all the ancestries, highly embellished reconstructions of "ape-men," and
so on.  It's easy to fall for a snow job, because there are so many 
interdependancies, and they've had so much time to gloss up their story.  The
uncritical mind buys into all this because it is so appealing.  But when you
break it down into its key components, you find that all the key assumptions
are unsubstantiated and the arguments circular. 

The parallels are striking, the more I think about them.  "Let's just focus on
the fossils."  ("Let's just focus on Rev 3:10").  "They don't have dates
attached to them in any coded form."  ("It doesn't say '7 years.'")  "What
do the petrified remains of some dead animals have to do with ancestry to
begin with?"  ("What does this verse have to do with the end-times to begin
with?") "I don't see anything intrinsic to the nature of fossils that would
support either creation or evolution."  ("I don't see what Rev 3:10 has to do
with the rapture anyway.") "It certainly does not support evolution."  ("It
certainly doesn't support the pre-trib-rapture theory.") 

Then they say, "Must you be so obtuse?  You are ignoring libraries full of
scientific evidence, and contradicting years of research in the fields of
biology, geology, astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, and etc...")

And what do I say?  "Hand-waving.  Give me an example of your 'libraries full
of scientific evidence,' and be specific."

Mike (and Garth) - I haven't forgotten.  Just pressed for time.  And 
Garth's said a lot of it anyway ;-)  I'll be back in here when I've had 
time to get myself together... ;-)

								Andrew

??

    I'm here.  What do you want?  Another reply you won't read?  A reply on 
    context or how deductive reasoning works for the Triunity of God as well 
    as the Rapture?
    
    The word "hour" in Revelation 3:10 was already shown in a Greek
    dictionary to be equal to general time in any possible sense of the
    word - from an hour to an entire season.  The hour of trial is to come
    upon the whole world.  This shows that the hour of trial is not to be
    confined to the churches of John's day for no such world-encompassing
    tribulation occurred in John's day.  This time of testing, when taken
    in context, is the Great Tribulation which proves that the
    Philadelphian church, as well as the other churches, is representative
    of the church universal.
    
    This "hour of temptation" is the appointed season of affliction and
    temptation (in Deuteronomy 4:34 the plagues are called the "temptations
    of Egypt"), literally, "*THE* temptation."  This is the sore temptation
    which is coming on; the time of the Great tribulation before Christ's
    second coming.
    
    "To try them that dwell upon the earth" - those who are of the earth
    (Rev. 8:13).  "Dwell" implies that their home is earth, not heaven. 
    All mankind, except the elect (Rev. 13:8,14).  The temptation brings
    out the fideling reprobates (Rev. 9:20,20; 16:11,21).  The persecutions
    that Philadelphia faced shortly after this was written, were the
    earnest of the great last tribulation before Christ's coming, to which
    the Church's attention in all ages is directed.
    
    {from the new TSK and JFB's Commentary}
    
    Mike

    [I don't have a Bible with me today, so my scriptural references will be
    somewhat vague and from memory, when I give them...sorry.]
    
    Here's some bullet points regarding Christ's "coming".
    
    * He will come as a thief in the night
    * He comes at an hour and time that no one expects
    * it will be as in the days of Noah and Lot...life as usual
    * no signs are needed before He comes for His church (immenency)
    * when He comes for His own, two will by in the field- one is taken,
    one is left (meaning that Christains will be litterally taken out of
    the earth...they will vanish, seemingly into thin air to those who are
    left)
    
    
    The above contradict the following, also mentioned in the Bible
    regarding His "coming":
    
    * He will come with a shout
    * He will visibly come from heaven, and land on the mount of Olives to
    save Israel from anniahlation at Armaggedon
    * a great sign in the heavens will appear to announce His coming
    * He will bring with him, from heaven, the saints who wear white robes
    
    There are more, these are just from memory.
    
    There is no way to rationalize all these things happening at the same
    time, they contradict each other in too many instances.  "He comes as a
    thief"..."He comes with a shout", etc.  This leads me to believe that
    the rapture and the Second Coming are two distinct events.
    
    First of all, Revelation distinctly states that Jesus will come from
    heaven, with His saints, to save Israel...this happening at Armageddon.
    
    Life is not going on as usual at this time in prophesy.  People will
    not be marrying, building, working as they normally do.  The people of
    Noah's day and Lot's day were not expecting judgement, the flood/fire
    took them all by surprise. 
    
    Just as OT prophesies concerning Jesus include both His coming as a
    "lamb" and a "lion", NT (and OT) prophesies on His "second" coming have
    similar discrepencies within the prophesies that cannot be fitted
    together in one "coming".
     
    The Jews seemed to have missed this idea (that He would come more than
    once), and were expecting Him to come as a lion right away.  They ended 
    up hanging Him on the cross, thus putting Daniel's 70th week on hold (the 
    69th week ended when Jesus was killed).  The church age then bagan (a new
    covenant).
    
    There are two more comings...that is the only logical conclusion, IMO. 
    One will be a secretive coming for his "Church", the next will be to
    save His chosen people, Israel at Armageddon.
    
    Since we cannot know the day or hour of His "coming", this passage
    (Matthew 24: ?, I think...or therabouts), this particular "coming" must
    be the rapture.  Why?  Because the 70th week of Daniel is one week of
    years (7 years) long.  We would know the time of His coming, if we
    properly followed the signs of Revelation.  When Armageddon occurs, we
    would definitely know that He is coming (and it would not be like a
    thief in the night, either...it is followed by a great sign in the
    heavens).
    
    His Second Coming will be on an obvious time-table.  The rapture,
    however, needs no signs and could happen at any given moment.
    
    It is my opinion that the rapture will be the event that triggers
    Daniel's 70th week.  Why?
    
    1) He who hinders must be taken out of the way.  This refers to the HS,
    though since He is omnipresent, He cannot be taken out of the
    way...though His special dwelling place (the church...Christians- who's
    body is the temple of the HS) can.  Besides, the Church would spot the
    antichrist quickly, and would fight him at every turn, hindering him
    from gaining power....if the church was here.
    
    2) The utter chaos caused by the disappearace of millions of people
    would open the door for a super-intellegent leader to take advantage of
    the situation.  Perhaps he would guarantee safety for those who remain,
    if they take his mark (speculation, of course).  Perhaps the "great
    signs and wonders in the heavens" and the intense fear mentioned in
    Revelation refers to UFOs? (more speculation)  If a figure showing
    occultic power (which the antichrist will use to deceive many) promised
    protection to the people from the UFOs, or if he were to go up into a
    UFO for a meeting that promises safety, people would be fooled into
    following him. (real idle speculation  8^) ).
    
    3) Such chaos (caused by the rapture) would be a terrible strain on all
    world economies.  Global finacial unity, via electronic fund trasfer
    system, could be an answer to that problem.  
    
    4) If we had a common threat (UFOs or whatever the explanation would be
    for the disappearance of millions), perhaps waring nations would put
    aside their differences temporarily, to band together into a unified,
    one-world power. 
    
    
    In any case (and speculation aside), it would take a major event to
    trigger the NWO mentioned in Revelation.  And only after the Christians
    are out of the way, would a one-world religion be possible.
    
    I definitely think there will be two "comings" of Christ.  One for the
    Church, one for Israel- His chosen people.  After all, Daniel's first
    69 weeks deals exclusively with Israel...why would He change focus for
    one week (the 70th week), when the prophesy mentions that the 70 weeks
    of years are specific prophesies for Israel (I forget the wording...I
    may have to dig up a Bible somewhere  8^) ).
    
    
    -steve

Hi Steve,

Unless you can give refernces, your points are not really going to help, 
because you've mixed facts and assumptions.  You are also trying to second 
guess the planning, quite unnecessarily, and taking that as proof of 
your original assumption, in a circular argument fashion.  A lot of what 
you've put has already been covered in the discussion.  Perhaps you could 
read it more carefully....  In my view your assumptions underestimate the
power of God and the precision of prophecy, and also fails to see the signs
of the times now virtually upon us.  But that *is* just in my view ;-). 

My time is in heavy demand just now, so I've not been able to come back in 
detail.  I do hope to .... some time ...

							Andrew 

    re: .135
    
    Yes, please respond in detail.  I have no idea which parts you consider
    assumptions on my part (I did give speculation flags in certain parts
    of my note).  I'd rather not type in another 100 line note and then
    miss the points you had a problem with.
    
    Thanks,
    -steve

    There are other details why this must happen.  Nobody has addressed the
    "time of the Gentiles" (Romans 11) or the Bema Seat Judgment of
    Christ.  The Bema Seat (Acts 12:21, 18:12,16-17, 25:6,10,17) Judgment 
    (2 Corinthians 5:10, 18-21; 1 Corinthians 3:13-15) is for believers only.  
    The chaff and the wheat have already been separated.  The Great White 
    Throne Judgment is for the lost (Revelation 20:15).  In addition, you have
    the Hebrew tradition of the groom spending a week with his bride in his
    father's house.  If you don't support a pre-trib rapture of the Bride of
    Christ, you must explain how the above 2 events fit into your scenario
    as well.  When is the time of the Gentiles fulfilled and when is the
    Bema Seat judgment of believers?

    thanks,
    Mike

Re: .133  (Mike)

>                     -< Hour of Trial = Great Tribulation >-

Scripture reference, please.

>    I'm here.  What do you want?  Another reply you won't read?  
    
I've read your replies, all at least once.  Some I've read over again to be
sure I haven't missed anything.  (I did initially miss .7, but I made sure
to read it carefully after you pointed it out to me.)

>    A reply on 
>    context or how deductive reasoning works for the Triunity of God as well 
>    as the Rapture?

This is now the third time you've brought up the Trinity vs. Rapture issue.
I responded to your objection the first time in reply .40, and you have since
made no attempt to respond to my rebuttal, but have simply restated your theme
twice again.  Here's the extract from my reply .40: 

>Re: .38  (Mike)
>
>>    Well Garth, if you applied that logic to the Trinity in the Bible,
>>    you'd have to toss that out too.  Obviously, we know through searching
>>    the Scriptures and through OT typology that the Triunity (my preferred
>>    term) exists.
>    
>I can demonstrate from the scriptures that there is one God.
>I can demonstrate from the scriptures that the Father is God.
>I can demonstrate from the scriptures that the Son is God.
>I can demonstrate from the scriptures that the Holy Spirit is God.
>
>"Trinity" is just a label, like "pre-trib-rapture".

My rebuttal to you stands:  The scriptures are clear and explicit with regard
to the existence of only one God, and the fact that the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit each are God.  Therefore, you have not provided an example of
something that I believe that is not as clearly defined as the timing of the
rapture. 

>    The word "hour" in Revelation 3:10 was already shown in a Greek
>    dictionary to be equal to general time in any possible sense of the
>    word - from an hour to an entire season.  The hour of trial is to come
>    upon the whole world.  This shows that the hour of trial is not to be
>    confined to the churches of John's day for no such world-encompassing
>    tribulation occurred in John's day.  

Suppose that the messages to the churches only applied to the churches of
John's day.  If so, then all the members of that church of Philadelphia are
now dead, and have therefore been saved from the hour of trial that is to come
upon the whole world.  Prophecy fulfilled. 

Your logic is therefore fallacious, and therefore does not represent sound 
"deductive reasoning".  In other words, there is no "reason" to "deduce" your
conclusion.

>    This time of testing, when taken
>    in context, is the Great Tribulation which proves that the
>    Philadelphian church, as well as the other churches, is representative
>    of the church universal.
    
This is another example of an _ad hoc_, "just so" claim.  It appears to me that
you are just saying that it is so, for the purpose of constructing your 
pre-trib rapture scenario.

What I am asking you for is justification for saying that the "time of testing"
of Rev 3:10 is in fact the same event as the "Great Tribulation" spoken of,
say, later on in the book of Revelation.

You haven't done that.  You've just repeated your claim, with a vague and
unspecific comment about "context," as if there were some context that I was
missing (but you won't be specific about it.)  This is an example of what
I'm calling "hand waving." 

>    This "hour of temptation" is the appointed season of affliction and
>    temptation (in Deuteronomy 4:34 the plagues are called the "temptations
>    of Egypt"), literally, "*THE* temptation."  This is the sore temptation
>    which is coming on; the time of the Great tribulation before Christ's
>    second coming.
    
More _ad hoc_, "just so" claims, with no justification to accompany it.

>    "To try them that dwell upon the earth" - those who are of the earth
>    (Rev. 8:13).  "Dwell" implies that their home is earth, not heaven. 
>    All mankind, except the elect (Rev. 13:8,14).  The temptation brings
>    out the fideling reprobates (Rev. 9:20,20; 16:11,21).  The persecutions
>    that Philadelphia faced shortly after this was written, were the
>    earnest of the great last tribulation before Christ's coming, to which
>    the Church's attention in all ages is directed.
>    
>    {from the new TSK and JFB's Commentary}
    
Perhaps you should be more critical of these commentaries?  Don't make the
same mistake I did in 1985, reading all those Hal Lindsay books and anything
else I could get my hands on, buying into a sensational story and all the
arguments without any discernment or attempt to check out the other side.

Re: .134  (Steve Leech)

I agree with what Andrew Yuille said.

In addition, you are hitting us with too many points at once.  If you want
people like me to buy into your grand scenario, you will have to justify 
each aspect of it.  

Now let's take things one point at a time.  The topic of discussion is the
timing of the rapture, "pre-" or "post-".  In my dialogue with Mike Heiser, I
am trying to make things even simpler and focus on one point of dispute at a
time.  Since Mike hasn't come up with a concise justification for Rev 3:10
supporting a rapture 7 years before the 2nd (visible) coming of Christ, perhaps
you might give it a try. 

Or perhaps you could get someone from Dallas Theological Seminary or Dave
Hunt in here to do it for you.

>Or perhaps you could get someone from Dallas Theological Seminary or Dave
>Hunt in here to do it for you.

Re: .140  (Mike)

>                            -< Are you buying? ;-) >-

Oh, I was thinking that they would pay for the privilege of debating me.
Do you suppose I could make a living from this?

8^)

(Ahem.)

    Probably, you're too smart for me and I can't afford to buy any more
    books right now.  ;-)  I bet Chuck Missler would give you a serious run
    for your money though.
    
    Mike

re: 644.139  (Garth Wiebe)
    
>In addition, you are hitting us with too many points at once.  If you want
>people like me to buy into your grand scenario, you will have to justify 
>each aspect of it.  

    Well, my note was basically just an outline.  I'll discuss individual
    points as I go along.  You have to start somewhere, though.
    
>Now let's take things one point at a time.  The topic of discussion is the
>timing of the rapture, "pre-" or "post-".  
    
    First point...I take the "pre-" view.  8^)
    
>    In my dialogue with Mike Heiser, I
>am trying to make things even simpler and focus on one point of dispute at a
>time.  Since Mike hasn't come up with a concise justification for Rev 3:10
>supporting a rapture 7 years before the 2nd (visible) coming of Christ, perhaps
>you might give it a try. 
    
    Rev 3:10, by itself, does not  justify  this view.  Taken with the rest
    of prophetic scripture regarding the "last days", it is just one more
    passage that supports a pre-tribulation view.
    
    I don't think that Mike is trying to use only this passage to support a
    rapture that is 7 years prior to the Second Coming (visible).
    
    Which points would you like me to discuss first?  I need a prod in the
    right direction.  8^)
    
    -steve

    Steve, maybe you know how "hour" in Rev. 3:10 means the 7 years of the
    Great Tribulation?

    "Hour" seems to be a generic time frame.  It is certainly not a
    litteral hour...too many things must happen in it.  
    
    This hour of trial mentioned in Rev. 3:10 is the "hour of trial which
    shall come upon the whole world, to test those who DWELL ON THE
    EARTH".
    
    It's true, that taking only Rev. 3:10, you can't *prove* anything, but
    taken litterally, it does seem to back the "pre-trib" view.
     
    The post-tribulation view says that Rev. 3:10 could merely mean that God
    will protect the church, keeping her from harm, during the "hour of
    trial" or tribulation(1)**.  
    
    While it is true that God COULD do this, it does not wash when you read
    Rev. 13:7.  Also, why would He say, in the same
    passage, that ALL who dwell there (on the earth) will go through a time
    of trial?  In order to "keep (us) from" the hour of trial, while
    testing the whole world (those who dwell on the earth), he would
    litterally have to take us out of the world- otherwise, we have a
    contradiction of sorts.  Since the rapture is a Christian's hope, and a
    Biblical concept that fits this scenario, Rev. 3:10 does seem to point
    to this possibility.
    
**  (1) Since the hour of trial will come upon the WHOLE world, it would
    seem to be an indication (at least) that this refers to the tribulation
    times.  The wording indicates a unique event- one that is good to
    avoid.
    
    
    And again, how can the day and hour of His coming be unknown, and "as a
    thief in the night", if it is at Armageddon? (Rev. 19)  All the
    evidence points to two distinct comings...one at an unknown hour, one
    after  a series of prophesies and signs are fulfilled.
    
    There are no prophesies/signs that need happen before the rapture. 
    However, there are many signs and prophesies that must be fulfilled at 
    Jesus' Second Coming at Armageddon.
    
    
    -steve    

Re: .143  (Steve Leech)
    
>>time.  Since Mike hasn't come up with a concise justification for Rev 3:10
>>supporting a rapture 7 years before the 2nd (visible) coming of Christ,
>>perhaps you might give it a try. 
>    
>    Rev 3:10, by itself, does not  justify  this view.  Taken with the rest
>    of prophetic scripture regarding the "last days", it is just one more
>    passage that supports a pre-tribulation view.
    
It either supports it or it doesn't.  I'll repeat my three questions on
Rev 3:10:

	1.  Why does "hour" = "7 years"?
	2.  Why does "kept from" = "rapture"?
	3.  Why does Rev 3:10 speak to the end-times church?

If Rev 3:10 must be "taken with" other prophetic scripture, as you say, then
cite that scripture and show how it is by necessity connected to Rev 3:10. 

Let's settle this once and for all.  Does Rev 3:10 support pre-trib rapture
or not?  What is the verdict? 

    ...and the elect in Matthew 24 and after Revelation 4 is not the church
    because we wouldn't be in Jerusalem trying to hide or worrying about or
    celebrating the sabbath.

Re: .147  (Mike)

I thought you were "postponing" your participation.

>                   -< understanding of Israel is important >-
>
>    ...and the elect in Matthew 24 and after Revelation 4 is not the church
>    because we wouldn't be in Jerusalem trying to hide or worrying about or
>    celebrating the sabbath.

I'll add the "election" thing to my list.

Now, back to Rev 3:10.

    
    Mike, you stated this:
    
>    ...and the elect in Matthew 24 and after Revelation 4 is not the church
>    because we wouldn't be in Jerusalem trying to hide or worrying about or
>    celebrating the sabbath.
    
    How was/is the sabbath celebrated by Jews?
    
    The elect does celebrate the sabbath by attending worship services,
    serving the saints and resting.  This will certainly continue until the
    end of time.
    
    jeff
    

>    How was/is the sabbath celebrated by Jews?
    
    It's celebrated by Jews on Friday night->Saturday night in Israel just
    as Christ said in this passage.  the Church will not be running for
    their lives and looking for shelter in Israel nor will it be concerned
    about what happens on the Sabbath.
    
    Mike

>	1.  Why does "hour" = "7 years"?
>	2.  Why does "kept from" = "rapture"?
    >	3.  Why does Rev 3:10 speak to the end-times church?
    
    Something that came to mind last night while thinking about this...
    
    another set of fair questions would be:
    
              "How long is the Great *DAY* of the Lord?  Jacob's Trouble? 
               The Day of Wrath? etc."
    
    Is it 1 day or 1260 days?

    
>    ...nor will it be concerned
>    about what happens on the Sabbath.
    
    Because much of the modern Christian church has discarded its responsibility
    toward and understanding of the ten commandments, it does not mean that
    all have done so or that in the future this understanding and
    responsibility toward the ten commandments will not be revived. 
    
    Also, have you ever considered that "Israel" is actually the Christian
    church?
    
    jeff

Re: .151  (Mike)

>    Something that came to mind last night while thinking about this...
>    
>    another set of fair questions would be:
>    
>              "How long is the Great *DAY* of the Lord?  Jacob's Trouble? 
>               The Day of Wrath? etc."
>    
>    Is it 1 day or 1260 days?

I've thought about this, too.  I can find no contextual reason why the
"Day of the Lord" must be 24 hours long.  Certainly there are quite a
lot of things that seem to happen in that "day."

Marvin Rosenthal, the author I mentioned way back, headed up a Messianic
Jewish group somewhere.  A few years back, he renounced his pre-trib
doctrine, after being hounded by a businessman friend of his over several
months.  Since the official creed and doctrinal statement of his organization
included the pre-trib rapture (which he, ironically enough, authored), he was
forced to resign from his own organization. 

Anyway, he wrote a book entitled _The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church_.
In it he proposed that the "Day of the Lord" was indeed an extended 
period of time, and that the church would be raptured before the final
outpouring of God's wrath upon the earth.

I don't totally buy into his scenario, but he did bring up some good points.

� Also, have you ever considered that "Israel" is actually the Christian 
� church?

That's replacement theology, as held in the amillenial view, which isn't 
relevant to this discussion.  This one concerns different views on the 
rapture as held in the pre-millenial position.  This is mentioned in early 
replies.

If you wish to start a note with an amillenial / premillenial discussion,
feel free to do so!  If you want to discuss replacement theology 
specifically, note 328 is on this subject. 

							Andrew

    Well the 7 Seals appear to be opened at the halfway point (after the
    antichrist commits the abominatin of desolation) so the "Great Day of 
    the Lord" would be 3.5 years long.  
    
    I'll keep looking for that similar reference that would explain the
    "hour of trial."
    
    Jeff, I'm surprised you entered that after all the Replacement Theology
    notes I've put in here.  Check out the Catholic topics (who also
    believe the Vatican is spiritual Israel - both of you can't be right). 
    There's too much in the Bible that contradicts this position.  Besides 
    Romans 11, there are more passages that should be noted that show that 
    the Church can never replace Israel.

- Revelation 3:9, Jesus Himself warns the Church of those who will adopt
  Replacement Theology.
- 2 Samuel 7:24, God says Israel will be His people *FOREVER*!
- Jeremiah 31:35-37, 33:23-26, God says Israel will never be forsaken or
  rejected.  Verse 26 was fulfilled in 1948 when Israel became a nation.
- Psalm 89:30-37, God once again declares He will not violate His covenant
  with Israel.
- Isaiah 11:11-12 says how God will gather the Jews together again from all
  over the world just as it is happening now!
- Amos 9:8-15 says that God will never destroy the Jews, even though they will
  go through the Great Tribulation.  God will restore their land afterwards.

The significance of this is great because you will not ever properly understand
Bible prophecy without realizing the importance of Israel with God and its role
in prophecy.
    
Also in regards to the possibility of the Vatican (or any Church) replacing
Israel as God's chosen people, turn to Romans 2:28-29; 3:1-2:

"2:28  For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that
       circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
 2:29  But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the
       heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of
       men, but of God.
 3:1  What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
 3:2  Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles
      of God."

This is the Natural Israel.  The oracles of God were committed to all of the
Jews whether they were circumcised in the heart or not.  Most of them wandered
in the wilderness and died (after receiving the oracles), but they were still
Jews.  

In Romans 9:3-5, Paul tells us:

"9:3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my
      kinsmen according to the flesh:
 9:4  Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and
      the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the
      promises;
 9:5  Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
      who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Jesus Christ came in the flesh out of the Physical or Natural Israel.  Some
people try to say that Israel is finished and that the Church is now Israel.  
Before the cross, there were only 2 entities: Jew and Gentile.  After the
cross, there are 3 and they are mentioned in I Corinthians 10:32:

"10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the
       church of God:"

In Ephesians 2:15, Paul adds:

"2:15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
       contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so
       making peace;"

The Church of God is composed of both Jews and Gentiles.  When Gentiles come
into the Church of God, that doesn't mean there are no more Gentiles.  Likewise
for the Jews.  When the Jews come into the Church of God, that doesn't mean
there is no more Israel.  Look at Romans 10:1:

"10:1  Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they
       might be saved."

You have to be saved to be in the Church of God, so obviously this applies to a
Physical or Natural Israel.  Spiritual Israel was not promised the land
of Israel.  Spiritual Israel was not scattered across the world and
re-gathered in these last days.  As in Romans 4, though the Jews have specific
promises that apply to them only, they will not inherit the promises of Abraham
unless they have the relationship with God that Abraham had.  As in
Zechariah 12:10, they will recognize Him who they have pierced.  There's a
definite distinction between Israel and the Church of God.

In a sense you could call the Church of God a Spiritual Israel because of our
promises, but that DOESN'T replace Natural Israel.
    
    Mike

    The Church and Israel are both called God's elect.  We have to rely on
    context to distinguish them.
    
Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servants sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee
by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

    Here Isaiah prophesies the Jews being gathered back to their land for
    the Messiah's millenial reign.  Zechariah 12-14 has similar prophecys.
    It speaks of the regathering, the Great Tribulation, all the saints
    returning from heaven with Christ for the final siege on Jerusalem
    (14:5).  Even says we will all celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in the
    millenium!
    
Isaiah 65:9
And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my
mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

    
    Sorry I digressed.
    
    jeff

    Daniel 9:24
    
    "Seventy weeks are determined for YOUR people and for YOUR HOLY CITY,
    to finish the transgressions, to make an end of sins, to make
    reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting rightiousness, to
    seal up vision and prophesy, and to anoint the Most Holy."
    
    Gabriel was telling Daniel of the future of his people.  This right
    here tells us that the prophesy is concerning Daniel's people
    specifically as well as the Holy City specifically. 
    
    The first 69 weeks are history, the 70th week has been on hold.  Why?
    Because it is part of the prophesies that deal specifically with
    Isreal, rather than God's church.  Israel was destroyed and disbanded
    long ago.  Only in recent times has it been rebuilt and made strong. 
    In 1967, they captured the Holy City once more (if my history and
    geography on the 6 day war is accurate).  Even with the aquisition of
    Jerusalem, the 70th week is still on hold.
    
    I believe that it is still on hold because God is not done with His
    church yet.  His focus is on the church until "the time of the
    gentiles" ends.  Once this prophetic time frame is over, I believe that
    God will then take His church (rapture), and start up the 70th week
    mentioned in Daniel.  Isreal will once again be His focus...He said He
    is not done with His people, Israel.
    
    When I read Jesus' words to the church of Philadelphia, I get the
    impression that he speaks not just to them, but to all who are faithful
    to the end of the age.  He speaks of events to come in Rev. 3:10, 3:11,
    and 3:12, things repeated later in Revelation.
    
    "hour of trial" alone does not speak of 7 years, yet no one seems to
    think it is but a litteral hour.  When you add the next
    words "which shall come upon the whole world", you limit the
    possibilities.  Later in Revelation, such world-encompassing trials are
    mentioned, that being the tribulation.
    
    Now, the hard part is figguring out whether it is the entire 7 years of
    tribulation, or just the 3.5 years of God's wrath.  
    
    Revelation 6 is the opening of the seven seals.  The first one is a man
    on a white horse with a bow- a crown was given to him.  He went out to
    conquer.
    
    This is the antichrist.  The parallel to Rev. 19:11 is a good pointer
    to this fact.
    
    [gotta go, i'll finish later] 

Re: .158  (Steve Leech)
    
>    When I read Jesus' words to the church of Philadelphia, I get the
>    impression that he speaks not just to them, but to all who are faithful

Getting back to Rev 3:10, are you going to respond to my inquiry about it,
or are you going into write-only mode with some more pre-trib-rapture 
teachings?

Please review my reply .146 and let us know what you are going to do with it.

    re: .159
    
    I did respond, though I guess not in the way that you wanted.
    
    Rev. 3:10 is just a small part of the whole.  By itself, it does not
    support ANY view (pre- or post- or mid-).  
    
    I'm not sure why you are stuck on this one passage, wanting me to prove
    something by it (I can't...nor can you prove it means something else,
    when taken by itself).
    
    But I digress.  I don't have my Bible today, so I'll have to finish my
    outline (of my view) another time (from .158).
    
    
    -steve

Re: .160  (Steve)

>    Rev. 3:10 is just a small part of the whole.  By itself, it does not
>    support ANY view (pre- or post- or mid-).  
>    
>    I'm not sure why you are stuck on this one passage, wanting me to prove
>    something by it (I can't...nor can you prove it means something else,
>    when taken by itself).
    
So you are stating categorically that you can find no support for pre-trib
rapture in the text of Rev 3:10.  Correct?

I am concerned about your "by itself" and "small part of the whole" clause.
As I asked in .146, if Rev 3:10 is relevant to pre-trib in connection with some
other passage of scripture, then I am asking you to cite that other scripture. 

Does Rev 3:10 support pre-trib-rapture in connection with another scripture?

I am stuck on this one passage because I want to see some resolution on it.
It is all too easy to make up a grand story, citing a verse here and a
verse there to make it look like the scriptures back up your story.  And
when you are through, you've cited so many verses and so many arguments
that one is left at a loss where to begin to evaluate the position.  But 
you have to begin somewhere.  And this is where I chose to start.

My position is that there is actually not any scriptural support for a
rapture of believers 7 years or more before the visible, 2nd coming of
Christ, anywhere in the bible.

I first asked Mike, then you to evaluate Rev 3:10 to see whether it had
anything to do with the rapture, 7 years, or the end-times church.  Neither
of you has shown how it is relevant, in my opinion.  Barry Dysert won't bite. 
And I don't know anyone else who cares. 

    Re: Note 644.161 by NETCAD::WIEBE
    
�Barry Dysert won't bite. 
    
    But don't think I haven't been tempted!
    
    	BD�

    -1
    
    ;-) for some reason I just *can't* even imagine this!

Re: .162  (Barry)
    
>    But don't think I haven't been tempted!
    
I should say that I'm not trying to bait or coax you, by the way.  I'm just
making the observation that you have been a for-the-record pre-trib contributer
to notes in the past, the only other one that comes to mind at the moment.

>My position is that there is actually not any scriptural support for a
>rapture of believers 7 years or more before the visible, 2nd coming of
>Christ, anywhere in the bible.
    
    in the "Pictures of Jesus" topic (which discusses OT typology), there
    is a list of over 60 types associated with the life of Joseph.  Many
    commentators suggest there is 100, but I haven't found them all.  
    
    Anyway, in Genesis 41, Joseph takes a Gentile bride and their marriage
    is consummated before the 7 years of famine (tribulation).  Moses also 
    took a Gentile bride in his time of exile.  The courtship of Issac & 
    Rebekah as well as Boaz and Ruth are also fascinatingly similar to the 
    Gentile church being the bride of Christ.  
    
    Still searching for more answers, but it is incredible how the pattern
    is set in Genesis.  
    
    I'm going out of town the rest of the week, but I'm hoping to have more
    straight answers next week.
    
    Mike

    Garth,
    
    I think I understand where you are coming from now.  I sort of popped
    into the middle of something, I guess.  
    
    I'll have to bring my Bible tomorrow (after doing a bit research
    tonight) so I can give an attempt at supporting my view of Revelation
    3:10.  I believe it does *support* other scripture, as far as a
    pre-tribulation rapture is concerned.
    
    
    -steve

Hi Mike,

I need to go back a month to your last major reply to me, around .124, .125.
In that note you tend to focus rather much on how you see the [then;-]
current world situation as potentially leading to your understanding of the
fulfillment.  This is a dangerous method, as it tends to colour or bias
one's interpretation of prophecy.  While I agree with you generally there,
it is imperative to keep the two things separate - 'what we anticipate',
and 'how the current situation seems to be leading to the fulfillment'. 
Ignoring that can blind you to contextual assumptions, which are blown away 
by some world event.  While the change in your eschatological stance may 
be minimal, the whole loses general credibility because of the dogmatism 
over the detail.  I think we have a more speculative discussional note on 
current fulfillments an dpointers in note 58 (Signs of the Times).

I would also emphasise that typology does not create doctrine.  This
reduces prophetic interpretation to merely finding an event which can be
used as a picture of whatever you want.  I have heard preaching like that,
and squirmed.  It is not expounding scripture; it is appropriating
scripture. The speaker selects what he wants from different situations to
illustrate his stance of the time.  There are valid pictures, but they 
illustrate a principle defined elsewhere.  They do not in themselves ceate 
a precedent.

I'm sorry ... I didn't actually find any meat in replies .124, .125 ...

.128 looks as if it has more potential, though it's addressed to Garth, but
really emphasises that we need to define what we're referring to by 'The
Great Tribulation', and its synonyms, and how many actual circumstances are 
covered by them.  I think that needs to become our next focus. 


 							Andrew

Another quick aside:

I ordered a poster entitled "The Bridge" from "Friends of Israel Gospel
Ministry" to put up in my office.  Along with the poster, they sent me a
complementary issue of their magazine, "Israel My Glory."  This jogged my
memory about Marvin Rosenthal, the man I referred to in reply .153 and earlier.

It was this ministry that he directed, and this magazine which he editted for 
16 years, until being compelled to resign as a result of his abandonning the
pre-trib rapture doctrine, which the magazine still clearly teaches.

Although I don't necessarily completely buy into Rosenthal's new scenario, I
admire his courage and conviction, and his willingness to forsake his position
of prominence in a nationally recognized evangelical ministry, for the sake of
the integrity of God's word. 

(Now back to waiting for Steve Leech on Rev 3:10.)

    There are others that have gone from post to pre as well.  While it's
    great to admit supposed error, changing stances isn't all that
    impressive to me regardless of if it's pre, post, or mid.
    
Revelation 3:10
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the
hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell
upon the earth.

    Garth, what temptations/trials have there been that have affected the
    entire world in scope?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>by some world event.  While the change in your eschatological stance may 
>be minimal, the whole loses general credibility because of the dogmatism 
>over the detail.  I think we have a more speculative discussional note on 
>current fulfillments an dpointers in note 58 (Signs of the Times).
    
    Neither should we ignore the obvious as it unfolds before our eyes.

>I would also emphasise that typology does not create doctrine.  This
>reduces prophetic interpretation to merely finding an event which can be
>used as a picture of whatever you want.  I have heard preaching like that,
    
    I somewhat agree, but typology shows the patterns on how God deals with
    His people and proves that He is the same yesterday, today, and
    forever.  Typology shows the consistentcy of God.
    
    Mike

>.128 looks as if it has more potential, though it's addressed to Garth, but
>really emphasises that we need to define what we're referring to by 'The
>Great Tribulation', and its synonyms, and how many actual circumstances are 
>covered by them.  I think that needs to become our next focus. 
    
    Andrew, you can respond to this if you wish too, that's what this 
    conference is for.  BTW - You still haven't addressed the issue of
    "elect" and how Replacement Theology and ignorance of Israel leads to
    improper prophetic interpretations.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Re: .169  (Mike Heiser)
    
>Revelation 3:10
>Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the
>hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that
>dwell upon the earth.
>
>    Garth, what temptations/trials have there been that have affected the
>    entire world in scope?
    
None that I know of.  I assume that the worldwide "hour of trial" is yet to 
come.

Since you are still in the discussion, could you get back to addressing my
three questions to you about Rev 3:10?  

	Why must "kept out of" mean rapture?
	Why must "hour" mean 7 years?
	Why must "Philadelphia" mean "end-times church"?

re .170
�    Neither should we ignore the obvious as it unfolds before our eyes.
Agreed, but first it's the force-fitting I'm concerned about, and then the
'unfolding' should confirm our understanding rather than re-interpret the
Word.  It comes second in priority.

Evidence needs to be considered in strict order :
 [A] What the scripture says explicitly, and how scripture confirms scripture
 [B] Secondary scriptures which are a more indirect confirmation (eg the 
     circumstances around the main issue).
 [C] Other scriptural principles which support the conclusions of [A] and [B]

It is also important to prayerfully consider passages which apparently
imply a different conclusion, to make sure that undue bias is not applied
from a presupposition or preference,and also how these passages should be
understood.  In discussing this topic, we are (I hope ;-) both endeavouring
to further our knowledge of God and His Word in this way.

 [D] External evidence - of a confirmatory nature can let us tick off the 
     signs as they happen, or measure roughly where we have reached.

re .171

�    Andrew, you can respond to this if you wish too, that's what this 
�    conference is for.  

 Gee THANKS Mike!!!!  ;-)  - [ & getting excited now ... ;-]

� BTW - You still haven't addressed the issue of "elect" and how
� Replacement Theology and ignorance of Israel leads to improper prophetic
� interpretations. 

I wasn't aware that these were pertinent to the topic.  Where & in what
context did you raise them?  I would have expected them under a pre-/a-
millennial discussion, rather than under pre- and post- tribulational
rapture discussion, which presumes a pre-millenial position. 

Personally I was thinking that if we could define the Great Tribulation, it 
would help in positioning a lot of scriptures.  You gave some helpful 
references which I glanced at last night, and thought they might make a 
starting point.  They include a lot of events that are sometimes loosely 
thought of as the Great Tribulation, without any clear understanding of 
why, or what it is.  I'll get there eventually.  Unless He comes first.  

				or ... dare I say it .... ;-) ;-) ;-)

								Andrew

    Garth, 
    
>None that I know of.  I assume that the worldwide "hour of trial" is yet to 
>come.
    
    How about Noah's Flood?  The only other one we know about is the Great
    Tribulation.  These are the only 2 events in history that have a
    worldwide scope.  One has happened, one is yet to happen.  Agreed?

>	Why must "kept out of" mean rapture?
    
    How does God protect His Bride from His Great Outpouring of Wrath with
    a worldwide scope?  The same way He protected Enoch from Noah's Flood.
    God is consistent and constant.  He doesn't change from previously
    established patterns.
    
    Also remember, the hour of trial of Revelation 3:10 will happen to
    those who dwell upon the earth - which also happens to be the entire
    scope of the trial.  Who are those who dwell on the earth?  The Greek
    word for "dwell" here means those who are literally earthly and do not
    have their home in heaven, but on earth.  Look how this phrase is used
    in the following chapters of Revelation (6:10, 13:8 for examples). 
    None of these describe the actions of believers.  Christians aren't
    mentioned at all in association with being on earth after Revelation 3. 
    The earth's inhabitants after Revelation 4 are associated with the
    wicked and unrighteous.  That's because the church isn't here, the
    rapture takes place before Revelation 4.
    
>	Why must "hour" mean 7 years?
    
    The word used for "hour" here is figurative.  Just like the "Great
    *Day* of the Lord," which we know is the 7-year Great Tribulation.  God
    deals with Israel and the Church separately.  After the 69th week of
    Gentile, the Time of the Gentiles (Church) began.  When the Fullness of
    the Gentiles (Romans 11:25) is reached, God will then finish dealing
    with Israel in the prophetic 70th week of Daniel - which is 7 years. 
    We know this "hour of trial" is the 70th Week of Daniel because it is
    worldwide in scope and only 2 events in history achieve that honor.
      
>	Why must "Philadelphia" mean "end-times church"?
    
    As I've said before, the Lord divided the Book of Revelation into 3 
    sections: "1) Write the things which thou hast seen, 2) and the things 
    which are, 3) and the things which shall be after these things ('meta 
    tauta')" (Revelation 1:19).  John in obedience to the commandment, wrote 
    in chapter 1 the vision of Christ that he saw on the island of Patmos
    (section 1 of Revelation 1:19).  In chapters 2 and 3 he wrote of the 
    Church and the message of Jesus to the 7 churches (section 2 of
    Revelation 1:19).  Chapters 4-22 are the things that which shall be
    after these things, or section 3.

    However, we also know that the 7 Churches were not only current at that
    time, but also prophetic.  Why?  Because some churches were promised to
    be thrown into the Great Tribulation (i.e., Thyatira - Revelation 2:22) and
    some were promised to escape it (i.e., Philadelphia - Revelation 3:10) and 
    we already established that it hasn't happened yet.  Here we are almost
    2,000 years later and those churches John was addressing (through the
    Holy Spirit) haven't experienced their promises yet.
    
    hope this helps,
    Mike

    Andrew, 
>� BTW - You still haven't addressed the issue of "elect" and how
>� Replacement Theology and ignorance of Israel leads to improper prophetic
>� interpretations. 
>
>I wasn't aware that these were pertinent to the topic.  Where & in what
>context did you raise them?  I would have expected them under a pre-/a-
>millennial discussion, rather than under pre- and post- tribulational
>rapture discussion, which presumes a pre-millenial position. 
    
    Try the middle of .121

>Personally I was thinking that if we could define the Great Tribulation, it 
>would help in positioning a lot of scriptures.  You gave some helpful 
>references which I glanced at last night, and thought they might make a 
>starting point.  They include a lot of events that are sometimes loosely 
>thought of as the Great Tribulation, without any clear understanding of 
>why, or what it is.  I'll get there eventually.  Unless He comes first.  

    Well I've made my contribution/attempt in indentifying the many
    synonyms for the Great Tribulation.  I'll allow someone else to expand
    it to the next step.
    
    Mike

�    Try the middle of .121

Right! .... I'll start counting.. ;-)

�    Well I've made my contribution/attempt in identifying the many
�    synonyms for the Great Tribulation.  I'll allow someone else to expand
�    it to the next step.
    
Yes.  Some good pointers, but needs the wheat separated out from the 
chaff there.  That's what I was thinking when I looked at it last night.
I hope to come up with something soon.   [dinner actually, as I've had to 
stay til 7:20 p.m. to fix something.. :-{ ]

						God bless
							Andrew

{from Pastor Chuck Missler's "Personal Update - Pre-Trib Origins", Feb. 1995}

Our article on the "Pre-Tribulation Rapture" in the January newsletter has
raised some questions from our readers concerning the origin of this view.  Many
have been taught that these views originated through John Nelson Darby, who
popularized them in the 1820's.  However, the views associated with
"Pre-Tribulationism" are documented in the earliest church histories.  There are
over 80 references in the Ante-Nicene writings prior to 325 A.D.  (Writings of
the church prior to 325 A.D. and the Council of Nicea were translated into
English and assembled into a 10-volume set in the 1890's known as the
Ante-Nicene Library.  A list of pre-tribulation references among these writers
can be found in Grant Jeffrey's book, "Apocalypse," p. 313-322).

Amillennialism
--------------
Upon the "conversion" of Constantine, his Edict of Toleration declared
Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 325 A.D.  As one
can easily imagine, the view that Jesus Christ was destined to literally return
to the Earth to defeat evil governments and rule a political kingdom was not
popular with the Roman leadership.  Despite the messianic destiny clearly
portrayed in the Old Testament, the promise of David's Throne confirmed to Mary,
and the 1,000-year reign ("The Millenium") prophesied in the Book of Revelation,
Origen and others began to allegorize these passages and de-emphasized their
literal significance.  They preferred to view this "reign" in metaphorical terms
rather than a literal view.  Augustine adopted this allegorical, or symbolic,
"amillenial" view, which then became the dominant view of the Roman Catholic
Church.  The Protestant Reformation, with its "back to the Bible" emphasis,
dealt aggressively with the issues of salvation by faith and other crucial
doctrines, but the Protestant reformers failed to adequately challenge the
eschatological views of the medieval church.  The "amillenial" views, and their
associated "post-tribulation" views, thus continued as a dominant perspective of
many of the mainline Protestant denominations.

The Historical Record
---------------------
However, the original "pre-millenial, pre-tribulational" views can be traced
throughout church history.  The essentials of these views appear in the "Epistle
of Barnabas," (A.D. 100 - even the perception of the gap in Daniel 9:26, the key
to understanding the 70 Weeks of Daniel, appeared in this epistle) and other
early writings: Irenaeus, in "Against Heresies;" Hippolytus, a disciple of
Irenaeus (2nd century - see "Anti-Nicene Fathers" volume V, p. 192); and
Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho."  These views also show up in "The
Approaching Deliverance of the Church," by Peter Jurieu, 1687; Philip Doddrige's
"Commentary on the New Testament," 1738; Dr. John Gill's "Commentary on the New
Testament," 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1748; James McKnight's "Commentary on the
Apostolical Epistles," 1763; and Thomas Scott's "Commentary on the Holy Bible,"
1792.

Many writers, including the great scientist and mathematician Sir Issac Newton,
continue to advocate a literal view of prophecy.  Throughout the Bible itself,
the readers invariably understand the prophecies they are reading literally
((Daniel 9:2 and Matthew 2:6 (Micah 5:2)).  Since the "pre-trib" view was widely
popularized by John N. Darby in 1820 - along with Emmanuael Lacunza (Ben Ezra)
in 1812, Edward Irving in 1816, and Margaret McDonald in 1830 - many unfamiliar
with the views held earlier, ascribe the origin of these views to Darby.

A recent discovery has also been made by Grant Jeffrey, Tommy Ice, and Timothy
Demy that remarkably documents the pre-tribulation view of the early church.  As
a courtesy to them, we have agreed to defer publication on this one until later
this spring.  Stay tuned.

Sources:
--------
Jeffrey, Grant, "Apocalypse," Frontier Research Books, Toronto, Canada, 1992.

Weremchuk, Max S., "John Nelson Darby," Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune, NJ, 1992.

Timothy J. Demy and Thomas D. Ice, "The Rapture and the Pseudo-Ephraem: An Early
Medieval Citation," _Bibliotheca_Sacra_ 152 (to be published July-September
1995).

Re: .174  (Mike)
    
>    How about Noah's Flood?  The only other one we know about is the Great
>    Tribulation.  These are the only 2 events in history that have a
>    worldwide scope.  One has happened, one is yet to happen.  Agreed?

Rev 3:10 does not specifically say "Great Tribulation".  Nevertheless, there
is a worldwide outpouring of God's wrath to come.

Re: .174  (Mike)
    
>>	Why must "kept out of" mean rapture?
>    
>    How does God protect His Bride from His Great Outpouring of Wrath with
>    a worldwide scope?  The same way He protected Enoch from Noah's Flood.
    
Rev 3:10 says none of this.  You have to have already decided that all this
is to happen, then read it *into* Rev 3:10.  You certainly didn't read it
*out of* Rev 3:10.

Where is scripture to show that the Church will be protected as Enoch was
from Noah's Flood?

God can protect "Philadelphia" any way he wants.

>    God is consistent and constant.  He doesn't change from previously
>    established patterns.

False.  God is consistent and constant with regard to his nature, but 
certainly not with regard to his expression of it.

	Example:  Old Covenant vs. New Covenant 
	Example:  Strikes Miriam with leprosy, buries Korah alive
	Example:  Heals one blind man with mud/spit, one without

>    Christians aren't
>    mentioned at all in association with being on earth after Revelation 3. 

Classic argument from silence.  

What about the fact that New Testament believers are never documented as having
used musical instruments?  Oh, but they used them in the Old Testament, you 
say, and there is no prohibition from them being used in the New, you say, so
we can assume they still used them in the New, you say.

Well then, be consistent and use that same logic here.  Christians were
mentioned before Rev 4, and there is no prohibition against them still being
around after Rev 4.

And if God is "consistent and constant," and "doesn't change from previously
established patterns," as you say, then to be consistent you ought to insist
that the Christians *must* still be there in Rev 4, handing out tracts on the
street corners. 

(One thing for sure, they won't be posting Chuck Missler's articles on the
internet!)

>    The earth's inhabitants after Revelation 4 are associated with the
>    wicked and unrighteous.  That's because the church isn't here, the
>    rapture takes place before Revelation 4.
    
And so what if all Rev 4 and beyond addresses is the wicked and unrighteous?
The book of Acts doesn't mention many of the apostles past the first few
chapters.  Did they all get raptured?  None of scripture mentions the United
States (or any of its natives).  Does that mean we aren't here? 

Re: .174  (Mike)
    
>>	Why must "hour" mean 7 years?
>    
>    The word used for "hour" here is figurative.  Just like the "Great
>    *Day* of the Lord," which we know is the 7-year Great Tribulation.

Now wait just a minute.  Just a few notes ago you and I were *wondering* if 
perhaps the "day" of the Lord was an extended period of time.  How did this
evolve to "we know" that it is 7 years long?

>    God deals with Israel and the Church separately.  After the 69th week of
>    Gentile, the Time of the Gentiles (Church) began.  When the Fullness of
>    the Gentiles (Romans 11:25) is reached, God will then finish dealing
>    with Israel in the prophetic 70th week of Daniel - which is 7 years. 
>    We know this "hour of trial" is the 70th Week of Daniel because it is
>    worldwide in scope and only 2 events in history achieve that honor.
      
Again, you are just stating your doctrine, not defending it.

Daniel doesn't say all of the 70th Week is tribulation, trial, or wrath.
Therefore, what does Daniel's 7 years have to do with Rev 3:10's "hour" of
trial?

Re: .174  (Mike)
    
>>	Why must "Philadelphia" mean "end-times church"?
>    
>    As I've said before, the Lord divided the Book of Revelation into 3 
>    sections: "1) Write the things which thou hast seen, 2) and the things 
>    which are, 3) and the things which shall be after these things ('meta 
>    tauta')" (Revelation 1:19).  John in obedience to the commandment, wrote 
>    in chapter 1 the vision of Christ that he saw on the island of Patmos
>    (section 1 of Revelation 1:19).  In chapters 2 and 3 he wrote of the 
>    Church and the message of Jesus to the 7 churches (section 2 of
>    Revelation 1:19).  Chapters 4-22 are the things that which shall be
>    after these things, or section 3.
>
>    However, we also know that the 7 Churches were not only current at that
>    time, but also prophetic.  Why?  Because some churches were promised to
>    be thrown into the Great Tribulation (i.e., Thyatira - Revelation 2:22) and
>    some were promised to escape it (i.e., Philadelphia - Revelation 3:10) and 
>    we already established that it hasn't happened yet.  Here we are almost
>    2,000 years later and those churches John was addressing (through the
>    Holy Spirit) haven't experienced their promises yet.
    
Rev 2 says nothing about "The Great Tribulation" in connection with Thyatira.

As I've said before, one way that "Philadelphia" could be saved from the
worldwide "hour of trial" is if all its members passed away and were buried
and before it happened.

Again, you are just restating your doctrine, not defending it.

Any conceivable scenario that removes the Philadelphians before the end-times
works. 

Which brings me back to ask the same question again:  How do you know that 
Philadelphia = end times church?

    Re: .178 (Garth)
    
>Rev 3:10 does not specifically say "Great Tribulation".  Nevertheless, there
>is a worldwide outpouring of God's wrath to come.
    
    Again, how many "worldwide outpouring of God's wrath" are left to
    happen?  Only 1 - the Great Tribulation.  It may not specifically say
    it but it is as plain as the nose on your face.
    
    Re: .179 (Garth)
    
�>    How does God protect His Bride from His Great Outpouring of Wrath with
�>    a worldwide scope?  The same way He protected Enoch from Noah's Flood.
�    
�Rev 3:10 says none of this.  You have to have already decided that all this
�is to happen, then read it *into* Rev 3:10.  You certainly didn't read it
�*out of* Rev 3:10.
    
    Actually you know very well that it is a combination of several verses.

�Where is scripture to show that the Church will be protected as Enoch was
�from Noah's Flood?
    
    I'll make you a list in the next reply.

�God can protect "Philadelphia" any way he wants.
    
    True, but He never contradicts His Word as well.  You didn't address
    the phrase "those who dwell on the earth" and the context and meaning
    of its use throughout the book of Revelation.  In its context and
    meaning, it couldn't possibly describe the Church.

�False.  God is consistent and constant with regard to his nature, but 
�certainly not with regard to his expression of it.
�
�	Example:  Old Covenant vs. New Covenant 
    
    fwiw, these are not different approaches or opposites.  The New is a
    fulfillment of the Old.
    
�	Example:  Strikes Miriam with leprosy, buries Korah alive
�	Example:  Heals one blind man with mud/spit, one without
    
    I'll grant you God's Sovereignty on these.

�Classic argument from silence.  
    
    Not exactly.  There are saints mentioned in chapters Revelation 4-18
    but they're in heaven already.  In 19-21 the saints are mentioned
    again, returning from heaven with Christ.

�What about the fact that New Testament believers are never documented as having
�used musical instruments?  Oh, but they used them in the Old Testament, you 
    
    Matthew 6:2, 9:23, 11:7, 26:30, Mark 14:26, Luke 4:16-20 (readings were sung
    in the Temple), 7:32, 15:25, Acts 16:25, 1 Corinthians 13:1, 14:7-8,
    not to mention the instrument sounds mentioned in all the
    eschatological passages.  btw - the voice is very much a musical
    instrument.  It's an instrument of praise (Psalm 150).

�Well then, be consistent and use that same logic here.  Christians were
�mentioned before Rev 4, and there is no prohibition against them still being
�around after Rev 4.
    
    Sorry, that logic doesn't apply.  Even if you don't acknowledge the
    voice as an instrument of praise per God's Word, the angels sound the 
    trumpets and they're believers.

�that the Christians *must* still be there in Rev 4, handing out tracts on the
�street corners. 
    
    as stated, only saints mentioned are already in heaven.

�(One thing for sure, they won't be posting Chuck Missler's articles on the
�internet!)
    
    already on the WWW.  Probably the first ministry with its own home
    page.  btw - I think you'll love his article that shows all the errors
    involved with scenarios other than pre-trib.

�And so what if all Rev 4 and beyond addresses is the wicked and unrighteous?
�The book of Acts doesn't mention many of the apostles past the first few
�chapters.  Did they all get raptured?  None of scripture mentions the United
�States (or any of its natives).  Does that mean we aren't here? 
    
    God doesn't subject His believers to His wrath and judges believers and
    the wicked separately.  If believers were part of those "who dwell on
    the earth" the Holy Spirit would've told us.  The Greek is really
    strong here in this phrase.  The Holy Spirit doesn't carelessly select
    its words.  Instead the Holy Spirit tells us that the saints are in
    heaven.
    
    Re: .180 (Garth)

�Now wait just a minute.  Just a few notes ago you and I were *wondering* if 
�perhaps the "day" of the Lord was an extended period of time.  How did this
�evolve to "we know" that it is 7 years long?
    
    You were *wondering*.  It was a rhetorical reply on my part.  I believe 
    it's obvious from all the OT and NT passages that speak of the Great Day 
    of the Lord.  Again, we're back to a worldwide outpouring of God's Wrath 
    where God finally finishes dealing with Israel in Daniel's 70th week.  

�Again, you are just stating your doctrine, not defending it.
    
    Sorry Garth, it's Biblical.  Straight out of the Word.

�Daniel doesn't say all of the 70th Week is tribulation, trial, or wrath.
�Therefore, what does Daniel's 7 years have to do with Rev 3:10's "hour" of
�trial?
    
    Doesn't really matter how long it is (7 or 3.5) since we know it's the
    only worldwide outpouring of God's Wrath left.  We know Daniel's 70th
    week contains this worldwide outpouring of God's Wrath.  We know the
    Church will escape it (Ephesus & Philadelphia are the only ones that
    receive praise from Christ).
    
    regards,
    Mike

    Re: .181 (Garth)
    
>Rev 2 says nothing about "The Great Tribulation" in connection with Thyatira.
    
    Revelation 2:22 specifically mentions "Great Tribulation" in the
    KJV and NAS.

>As I've said before, one way that "Philadelphia" could be saved from the
>worldwide "hour of trial" is if all its members passed away and were buried
>and before it happened.
    
    I suppose that's possible if the verb tense wasn't "present tense" and
    you disrespect Christ and the Holy Spirit enough to think they would
    give a prophecy to a nonexistent group of people.  It's obvious too
    that "present tense" is used to enforce imminency.

>Any conceivable scenario that removes the Philadelphians before the end-times
>works. 
    
    Well you'll have to let us know when you think of a really good one.

>Which brings me back to ask the same question again:  How do you know that 
>Philadelphia = end times church?

    Question answered.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Re: Note 644.177 "Pre-Trib Origins" OUTSRC::HEISER "Grace changes everything"

> {from Pastor Chuck Missler's "Personal Update - Pre-Trib Origins", Feb. 1995}

> Our article on the "Pre-Tribulation Rapture" in the January newsletter has
> raised some questions from our readers concerning the origin of this view.
> Many have been taught that these views originated through John Nelson Darby,
> who popularized them in the 1820's.  However, the views associated with
> "Pre-Tribulationism" are documented in the earliest church histories.  There
> are over 80 references in the Ante-Nicene writings prior to 325 A.D.
> (Writings of the church prior to 325 A.D. and the Council of Nicea were
> translated into English and assembled into a 10-volume set in the 1890's
> known as the Ante-Nicene Library.  A list of pre-tribulation references among
> these writers can be found in Grant Jeffrey's book, "Apocalypse,"
> p. 313-322).

Pretty interesting, given that Millenialism -- that is, the belief that there
would be a literal, 1000-year earthly reign of Christ -- was condemned by the
early church, possibly the only eschological view condemned (other than a
denial of the Second Coming).

> Amillennialism
> --------------

> Upon the "conversion" of Constantine, his Edict of Toleration declared
> Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 325 A.D.  As
> one can easily imagine, the view that Jesus Christ was destined to literally
> return to the Earth to defeat evil governments and rule a political kingdom
> was not popular with the Roman leadership.  

Interesting.  First, the Edict of Toleration was 311 A.D.  325 A.D. was the
Council of Nicea, which produced the Nicene Creed which the Christian
Emperors not only confessed but defended, which said of Jesus, "He shall come
again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no
end."

> Despite the messianic destiny clearly portrayed in the Old Testament, the
> promise of David's Throne confirmed to Mary, and the 1,000-year reign ("The
> Millenium") prophesied in the Book of Revelation, Origen and others began to
> allegorize these passages and de-emphasized their literal significance.  They
> preferred to view this "reign" in metaphorical terms rather than a literal
> view.  

Actually allegoricalizing came even earlier.  Origen, whom you rightly point
out as being of the allegorical school, actually lived long before Constantine,
in the 3rd century. His allegory is then clearly not related to pressure from
the Roman Emperor.

The Epistle of Barnabas, which I shall address shortly with respect to the
claims made to it, chided the Jews for actually believing that the Mosaic Law
was intended to be taken literally, and not allegorically:

     10:1 |But in that Moses said, Thou shalt not eat the swine, nor the eagle,
     nor the hawk, nor the crow, nor any fish that hath not scales in itself,
     he had in his mind three doctrines.

     10:2 For in the end he saith unto them in Deuteronomy, And I will arrange
     before this people my ordinances. The commandment of God is not,
     therefore, that they should not eat; but Moses spake in a spiritual sense.

     10:3 He spake of the swine with this meaning: Thou shalt not cleave, he
     meaneth, unto men of this sort, who are like unto swine, for when they
     become wanton they forget their Lord, but when they are in want they think
     upon the Lord; even as the swine when it eateth knoweth not its lord, but
     when it is hungry it crieth, and when it hath received it is again silent.

     10:4 Nor shalt thou eat of the eagle, nor of the hawk, nor of the kite,
     nor of the crow. Thou shalt not, he meaneth, cleave to, nor be like to men
     of this sort, who know not how to provide sustenance for themselves by
     labour and sweat, but in their iniquity seize the property of others, and,
     as though they walked in innocence, watch and observe whom they shall
     plunder, through their covetousness; even as these birds alone provide not
     sustenance for themselves by means of toil, but, sitting idle, seek out
     how they may eat the flesh of others, being destructive by reason of their
     wickedness.

     10:5 And thou shalt not eat, he saith, of the lamprey, or the polypus, or
     the cuttle-fish. Thou shalt not, he meaneth, cleave to or become like unto
     men of this sort, who are impious unto the end, and have been already
     condemned to death, even as these accursed fish alone swim in the depth,
     not floating as the others do, but dwelling in the earth below the depth
     of the sea.

     10:6 Thus, he saith, Thou shalt not eat the hare, meaning thou shalt not
     indulge in unnatural lusts;

     10:7 nor shalt thou eat the hyaena, meaning thou shalt not be an
     adulterer;

     10:8 nor shalt thou eat the weazel, meaning thou shalt not do uncleanness
     with thy mouth concerning food;

     10:9 therefore Moses spake in the spirit these three doctrines. But they,
     according to the lusts of their flesh, received them as being about meat.

The full text of the Epistle of Barnabas is availabe online; via FTP or the
Web, from ftp://ftp.american.edu/pub/catholic/barn.txt; over DECnet, you can
get my copy from my workstation: KOLBE::"~ftp/haShem/barnabas.txt".  (Quotes
required for VMS users, case sensitive.)  It's 53k.

Certainly there must be limits to allegorical interpretation.  And I'd even
concede that the allegorical view did not reach its height until a few
centuries later; the Alexandrian school was well-known for this approach,
and I believe Origen was among them.  The Antiochian school, however, took a
much more literal approach to Scriptural hermeneutics.

[to be continued ...]

> The Historical Record
> ---------------------
> However, the original "pre-millenial, pre-tribulational" views can be traced
> throughout church history.  The essentials of these views appear in the
> "Epistle of Barnabas," (A.D. 100 - even the perception of the gap in Daniel
> 9:26, the key to understanding the 70 Weeks of Daniel, appeared in this
> epistle) and other early writings: Irenaeus, in "Against Heresies;"
> Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenaeus (2nd century - see "Anti-Nicene Fathers"
> volume V, p. 192); and Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho."  These views
> also show up in "The Approaching Deliverance of the Church," by Peter Jurieu,
> 1687; Philip Doddrige's "Commentary on the New Testament," 1738; Dr. John
> Gill's "Commentary on the New Testament," 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1748;
> James McKnight's "Commentary on the Apostolical Epistles," 1763; and Thomas
> Scott's "Commentary on the Holy Bible," 1792.

It would be good to have references to this.  I have the Epistle of Barnabas
online and it is a laughable assertion that anything in it could be construed
as supporting "pre-trib rapture."  I've read the whole work, and here is the
only section which has any relevance to eschatology, verses 4:3 to 4:5:

   The last great hindrance of all is now at hand, which according to Enoch is
   described in Scripture.  For the Lord has made an end of times and days, so
   that his Beloved can come quickly and enter upon his inheritance.  The
   prophet speaks to this effect: 'Ten kingdoms will reign over the earth, and
   after that a petty king will arise and bring down three of those kings at
   once.'  [Dan 7:24] On the same subject Daniel has a similar thought: 'I saw
   a fourth beast, which was evil and powerful and more savage than all the
   other creatures in the ocean; and I saw how ten horns sprang out of it; and
   then out of them sprang a smaller horn, a kind of offshoot, and it subdued
   three of the larger horns at once.'  [Dan 7:7] It is for you to think out
   the interpretation of this.

A lot of questions need to be answered: Did these Fathers really teach and
believe all of the unwritten assumptions behind the pre-tribulation
millenialist view?  Or is one misinterpreting what they have written, and 
reading into it what was not intended?  Did they really believe that there was
a time period, long before the General Resurrection, where all true believers
would disappear from the earth?  Or is the alleged proof more subtle?

If we had full references I could verify these claims with greater accuracy.
But right now I doubt that they conclusively teach what is now identified as
"pre-trib millenialism."

There is more in Barnabas which Fundamentalists may find interesting:

     4:9 Now, though I wished to write many things unto you, not as a master,
     but even as suiteth one that loveth you, not to fall short of the things
     that we have, I have been zealous to write unto you as though I were the
     offscouring of you. Let us, therefore, give heed unto the last days; for
     the whole time of our faith will profit us nothing unless now, in the
     season of iniquity and among the stumbling-blocks that are coming, we
     resist as becometh the sons of God, 

     4:10 that the evil one may not have entrance unawares. Let us fly all
     vanity and hate perfectly the deeds of the evil way. Do not, entering into
     your own houses, dwell alone, as though ye were already justified, but
     coming together, inquire one with another concerning the common advantage.

[Faith profits us nothing unless we persevere; our justification is not yet
complete.]

     4:11 For the scripture saith, Woe unto them that are wise in their own
     conceit and learned in their own eyes. Let us be spiritual: let us be a
     perfect temple unto God. So far as in you lieth, let us practise the fear
     of God, and strive to keep his commandments, that we may be glad in his
     ordinances.

     4:12 The Lord shall judge the world without respect of persons; each shall
     receive according as he hath done; if he be good, righteousness shall go
     before him, but if he be evil, the reward of wickedness shall be before
     him.

     4:13 Let us give heed that we do not, as being already elect, take rest,
     and sleep in our sins, lest the ruler of wickedness, getting the mastery
     over us, thrust us from the kingdom of the Lord.

[The man who clings to what is wicked will be thrust from the kingdom; his
faith will not avail.]

     11:1 |Let us inquire, therefore, if the Lord cared to show us beforehand
     concerning the water and concerning the cross. Concerning the water it is
     written, with respect to Israel, how that they will not receive the
     baptism that bringeth remission of sins, but will establish one for
     themselves.

     11:2 The prophet therefore speaketh in this wise, Be astonished, O heaven!
     and let the earth be afraid still more at this, because this people hath
     done two great and evil things: they have abandoned me who am the fountain
     of life, and have dug for themselves broken cisterns.

[It is baptism which brings remission of sins.]

     19:1 |Now, the path of life is this: If any one wishes to travel to the
     appointed place, let him hasten by means of his works. Now, the knowledge
     of walking in it that is given unto us is of this kind:

[We must not merely believe the Word of God, but also do it.]

     19:2 Thou shalt love him that made thee, thou shalt fear him that formed
     thee, thou shalt glorify him that redeemed thee from death. Thou shalt be
     simple in heart, and rich in spirit; thou shalt not cleave unto them that
     go in the path of death. Thou shalt hate whatever is not pleasing unto
     God; thou shalt hate all hypocrisy; thou shalt not abandon the
     commandments of the Lord . . .

     21:1 |It is therefore right that he who has learned the ordinances of the
     Lord, even as many as have been written beforehand, should walk in
     them. For he who doeth these things shall be glorified in the Kingdom of
     God, but he who chooseth the contrary things shall perish together with
     his works. On this account is the resurrection; on this account is the
     retribution.

[We may be condemned on the basis of our sins, apart from faith.]

> A recent discovery has also been made by Grant Jeffrey, Tommy Ice, and
> Timothy Demy that remarkably documents the pre-tribulation view of the early
> church.  As a courtesy to them, we have agreed to defer publication on this
> one until later this spring.  Stay tuned.

Looking forward to it.  While they're at it I hope they learn the full Gospel
message as taught by the early Christians; I think they'd find some surprises.

>    already on the WWW.  Probably the first ministry with its own home
>    page. 

URL ? ...

Maybe this has already been covered; forgive me if it has.  But the verse which
most clearly refers to what is known as the "Rapture", the one in 1
Thessalonians, makes perfectly clear that whatever happens will happen _AFTER_
the General Resurrection and simultaneously with the Second Coming.  As such
there is no room for reordering the "Rapture" before the General Resurrection
and injecting a seven year period between them, ESPECIALLY if you venerate a
literal interpretation of Scripture.

If there is an answer already online one is free to give me a pointer.

�>    already on the WWW.  Probably the first ministry with its own home
�>    page. 
�
�URL ? ...
    
    Eric, see 12.168

{from Pastor Chuck Missler's "Personal Update - The Great Snatch?", Jan. 1995}

Table 1: Rapture & Second Coming Passages

Rapture                                                   Second Coming
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John 14:1-3                                               Daniel 2:44-45
Romans 8:19                                               Daniel 7:9-14
1 Corinthians 1:7-8                                       Daniel 12:1-3
1 Corinthians 15:1-53                                     Zechariah 14:1-15
1 Corinthians 16:22                                       Matthew 13:41
Philippians 3:20-21                                       Matthew 24:15-31
Colossians 3:4                                            Matthew 26:64
1 Thessalonians 1:10                                      Mark 13:14-27
1 Thessalonians 2:19                                      Mark 14:62
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18                                   Luke 21:25-28
1 Thessalonians 5:9                                       Acts 1:9-11
1 Thessalonians 5:23                                      Acts 3:19-21
2 Thessalonians 2:1(3)                                    1 Thessalonians 3:13
1 Timothy 6:14                                            2 Thessalonians 1:6-10
2 Timothy 4:1                                             2 Thessalonians 2:8
Titus 2:13                                                2 Peter 3:1-14
Hebrews 9:28                                              Jude 14-15
James 5:7-9                                               Revelation 1:7
1 Peter 1:7,13                                            Revelation 19:11-20:6
1 John 2:28-3:2                                           Revelation 22:7,12,20
Jude 21
Revelation 2:25
Revelation 3:10

Table 2: Principal Contrasts Between the Rapture & Second Coming

   Rapture                                   Second Coming
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Translation of all believers              No translation at all
2. Translated saints go to heaven            Translated saints return to earth
3. Earth not judged                          Earth judged & righteousness
                                                established
4. Imminent, any-moment, signless            Follows definite predicted signs,
                                                including tribulation
5. Not in the OT  [MH - Enoch?]              Predicted often in OT
6. Believers only                            Affects all men on the earth
7. Before the day of wrath                   Concluding the day of wrath
8. No reference to Satan                     Satan bound
9. Christ comes *for* His own                Christ comes *with* His own
10. He comes in the *air*                    He comes to the *earth*
11. He claims His bride                      He comes with His bride
12. Only His own see Him                     Every eye shall see Him
13. Tribulation begins (?)                   Millenial Kingdom begins

(Items 1-8, John F. Walvoord, "The Return of the Lord," Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
MI, 1955, pp. 87-88; 9-13, Edward E. Hindson, Unpublished paper presented
privately, Dec. 1992 to the Pre-Trib Study Group.)

{from Pastor Chuck Missler's "Personal Update - The Great Snatch?", Jan. 1995}

We continue to receive many questions concerning the "Rapture" of the church and
its apparent contrast with the "Second Coming" of Christ.  Where does this view
come from?  Is the term "rapture" even in the Bible?

The mysterious even known as the Rapture is most clearly represented in 1
Thessalonians 4:13-18, which encourages the grieving Christians that, at the
"great snatch," they will be reunited with those who have died in Christ before
them.  In verse 17, the English phrase "caught up" translates the Greek word
'harpazo,' which means "to seize upon with force" or "to snatch up."  The Latin
translators of the Bible used the word "rapturo," the root of the English term
"Rapture."  At the Rapture, living believers will be "caught up" in the air,
translated into the clouds, in a moment in time to join the Lord in the air.

There are many that still hold to the view that emerged in the Medieval church
(Catholic & Protestant) that the "Second Coming" of Christ and the "Rapture" are
somehow the same.  Yet there seems to be a number of indications that these are
distinct and separate.  The passages referring to the Rapture and the Second
Coming are summarized in Table 1.

There is also predicted an unparalleled "time of trouble" that Jesus called the
"Great Tribulation" (Matthew 24:21, Daniel 12:1).  Many hold to the view that
the Rapture of the church will occur *after* that specific period of time, thus,
closely associating it with the Second Coming.  This is known as the
"post-tribulation" view.

Post-Tribulation Views
----------------------
There are at least 4 distinct types of post-tribulational views (John F.
Walvoord, "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation: A Biblical and Historical Study
of Post-Tribulationism," Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976, pp. 21-69.  Post-
tribulationism is not monolithic, but embraces many mutually contradictory
views: amillenial post-tribulation, postmillenial post-tribulation, premillenial
post-tribulational, and post-tribulation views that equate the Rapture and the
Second Coming):

1. Classic post-tribulationism (J. Barton Payne, et al)
2. Semi-classic post-tribulationism (Alexander Reese)
3. Futuristic post-tribulationism (George E. Ladd)
4. Dispensational post-tribulationism (Robert H. Gundry)

These differing views are based upon different approaches, presuppositions, and
argumentation.  In fact, they substantially contradict each other.  As one
insists on literalness, each of these views must embrace increasing
difficulties.  Those of us who cling to a very literal view of the Scriptures
believe that the church will be removed *prior* to the tribulation period (the
"pre-tribulation" view).  Why?  What is the basis for this view?

The Pre-Tribulation View
------------------------
(this article was excerpted from notes provided by Tommy Ice, Executive Director
of the Pre-Trib Research Center, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW, Suite 801,
Washington D.C., 20024)

The Rapture is characterized in the NT as a "translation coming" (1 Corinthians
15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) in which the Lord comes *for* His church,
taking her to His Father's House (John 14:3).  However, at Christ's Second
Coming *with* His saints, He descends from heaven to set up His Messianic
Kingdom on earth (Zechariah 14:4-5; Matthew 24:27-31).  The differences between
the 2 events are harmonized naturally by the "pre-trib" position, while other
views are not able to account comfortably for such differences.  The passages
referring to the Rapture and the Second Coming are summarized in Table 1.  The
principal contrasts between the 2 are summarized in Table 2.

A New Testament Mystery
-----------------------
Paul speaks of the Rapture as a "mystery" (1 Corinthians 15:51-54), that is, a
truth not revealed until its disclosure by the apostles (Colossians 1:26).  The
Second Coming, on the other hand, was predicted in the OT (Daniel 12:1-3,
Zechariah 12:10, 14:4).  In fact, the oldest prophecy uttered by a prophet was
given before the flood of Noah and was of the Second Coming!  It was given by
Enoch, quoted in Jude 14-15.

The movement of the believer at the Rapture is from earth to heaven; at the
Second Coming it is from heaven to earth.  At the Rapture, the Lord comes *for*
His saints (1 Thessalonians 4:16), which at the Second Coming the Lord comes
*with* His saints (1 Thessalonians 3:13).

Post-Tribulation Problems
-------------------------
One of the strengths of the pre-trib view is that it is better able to harmonize
the many events of end-time prophecy because of the above distinctions.  There
are some awkward difficulties with the post-tribulational view:

1. The post-tribulational view requires that the church be present during the
70th week of Daniel (Daniel 9:24-27), even though it was absent from the first
69.  This is in spite of the fact that Daniel 9:24 indicates that all 70 weeks
are for Israel.  We believe the church must depart prior to the 70th week,
before the final 7-year period.

2. The post-tribulation view denies the NT teaching of immminency - that Christ
could come at any moment - since there are intervening events required in that
view.  We believe there are no signs that must precede the Rapture.

3. The post-tribulation view has difficulties with who will populate the
Millennium if the Rapture and the Second Coming occur at essentially the same
time.  Since all believers will be translated at the Rapture and all unbelievers
are *judged*, because no unrighteous shall be allowed to enter Christ's Kingdom,
then no one would be left in mortal bodies to start the population base for the
Millennium.  (The Millennium is the term used to refer to the reign of Jesus
Christ upon the earth after His Second Coming (Revelation 20; Isaiah 65).  There
are many who do not take the Bible literally and allegorize these passages.
These are known as "Amillennialists."  We take the Bible more literally and
believe that there will be a literal 1000-year reign, and are known as
"Premillennialists.")

4. Similarly, post-tribulationism is not able to explain the sheep and goats
judgment after the Second Coming in Matthew 25:3-46.  Where would the believers
in mortal bodies come from if they are raptured at the Second Coming?  Who would
be able to enter Christ's Kingdom?

5. The Bride of Christ, the church, is made ready to accompany Christ to earth
(Revelation 19:7-8,14) before the Second Coming, but how could this reasonably
happen if part of the church is still on the earth awaiting the Second Coming?
If the Rapture of the church takes place at the Second Coming, then how does the
Bride (the church) also come *with* Christ at His Return?

While many diligent scholars disagree, most of their views derive from their
presuppositions about the Scripture.  The more literal a view, the more there is
an adoption of a premillenial pre-tribulation position.  We encourage you to
review the various passages yourself and develop your own conclusions.  This is
our "Blessed Hope," and you will not find a more exciting and rewarding
discovery.  This is just a brief overview of a complex subject so apply 2
Timothy 2:15:

       "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to
        be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

This topic is perhaps the most demanding from the point of view of requiring the
greatest amount of integration of many portions of Scripture.  Remember Acts
17:11:

       "Receive the Word with all readiness of mind, but search the Scriptures
        daily to prove whether these things be so."

A more comprehensive treatment of some of these topics is included in our
Expositional Commentaries on the book of Daniel and the Thessalonian epistles.
And if you don't happen to hold our views, don't worry about it.  We'll explain
it to you on the way up!  Incidentally, Enoch is a model.  He was pre-flood, not
mid-flood, or post-flood!

    Hmmm, well if Pastor Missler's patristic exegesis compares to his
    Biblical exegesis, it doesn't surprise me he finds pre-trib
    millenialism in the Fathers.
    
    I've done some more checking on various Fathers, in particular St.
    Irenaeus of Lyons, the Epistle to Diogenetus, and St. Justin Martyr. 
    St. Irenaeus and St. Justin definitely favored a kind of millenialism;
    in particular see Book 5, chapter 32 of _Against Heresies_ and chapter
    80 of _Dialogue with Trypho_.  However, based on the citations I've
    found in these two -- admittedly I do not have the complete texts nor
    have I searched them in their entirety -- I can find no support for any
    mention of the Rapture or when it supposedly occurs.  They speak with
    some detail about eschatology, and the glorification of the saints, but
    nothing which IMHO could be clearly identified as the "Rapture", nor of
    its placement in the end times-table. (:-)). 
    
    Based on the ease with which I found millenial or quasi-millenial texts
    in the books quoted as supporting pre-trib rapture, and based on the
    interesting set of Scriptures which Pastor Missler identifies as
    Rapturous :-) but which I do not think must be interpreted that way, I
    strongly suspect that, when claiming patristic support for pre-trib, he
    is in fact referring to quotes which at best support millenialism but
    which have nothing convincing or conclusive to say about any supposed
    pre-trib rapture.
    
    I find Missler's list of quotes allegedly referring to the Rapture in
    actuality much vaguer than that, and often easily applicable to the
    ultimate destiny of the sons of God, without respect to _when_ they
    will meet Jesus.  A verse which refers to Jesus 'coming to get us' does
    not imply Rapture; it could imply personal judgment or general judgment
    as well.  But I am not prepared to reply yet in detail to his article
    and exegesis.
    
    Incidentally I did find it interesting that Origen was numbered among
    the few millenialists in the early church, his allegorical bent
    notwithstanding.
    
    Eric

    So who is going to explain the errors of the post-trib view?
    
    Eric, if you have concerns about Barnabas or anything else, I suggest
    you email Chuck Missler or write the the Pre-Trib Research Center.  I
    have no experience with those ancient texts.
    
    Mike

Re: .192  (Mike)
    
>    Eric, if you have concerns about Barnabas or anything else, I suggest
>    you email Chuck Missler or write the the Pre-Trib Research Center.  I
>    have no experience with those ancient texts.
    
You posted Chuck Missler's material in this notesfile.  It was not Missler's
idea to do so.  Therefore, you are accountable for defending the material of
his that you posted.

BTW, I do intend on responding to your postings on Rev 3:10 and associated 
tangents.

>You posted Chuck Missler's material in this notesfile.  It was not Missler's
>idea to do so.  Therefore, you are accountable for defending the material of
>his that you posted.
    
    Fine then.  When the books come out, feel free to purchase a copy and
    send it to me.
    
    thanks a bunch,
    Mike

Re: .194  (Mike)

>>You posted Chuck Missler's material in this notesfile.  It was not Missler's
>>idea to do so.  Therefore, you are accountable for defending the material of
>>his that you posted.
>    
>    Fine then.  When the books come out, feel free to purchase a copy and
>    send it to me.
>    
>    thanks a bunch,
>    Mike

Huh??  That one went right over my head.  Sorry.

Re: .182  (Mike)

>>Rev 3:10 does not specifically say "Great Tribulation".  Nevertheless, there
>>is a worldwide outpouring of God's wrath to come.
>    
>    Again, how many "worldwide outpouring of God's wrath" are left to
>    happen?  Only 1 - the Great Tribulation.  It may not specifically say
>    it but it is as plain as the nose on your face.
    
Wait a minute.  Aren't you the one who is intent on splitting the 2nd coming
into two separate events (rapture, then <parousia>)?  Why then do you insist
that "God's wrath to come" is only 1 event?  I also assume that there is only
1 worldwide outpouring of God's wrath to come, but I found your response
highly ironic and inconsistent.

Re: .182  (Mike)

>�>    How does God protect His Bride from His Great Outpouring of Wrath with
>�>    a worldwide scope?  The same way He protected Enoch from Noah's Flood.
>�    
>�Rev 3:10 says none of this.  You have to have already decided that all this
>�is to happen, then read it *into* Rev 3:10.  You certainly didn't read it
>�*out of* Rev 3:10.
>    
>    Actually you know very well that it is a combination of several verses.

Well, let's have the verses then.  This was my challenge to Steve Leech.  If
another verse makes Rev 3:10 out to be pre-trib-rapture, then cite the verse.

You haven't done that yet.

>�Where is scripture to show that the Church will be protected as Enoch was
>�from Noah's Flood?
>    
>    I'll make you a list in the next reply.

I read the next reply, (.183) and found no list at all.

>�God can protect "Philadelphia" any way he wants.
>    
>    True, but He never contradicts His Word as well.  You didn't address
>    the phrase "those who dwell on the earth" and the context and meaning
>    of its use throughout the book of Revelation.  In its context and
>    meaning, it couldn't possibly describe the Church.

And you are failing to address that God can protect "Philadelphia" any way
he wants.  That has nothing to do with "those who dwell on the earth."

>�False.  God is consistent and constant with regard to his nature, but 
>�certainly not with regard to his expression of it.
>�
>�	Example:  Old Covenant vs. New Covenant 
>    
>    fwiw, these are not different approaches or opposites.  The New is a
>    fulfillment of the Old.
    
It doesn't matter that the New is a fulfillment of the Old.  God *required*
the Israelites to obey certain laws and regulations that he does not require
us to obey.

>�	Example:  Strikes Miriam with leprosy, buries Korah alive
>�	Example:  Heals one blind man with mud/spit, one without
>    
>    I'll grant you God's Sovereignty on these.

Then will you grant God's Sovereignty such that he can rapture one but utilize
some other way to deliver the other?

Re: .182  (Mike)

>Re: .180 (Garth)
>
>>Now wait just a minute.  Just a few notes ago you and I were *wondering* if 
>>perhaps the "day" of the Lord was an extended period of time.  How did this
>>evolve to "we know" that it is 7 years long?
>    
>    You were *wondering*.  It was a rhetorical reply on my part.  I believe 
>    it's obvious from all the OT and NT passages that speak of the Great Day 
>    of the Lord.  Again, we're back to a worldwide outpouring of God's Wrath 
>    where God finally finishes dealing with Israel in Daniel's 70th week.  

Obvious??  Scripture reference please.  Please cite scripture that demonstrates
that the "Day of the Lord" is 7 years long.

>�Again, you are just stating your doctrine, not defending it.
>    
>    Sorry Garth, it's Biblical.  Straight out of the Word.

I have yet to see you post even one verse "straight out of the Word" that
indicates that there will be a rapture 7 years before the 2nd coming the the
Lord. 

>�Daniel doesn't say all of the 70th Week is tribulation, trial, or wrath.
>�Therefore, what does Daniel's 7 years have to do with Rev 3:10's "hour" of
>�trial?
>    
>    Doesn't really matter how long it is (7 or 3.5) since we know it's the
>    only worldwide outpouring of God's Wrath left.  We know Daniel's 70th
>    week contains this worldwide outpouring of God's Wrath.  We know the
>    Church will escape it 

But it does so matter!  Your pre-trib-rapture doctrine is built upon the 
notion that Philadelphia (=end times church) must be saved from 7 years of
God outpouring his wrath.  Yet here is no scripture in the bible that says that
there will be 7 years of wrath.  If only some final subset of Daniel's 70th
week is "wrath", then your doctrine fails. 

In any case, you have side-stepped the question:  What does Daniel's 7 years
have to do with Rev 3:10's "hour" of trial?

>   (Ephesus & Philadelphia are the only ones that
>    receive praise from Christ).
    
False.  Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Sardis also received praise.  Only
Laodicia did not receive any.

Re: .183  (Mike)
    
>>Rev 2 says nothing about "The Great Tribulation" in connection with Thyatira.
>    
>    Revelation 2:22 specifically mentions "Great Tribulation" in the
>    KJV and NAS.

Regardless of how you render it, throwing some into "great tribulation" is not
necessarily the same as placing them in "the great tribulation" of Rev 7:14.
The word "tribulation" is used many times in the scripture without connoting
the end-times period, and "great" is a simple adjective.  Why do you suppose
that Thyatira is going to be part of "<the> <tribulation> <the> <great>," as
rendered in Rev 7:14?

>>As I've said before, one way that "Philadelphia" could be saved from the
>>worldwide "hour of trial" is if all its members passed away and were buried
>>and before it happened.
>    
>    I suppose that's possible if the verb tense wasn't "present tense" and
>    you disrespect Christ and the Holy Spirit enough to think they would
>    give a prophecy to a nonexistent group of people.  It's obvious too
>    that "present tense" is used to enforce imminency.

The verb is present tense because there *was* a church at Philadelphia at the
time that Jesus gave the prophecy to them.

As for imminency, 1 John 2:18 says "this is the last hour."  That was nearly
2000 years ago.

>>Any conceivable scenario that removes the Philadelphians before the end-times
>>works. 
>    
>    Well you'll have to let us know when you think of a really good one.

I did.  And you have no good rebuttal for it.

>>Which brings me back to ask the same question again:  How do you know that 
>>Philadelphia = end times church?
>
>    Question answered.
    
I don't think so.  Still waiting...

Re: .182  (Mike)

Let's examine your concordance lookup concerning whether or not musical
instruments were used in the NT church.  I used to believe in pre-trib-rapture
doctrine in part because Hal Lindsay cited so many verses allegedly in support
of it.  Of course, I never did go look up those scriptures to see what they
said.  Somehow, just the fact that he was citing so many verses gave the
appearance of respectability. 

>>What about the fact that New Testament believers are never documented as
>>having used musical instruments?  
>    

>    Matthew 6:2, 

	"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as
	the hypocrites do in the synagogues..."

>9:23, 

	"When Jesus entered the house and saw the flute players and the
	noisy crowd, he said..."

>11:7, 

	"As John's disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd
	about John:  'What did you go out into the desert to see?  A reed
	swayed by the wind?"

>26:30, 

	"When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

>Mark 14:26, 

	"When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

>Luke 4:16-20 

	"He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath
	day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom.  And he stood up to
	read.  The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him.  Unrolling
	it, he found the place where it is written:  'The Spirit of the Lord
	is on me, because he has annointed me to preach good news to the poor.
	He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of
	sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of
	the Lord's favor.'  The he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the 
	attendant, and sat down.  The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were
	fastened on him,"

>(readings were sung in the Temple), 

Scripture reference, please.  And what does this have to do with the NT church?

>7:32, 

	"They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to
	each other, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we
	sang a dirge, and you did not cry.'"

>15:25, 

	(prodigal son) "'Meanwhile the older son was in the field.  When he
	came near the house, he heard music and dancing.'" 

>Acts 16:25, 

	"About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God,
	and the other prisoners were listening to them."

>1 Corinthians 13:1, 

	"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I
	am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."

>14:7-8,

	Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute
	or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is
	a distinction in the notes?  Again, if the trumpet does not sound a
	clear call, who will get ready for battle?"

>    not to mention the instrument sounds mentioned in all the
>    eschatological passages.  btw - the voice is very much a musical
>    instrument.  It's an instrument of praise (Psalm 150).

That was a really hasty and haphazard concordance study.  Most of the citations
are actually rebukes, and none of them speak about instruments being used in
the 1st century church.  

Just to keep sight of where this tangent came from, I myself have no problems
with musical instruments.  In fact, I play the keyboard/synthesizer, and have
done so on the worship team at church and in smaller group meetings.

The point was that an argument from silence can be made either for instruments
("the NT scriptures do not prohibit them,") or against instruments ("the NT
scriptures do not endorse them.")  Either way, such an argument from silence is
invalid, because in principle *silence proves nothing*. 

Your method of exegesis grasps at straws to prove a point, embellishing upon
what is actually written. 

Re: .189  (Mike)

In this reply you list a table of "Rapture" passages in the left column and
"Second Coming" passages in the right column.  Did you read all these cited
passages?  I took upon myself to type all the "Rapture" passages out, so
everyone will be able to see at a glance what they say.  Keep in mind that
these passages are being contrasted against the other catagory of scriptures,
called "Second Coming."

With the exception of the well-worn verses in 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4, the
following list is so ridiculous that I didn't consider it worth the effort
to comment on each one.  I'll let the scriptures speak for themselves.
Note especially the "glorious appearing" of Titus 2:13 and the "he will appear 
a second time" of Heb 9:28.


>Table 1: Rapture & Second Coming Passages
>
>Rapture                                                   
>-----------------------------...
>John 14:1-3                                               

"'Do not let your hearts be troubled.  Trust in God; trust also in me.  In my
Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you.  I
am going there to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place
for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be 
where I am.'"

>Romans 8:19                                               

"'The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed."

>1 Corinthians 1:7-8                                       

"Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our
Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.  He will keep you strong to the end, so
that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

>1 Corinthians 15:1-53                                     

(Too long to type it all in.  Here are the relevant portions:)
"...But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those
who have fallen asleep.  For since death came through a man, the resurrection
of the dead comes also through a man.  For as in Adam all die, so in Christ
all will be made alive.  But each in his own turn:  Christ, the firstfruits;
then , when he comes, those who belong to him.  Then the end will come, when
he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all
dominion, authority and power... [talk about what kind of body the resurrection
body is]... And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall
we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.  I declare to you, brothers, that
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable
inherit the imperishable.  Listen, I tell you a mystery:  We will not all
sleep, but we will all be changed -- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trumpet.  For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised
imperishable, and we will be changed.  For the perishable must clothe itself
with the imperishable..."

>1 Corinthians 16:22                                       

"If anyone does not love the Lord -- a curse be on him.  Come, O Lord!"

>Philippians 3:20-21                                       

"But our citizenship is in heaven.  And we eagerly await a Savior from there,
the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything
under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like
his glorious body."

>Colossians 3:4                                            

"When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him
in glory."

>1 Thessalonians 1:10                                      

"and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead -- Jesus,
who rescues us from the coming wrath."

>1 Thessalonians 2:19                                      

"For what is our hop, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the
presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes?  Is it not you?"

>1 Thessalonians 4:13-18                                   

"Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or
to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.  We believe that Jesus died
and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have
fallen asleep in him.  According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we
who are still alive, who are lift till the coming of the Lord, will certainly
not precede those who have fallen asleep.  For the Lord himself will come down
from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel adn with the
trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.  After that, we
who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the
clouds to meet the Lord in the air.  And so we will be with the Lord forever.
Therefore encourage each other with these words."

(continued in next reply)

(continued from previous reply)

>1 Thessalonians 5:9                                       

"For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through
our Lord Jesus Christ."

>1 Thessalonians 5:23                                      

"May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through.  May
your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ."

>2 Thessalonians 2:1(3)                                    

"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to
him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by
some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that
the day of the Lord has already come.  Don't let anyone deceive you in any
way, for [that day will not come] until the rebellion occurs and the man of
lawlessnes is revealed, the man doomed to destruction."

>1 Timothy 6:14                                            

"to keep this ocmmand without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord
Jesus Christ,"

>2 Timothy 4:1                                             

"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and
the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this 
charge:"

>Titus 2:13                                                

"while we wait for the blessed hope -- the glorious appearing of our great
God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"

>Hebrews 9:28                                              

"so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he
will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those
who are waiting for him."

>James 5:7-9                                               

"Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord's coming.  See How the farmer
waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the
autumn and spring rains.  You too, be patient and stand firm, because the
Lord's coming is near.  Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you
will be judged.  The Judge is standing at the door!"

>1 Peter 1:7,13                                            

"These have come so that your faith -- of greater worth than gold, which 
perishes even though refined by fire -- may be proved genuine and may result
in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.... Therefore,
prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the
grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed."

>1 John 2:28-3:2                                           

"And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be
confident and unashamed before him at his coming.  If you know that he is
righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of
him.  How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should
be called the children of God!  And that is what we are!  The reason the world
does not know us is that it did not know him.  Dear friends, now we are 
children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known.  But we
know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he
is."

>Jude 21

"Keep yourselfes in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus
Christ to bring you to eternal life."

>Revelation 2:25

"'Only hold on to what you have until I come.'"

>Revelation 3:10

"'Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from
the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who
live on the earth.'" 

�    So who is going to explain the errors of the post-trib view?

Not sure what you mean here, Mike. You have a lot of answering to do, but 
instead have posted articles which run around the facts as well.  I have 
been looking at your input, and am working on a reply, but it's difficult 
to address something as diffuse as you offer!  As an example, you have even 
got Eric in questioning pre-millenialism altogether, which is totally off 
topic!  If folks want to compare pre- and a-, we can have another note (!), 
and shift those discussions there (.184,.185 etc) so they don't cloud the
issue even further.  I'm not sure why the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabus 
was ever introduced!

A small nit - in .182 you refered to Ephesus as one of the churches that 
received only praise.  You meant Smyrna.

The reply I am working on is to clarify your confusion on what the Great 
Tribulation is [ ;-) ], but this morning I forgot to pick up my notes.  
However I will just offer a little comment on .189.

It is easy to separate prophecies which refer to two distinct perspectives 
of an event.  What Jesus' coming will mean for Christians is very different 
from what it will mean for others.  However, this does not make it two 
different occasions.  I am not trying to sell one specific view, but to 
understand what scripture says.  In reading Chuck's list, it comes over 
very much as someone trying to force-fit his theory back into the text, 
rather than finding the text unfolds and reveals a dimension of truth.

Most of his categorisation is of no great significance, as far as 
positioning or understanding the events.  Their significance is the greater 
one of life and hope etc.  It is interesting in a sad way that wherever the 
coming in judgement includes a reference to the elevation of the redeemed, 
Chuck relegates those redeemed to be tribulational Jews who are somehow 
included.  This also means that he categorises virtually all Jesus' words
on His return to concern the wrath, rather than receiving the saints.  This 
implies that he views the Gospels as addressed to the Jews, rather than to 
Christians?  

For instance :

� In Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43, Jesus tells the parable of the weeds. 
  Because they are thrown into the fire very explicitly *before* the wheat 
  is gathered (:30), Chuck identifies this parable only with his 'return 
  in judgement'.  Hence he cannot view the wheat as pre-tribulational
  Christians, and ends up in an untenable position.  That this is not reading
  too much into the parable is patent from the detail that Jesus invests in
  it, in His explanation in verses 36-43. 

� In Matthew 24:31, the collection of the elect is described, in a manner I
  would see as parallel to rapture passages.  It refers an event which 
  certainly follows 'the distress of those days' (:28).  Hence Chuck does 
  not believe that this refers to the church :

   "And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will 
    gather His elect from the four winds, from one corner of the heavens 
    to the other"

� The identification of 1 Thessalonians 3:13 also with the 'return in 
  judgement' is very suspect in context.  It reads :

  "May He strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in 
   the presence of our God and Father when our LORD Jesus comes with all 
   His holy ones."

  The reason Chuck puts it in this category is because one of the mainstays 
  of the pre-trib rapture position is that the 'holy ones' with whom the LORD 
  descends are the saints of the day of grace [rather than the angelic
  army] returning after the rapture and wedding supper.  However, the key 
  time for us to be found 'blameless and holy' is when He comes to collect
  His saints; not when He brings them back again!  That interpretation 
  violates the sense of the context.

� Acts 3:19-21 is also identified as the 'return in judgement'.  However 
  verse 21 says of Jesus that "He must remain in heaven until the time 
  comes for God to restore everything."  Not that He would return in the 
  interim to collect His saints, as in John 14:3.

� The principle that large intervals of time can be passed over within a 
  verse is well known, and the most famous example is Isaiah 61:2, and 
  validated by Jesus' selective quoting of it in Luke 4:19.  However Chuck 
  is careless of this in placing 2 Peter 3:1-14 at the initial return in 
  judgement.  An honest exegesis would recognise that all the significant 
  features mentioned after the first statement of verse 10 concern the end 
  of the world, and describe its dissolving.

I haven't been through .190 in detail, but did notice another glaring 
misinterpretation of scripture under his 'Mystery' section.  In 1 Corinthians 
15:51, Paul introduces a mystery.  Chuck claims that the 'mystery' is the 
elevation of the saints.  A normal reading of the passage, however, 
indicates that the mystery is the change from mortality to immortality.  
the change  "Listen, I tell you a mystery: we will not all sleep, but we 
will all be changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye...".  He goes 
on to enlarge on this in th following verses, as it is the point he is 
trying to make.

If Chuck really took the Bible and prophecy literally, as he claims to, he 
would be able to honestly admit these shortcomings in his understanding, in
order to seek a fuller truth, rather than desperately trying to deny that
they exist, and that his theory is complete.

It is this sort of inconsistency which makes the pre-tribulational rapture 
position look to me like a fabrication of man, rather than the inspiration 
of God.  

The external physical differences which a pre-trib rapture separates out
(.189 table 2) are mere matters of perspective compared to the foundational
principles of scripture and doctrine, and the burden of eschatological 
passages.

Time to stop for now!  I'll try to enter my input on the Great tribulation 
some time... ;-)

					God bless
							Andrew

>Not sure what you mean here, Mike. You have a lot of answering to do, but 
>instead have posted articles which run around the facts as well.  I have 
    
    I really don't have anything to answer.  I'm not here "to walk over
    dollars while looking for dimes" as Garth seems to be content with.
    
>issue even further.  I'm not sure why the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabus 
>was ever introduced!
    
    One of the Missler articles ("Pre-Trib Origins") brought it up.

>A small nit - in .182 you refered to Ephesus as one of the churches that 
>received only praise.  You meant Smyrna.
    
    I incorrectly said praise.  I really meant a promise of escape from the
    coming wrath.

>understand what scripture says.  In reading Chuck's list, it comes over 
>very much as someone trying to force-fit his theory back into the text, 
>rather than finding the text unfolds and reveals a dimension of truth.
    
    Speaking of force fitting...  The 70 Weeks of Daniel is expliciting
    said to be for Israel.  The church had nothing to do with the first 69
    weeks.  Explain to me, based on Scripture, why the church should have a
    role in the final week.  Another critical mistake made by
    post-tribbers.

>� In Matthew 24:31, the collection of the elect is described, in a manner I
>  would see as parallel to rapture passages.  It refers an event which 
>  certainly follows 'the distress of those days' (:28).  Hence Chuck does 
>  not believe that this refers to the church :
>
>   "And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will 
>    gather His elect from the four winds, from one corner of the heavens 
>    to the other"
    
    We've covered this already.  The elect here in context is Israel.  The
    church will not be seeking refuge in the mountains of Israel or
    celebrating the sabbath in Israel.

>  of the pre-trib rapture position is that the 'holy ones' with whom the LORD 
>  descends are the saints of the day of grace [rather than the angelic
>  army] returning after the rapture and wedding supper.  However, the key 
>  time for us to be found 'blameless and holy' is when He comes to collect
>  His saints; not when He brings them back again!  That interpretation 
>  violates the sense of the context.
    
    Zechariah also said it will be the saints in a way that it unmistakably
    is the church.

>� The principle that large intervals of time can be passed over within a 
>  verse is well known, and the most famous example is Isaiah 61:2, and 
    
    ...and Revelation 3:10.
    
>I haven't been through .190 in detail, but did notice another glaring 
>misinterpretation of scripture under his 'Mystery' section.  In 1 Corinthians 
>15:51, Paul introduces a mystery.  Chuck claims that the 'mystery' is the 
>elevation of the saints.  A normal reading of the passage, however, 
>indicates that the mystery is the change from mortality to immortality.  
    
    ...and when will this transfiguration take place?  At the rapture of
    course.
    
>It is this sort of inconsistency which makes the pre-tribulational rapture 
>position look to me like a fabrication of man, rather than the inspiration 
>of God.  
    
    Fabrication of men is giving the church a role in the 70 weeks of
    Daniel when it was intended for Israel and the church was never a part
    of it.

    regards,
    Mike

>               <<< Note 644.195 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
>Huh??  That one went right over my head.  Sorry.
    
    Can't really defend them when I don't own the sources and they aren't
    officially published yet.
    
    You may want to write to the Pre-Trib Research Center in Washington
    D.C. (address was given).
    
    Mike

>               <<< Note 644.196 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
>Wait a minute.  Aren't you the one who is intent on splitting the 2nd coming
>into two separate events (rapture, then <parousia>)?  Why then do you insist
>that "God's wrath to come" is only 1 event?  I also assume that there is only
>1 worldwide outpouring of God's wrath to come, but I found your response
>highly ironic and inconsistent.
    
    Actually if you want to use your magnifying glass and analyze every
    technical detail of the Tribulation, it really is 14 events (7 Seals +
    7 Trumpets).  However God's Wrath is a separate event from the 2nd
    Coming.
    
    Mike

    

>               <<< Note 644.197 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
>Well, let's have the verses then.  This was my challenge to Steve Leech.  If
>another verse makes Rev 3:10 out to be pre-trib-rapture, then cite the verse.
>
>You haven't done that yet.
    >
    >I read the next reply, (.183) and found no list at all.
    
    A table of contrasting verses was provided.  

>And you are failing to address that God can protect "Philadelphia" any way
>he wants.  That has nothing to do with "those who dwell on the earth."
    
    It has everything to do with those on the earth.  If the Church went
    through the Tribulation as Noah did, the Holy Spirit would've
    distinguished the phrase "those who dwell on the earth" with something
    like "the unrighteous who dwell on the earth."
    
    Also, since the 70 Weeks of Daniel were explicitly for Israel, and the
    Church had nothing to do with the first 69, there is no scriptural
    support that states the Church will play a role in the 70th.  The
    Church is out of the way, the fullness of the Gentiles have been
    completed (Romans 11:25), so that God can finally finish dealing with
    Israel.  

>It doesn't matter that the New is a fulfillment of the Old.  God *required*
>the Israelites to obey certain laws and regulations that he does not require
>us to obey.
    
    Only because of Christ, but that's another topic for another time. 
    Israelites today do not have to obey the Old covenant because Christ
    has come.  BTW - Zechariah says all of us will celebrate the Feast of
    Tabernacles in the Millenium.

>Then will you grant God's Sovereignty such that he can rapture one but utilize
>some other way to deliver the other?

    As long as it doesn't contradict His Word, which He's not able to do.
    
    Mike

>               <<< Note 644.198 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
>Obvious??  Scripture reference please.  Please cite scripture that demonstrates
>that the "Day of the Lord" is 7 years long.
    
    Actually if you want to pick a nit, it probably is only 3� years long,
    but finding error-free Scriptural support for a mid-trib rapture is
    much tougher than the mistake prone post-trib stance.  Officially, it
    appears the Tribulation starts after the abomination of desolation
    which is at the half-way point of Daniel's 70th week.

>I have yet to see you post even one verse "straight out of the Word" that
>indicates that there will be a rapture 7 years before the 2nd coming the the
>Lord. 
    
    neither have I ever seen a post-tribber explain why the Church is
    suddenly a factor in Daniel's 70th week after it missed the first 69. 
    Not to mention several other mistakes.  You choose to see as you wish,
    unless it is spelled out in black and white.
    
    Like the study of the Trinity and the whole Calvinism vs. Arminianism
    debate, the Rapture requires careful intergration of several passages. 
    Unless you approach this the same way you do other controversial
    Biblical topics, you won't understand it.  

>there will be 7 years of wrath.  If only some final subset of Daniel's 70th
>week is "wrath", then your doctrine fails. 
    
    Not quite.  The 70th week is only for Israel and the unrighteous.  I
    never claimed the rapture would literally occur the night before the
    first seal is opened.  It could just as easily happen 3� years before
    the abomination of desolation as it could 5-7 years before.

>In any case, you have side-stepped the question:  What does Daniel's 7 years
>have to do with Rev 3:10's "hour" of trial?
    
    Not at all.  You just haven't heard what you're looking for.  It might
    be time for you to do some more homework.

>False.  Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Sardis also received praise.  Only
>Laodicia did not receive any.
    
    As I told Andrew, I incorrectly used praise.  I meant the only church
    that were promised an escape from the Tribulation.

    Mike

>               <<< Note 644.199 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
>Regardless of how you render it, throwing some into "great tribulation" is not
>necessarily the same as placing them in "the great tribulation" of Rev 7:14.
>The word "tribulation" is used many times in the scripture without connoting
>the end-times period, and "great" is a simple adjective.  Why do you suppose
>that Thyatira is going to be part of "<the> <tribulation> <the> <great>," as
>rendered in Rev 7:14?
    
    Because of the context of what book it's in and where it's used in
    relation to the rest of the book.  Remember without context, we might
    as well all join cults.

>The verb is present tense because there *was* a church at Philadelphia at the
>time that Jesus gave the prophecy to them.
    
    With God's foreknowledge, everything in the book is present.  At least
    you admit here that it is prophetic.  Tell me something, Garth.  When
    was this prophecy fulfilled?  Where is the church at Philadelphia
    today?  Can we attend there on Sunday?  Maybe they can shed some light
    on Revelation 3:10 for us.

>As for imminency, 1 John 2:18 says "this is the last hour."  That was nearly
>2000 years ago.
    
    Thanks for showing me another verse where "hour" is a figurative
    expression used to describe an extended period of time.  World events
    today contrasted with the prophetic books tell me now is not the time to 
    question imminency and to make sure you're life is right with God.

>I did.  And you have no good rebuttal for it.
    
    I said "let me know when you come up with a *good* one."  I didn't
    think you were serious about the prophecy being for a 1st century
    church since you casually tossed it out without any scriptural support
    to back up your position.  

>I don't think so.  Still waiting...

    We'll talk more when you come up with a serious Bible-based explanation
    of what will happen.  Until then it appears this is fruitless.
    
    Mike

    >               <<< Note 644.200 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
>Let's examine your concordance lookup concerning whether or not musical
>instruments were used in the NT church.  
    
    Is the human voice a musical instrument?  I'm also a musician, and I'd
    be shocked if you thought it wasn't.
    
    >                                     I used to believe in pre-trib-rapture
>doctrine in part because Hal Lindsay cited so many verses allegedly in support
>of it.  Of course, I never did go look up those scriptures to see what they
>said.  Somehow, just the fact that he was citing so many verses gave the
>appearance of respectability. 
    
    May I ask what/who changed your mind?  Admittedly, Acts 17:11 should be
    our mode in all things.  I'm no big fan of Hal's either.  Neither
    should you think that I don't do my own homework just because I post
    articles from other sources.  I often do that when authors are more
    able to express topics in ways that I couldn't.  I respect people like
    Missler more who have studied/taught God's Word fir 40 years.  I'm not
    too proud to learn from such men, but that doesn't mean I don't weigh
    their words against God's.
    
    Mike

Whoa!  Timeout.

Mike, can you please explain the following discourse?  I want to give you the
benefit of the doubt and not hastily conclude what came to my mind when I 
reviewed this.  Perhaps I have simply misunderstood what your position is on
how long "the Day of the Lord" is, and how long "The Great Tribulation" is. 

Please clarify for me.  Thanks.

Reply .151  (Mike)
------------------

>	1.  Why does "hour" = "7 years"?
>	2.  Why does "kept from" = "rapture"?
    >	3.  Why does Rev 3:10 speak to the end-times church?
    
    Something that came to mind last night while thinking about this...
    
    another set of fair questions would be:
    
              "How long is the Great *DAY* of the Lord?  Jacob's Trouble? 
               The Day of Wrath? etc."
    
    Is it 1 day or 1260 days?
      
Reply .153  (Garth)
-------------------

I've thought about this, too.  I can find no contextual reason why the
"Day of the Lord" must be 24 hours long.  Certainly there are quite a
lot of things that seem to happen in that "day."

Reply .174  (Mike)
------------------
    
    The word used for "hour" here is figurative.  Just like the "Great
    *Day* of the Lord," which we know is the 7-year Great Tribulation.

Reply .180 (Garth)
------------------

Now wait just a minute.  Just a few notes ago you and I were *wondering* if 
perhaps the "day" of the Lord was an extended period of time.  How did this
evolve to "we know" that it is 7 years long?

Reply .182  (Mike)
------------------
    
    You were *wondering*.  It was a rhetorical reply on my part.  I believe 
    it's obvious from all the OT and NT passages that speak of the Great Day 
    of the Lord.  Again, we're back to a worldwide outpouring of God's Wrath 
    where God finally finishes dealing with Israel in Daniel's 70th week.  

Reply .198  (Garth)
-------------------

Obvious??  Scripture reference please.  Please cite scripture that demonstrates
that the "Day of the Lord" is 7 years long.

Reply .208  (Mike)
------------------

    Actually if you want to pick a nit, it probably is only 3� years long,
    but finding error-free Scriptural support for a mid-trib rapture is
    much tougher than the mistake prone post-trib stance.  Officially, it
    appears the Tribulation starts after the abomination of desolation
    which is at the half-way point of Daniel's 70th week.

>Mike, can you please explain the following discourse?  I want to give you the
>benefit of the doubt and not hastily conclude what came to my mind when I 
>reviewed this.  Perhaps I have simply misunderstood what your position is on
>how long "the Day of the Lord" is, and how long "The Great Tribulation" is. 
    
    I consider the two to be that same thing - The Tribulation.  I'm really
    not prepared to state how long it exactly is.  It's at least half of
    Daniel's 70th week.
    
    Mike

    It's interesting to note how romantic God can be.  Not only is He the
    lover of our souls, but it is fascinating how the entire redemption
    story mirrors the ancient Hebrew wedding.
    
    1. The first thing to happen is that the Groom and the Father of the
       Bride agree on a price for the Bride and seal their agreement with a
       drink of wine (something I think they should still do today!).  Jacob 
       worked for Rachel's father for 14 years as his price.  Christ sealed 
       His agreement at the Last Supper and purchased His Bride with His own 
       blood.
    
    2. The Groom leaves and can't see the Bride until the wedding day. 
       We're in this period now.  From the Ascension until the Fullness of
       the Gentiles comes in (Romans 11:25).
    
    3. While away, the Groom adds a room onto His Father's house in
       preparation of His new Bride.  John 14:1-3 is definitely Bridegroom
       talk.
    
    4. The Groom's Father determines when the Groom may go get His Bride.
       No man knows the hour, just the Father in Heaven.
    
    5. The Groom will arrive when the Bride isn't expecting Him.  The Bride
       always had to be prepared for His imminent arrival.  It was probably
       embarassing for a bride to be caught without her best dress on, or her
       makeup, or whatever they did back then.  Just like the parable of
       the 10 Virgins (Matthew 25). 
    
    6. As the Bridegroom approached, the trumpet would sound signaling the
       Bride to come out of her house.  The Groom never entered the house,
       the Bride would go out to meet the Groom.  1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.
    
    7. Here begins the 7-Day Wedding Feast at the Father's House.  It's
       also interesting to note that Hebrew couples married underneath the
       Tallit (prayer shawl), which is full of typology pointing to our
       relationship to God and standing in Christ.
    
    8. At the end of the week, the new Bride and Groom would publicly
       present themselves for the first time.  This happens in Revelation 19.
    
    Mike

Hi Mike,

    Aren't you going to address any of the points raised?

							Andrew

Re: .213  (Mike)

>    5. The Groom will arrive when the Bride isn't expecting Him.  The Bride
>       always had to be prepared for His imminent arrival.  It was probably
>       embarassing for a bride to be caught without her best dress on, or her
>       makeup, or whatever they did back then.  Just like the parable of
>       the 10 Virgins (Matthew 25). 
    
Uhuh.  And if the bride doesn't have her best dress on, the Groom throws her
into the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, where there will be weeping and
gnashing of teeth, where the worm doesn't die, and the fire is never quenched,
right?

But I digress.  I must get back to replying to your previous entries.

    >    Aren't you going to address any of the points raised?
    
    Andrew, I didn't see any raised.
    
    Re: -1
    
    Garth, the church won't be in Israel for the tribulation. ;-)

�    Andrew, I didn't see any raised.
    
Aren't you reading here?  ;-)

								&

Mike,  I've been curious about some of the things you've put in this note
and others  -  some of them sound like they come from some other source other
than your personal knowledge from personal experience .... especially the
ones about Jewish customs - maybe its coming from something you read or a
speaker you've listened to.  Anyway, I am wondering what your source(s) is(are).
If I came to the wrong conclusion, please let me know, if not, can you post
your sources?

Thanks,

Leslie

Actually, by "bride stuff", I meant what you have posted in 644.213, Parallels
of an Ancient Hebrew Wedding.

>>    It's interesting to note how romantic God can be.  Not only is He the
>>    lover of our souls, but it is fascinating how the entire redemption
>>    story mirrors the ancient Hebrew wedding.

                          .
                          .
                          .

Leslie

    Leslie, we've been going through 1 Thessalonians for the past few
    months on Sunday mornings.  My pastor related the wedding parallels
    this past Sunday morning.  If you wish, I can ask him where he got it.
    
    My Jewish culture exposure is limited to a few books I've read and
    tapes I've listened too.  If you haven't noticed, the Calvary Chapels
    are very much pro-Israel.
    
    Mike

>�    Andrew, I didn't see any raised.
>    
>Aren't you reading here?  ;-)
    
    the last points you raised appear to be .203 which I thought I
    addressed in .204.  If I missed any let me know.  I might've skipped
    some that I thought weren't really necessary, but maybe you felt they
    were.
    
    Mike

Re: .204  (Mike)

>    Speaking of force fitting...  The 70 Weeks of Daniel is expliciting
>    said to be for Israel.  The church had nothing to do with the first 69
>    weeks.  Explain to me, based on Scripture, why the church should have a
>    role in the final week.  Another critical mistake made by
>    post-tribbers.

It is you who have to explain why the church should not have a role in the
final week.  This is a critical mistake made by pre-tribbers.  What difference
does it make what Daniel prophesied with regard to what Israel would be doing
during this time? 

You are the one who is saying that the church *must not* and *cannot* be there.
Do you have some scriptural precedent for making this bold claim?  It appears
that you don't.

>    Fabrication of men is giving the church a role in the 70 weeks of
>    Daniel when it was intended for Israel and the church was never a part
>    of it.

I can't speak for Andrew, but I have never suggested that the church have
any particular role in the affairs of Israel as described by Daniel.

As far as I'm concerned, we have the Great Commission to fulfill, and 
Daniel's 70th week is not going to change that.

Re: .205  (Mike)
    
>    Can't really defend them when I don't own the sources and they aren't
>    officially published yet.
>    
>    You may want to write to the Pre-Trib Research Center in Washington
>    D.C. (address was given).
    
You posted them.  If you can't defend them, then don't endorse them.  You
seem to be relying fairly heavily on the Word of Missler.  Why should we
believe him?  It doesn't sound like we have any more reason to rely on his
testimony than we have reason to rely on yours.  Is it because he has his
own organization and has been at it for 40 years?  Perhaps then we should
give more credence to the Watchtower society.  They have been interpretting
end-times prophecy for over 100 years.

Re: .207  (Mike)
    
>>Well, let's have the verses then.  This was my challenge to Steve Leech.  If
>>another verse makes Rev 3:10 out to be pre-trib-rapture, then cite the verse.
>>
>>You haven't done that yet.
>    >
>    >I read the next reply, (.183) and found no list at all.
>    
>    A table of contrasting verses was provided.  

Read reply .183 again.  There is no table.  Only a single reference to
Rev 2:22.  

Regarding the "God is consistent" thread:

>>It doesn't matter that the New is a fulfillment of the Old.  God *required*
>>the Israelites to obey certain laws and regulations that he does not require
>>us to obey.
>    
>    Only because of Christ, but that's another topic for another time. 
>    Israelites today do not have to obey the Old covenant because Christ
>    has come.  BTW - Zechariah says all of us will celebrate the Feast of
>    Tabernacles in the Millenium.
>
>>Then will you grant God's Sovereignty such that he can rapture one but utilize
>>some other way to deliver the other?
>
>    As long as it doesn't contradict His Word, which He's not able to do.
    
How does it contradict God's Word to have the church delivered from His wrath
some other way from being raptured? 

Re: .208  (Mike)
    
>>>    Sorry Garth, it's Biblical.  Straight out of the Word.
>>
>>I have yet to see you post even one verse "straight out of the Word" that
>>indicates that there will be a rapture 7 years before the 2nd coming the the
>>Lord. 
>    
>    neither have I ever seen a post-tribber explain why the Church is
>    suddenly a factor in Daniel's 70th week after it missed the first 69. 
    
Classic _tu quoque_.  So are you admitting that you haven't posted even one
verse "straight out of the Word" that indicates that there will be a rapture
7 years before the 2nd coming of the Lord? 

(As I explained earlier, I don't need to explain anything about the church with
regard to the 70th week.  We have the Great Commission to fulfill regardless of
what Israel does.)

>>there will be 7 years of wrath.  If only some final subset of Daniel's 70th
>>week is "wrath", then your doctrine fails. 
>    
>    Not quite.  The 70th week is only for Israel and the unrighteous.  I
>    never claimed the rapture would literally occur the night before the
>    first seal is opened.  It could just as easily happen 3� years before
>    the abomination of desolation as it could 5-7 years before.

Your doctrine has been built, in part, on the notion that the church must be
removed before the trouble beings.  

You appear to have backed down and are now saying that the "Tribulation = Day
of the Lord" is perhaps only 3.5 years long. Therefore, your "he has not
appointed us to suffer wrath" point cannot show that there will be a rapture
any more than 3.5 years before the 2nd coming of the Lord. 

You appear to be shifting your argument from focusing on "God's tribulation/
wrath" that we must be saved from to "Israel's 70th week" that we have no
business in. 

>>>>Daniel doesn't say all of the 70th Week is tribulation, trial, or wrath.
>>>>Therefore, what does Daniel's 7 years have to do with Rev 3:10's "hour" of
>>>>trial?
>>>    
>>>    Doesn't really matter how long it is (7 or 3.5) since we know it's the
>>>    only worldwide outpouring of God's Wrath left.  We know Daniel's 70th
>>>    week contains this worldwide outpouring of God's Wrath.  We know the
>>>    Church will escape it 
>>
>>But it does so matter!  Your pre-trib-rapture doctrine is built upon the 
>>notion that Philadelphia (=end times church) must be saved from 7 years of
>>God outpouring his wrath.  Yet here is no scripture in the bible that says that
>>there will be 7 years of wrath.  If only some final subset of Daniel's 70th
>>week is "wrath", then your doctrine fails. 
>>
>>In any case, you have side-stepped the question:  What does Daniel's 7 years
>>have to do with Rev 3:10's "hour" of trial?
>    
>    Not at all.  You just haven't heard what you're looking for.  It might
>    be time for you to do some more homework.

Actually, it might be time for you to re-evaluate the position that you are 
trying to argue.  Since you have now said that the "Tribulation = Day of the
Lord" is perhaps only 3.5 years long, what does Daniel's 7 years have to do
with Rev 3:10's "hour" of trial?

Re: .209  (Mike)

>>Regardless of how you render it, throwing some into "great tribulation" is not
>>necessarily the same as placing them in "the great tribulation" of Rev 7:14.
>>The word "tribulation" is used many times in the scripture without connoting
>>the end-times period, and "great" is a simple adjective.  Why do you suppose
>>that Thyatira is going to be part of "<the> <tribulation> <the> <great>," as
>>rendered in Rev 7:14?
>    
>    Because of the context of what book it's in and where it's used in
>    relation to the rest of the book.  Remember without context, we might
>    as well all join cults.

Can you be more specific?  Why is the context of Jesus' words to Thyatira 
related to the context of the saints that came out of the Great Tribulation
in Rev 7:14?

>>The verb is present tense because there *was* a church at Philadelphia at the
>>time that Jesus gave the prophecy to them.
>    
>    With God's foreknowledge, everything in the book is present.  At least
>    you admit here that it is prophetic.  Tell me something, Garth.  When
>    was this prophecy fulfilled?  Where is the church at Philadelphia
>    today?  Can we attend there on Sunday?  Maybe they can shed some light
>    on Revelation 3:10 for us.

Interesting that you should ask that.  There certainly was a historical church
at Philadelphia.  Where are they now?  Perhaps they have all died.

If Philadelphia was a prophetic forshadowing of something to come, then
shouldn't we look to see just what happened to the historic Philadelphians? 
They weren't raptured, now were they? 

>>>>Any conceivable scenario that removes the Philadelphians before the
>>>>end-times works. 
>>>    
>>>    Well you'll have to let us know when you think of a really good one.
>>>
>>I did.  And you have no good rebuttal for it.
>    
>    I said "let me know when you come up with a *good* one."  I didn't
>    think you were serious about the prophecy being for a 1st century
>    church since you casually tossed it out without any scriptural support
>    to back up your position.  

It is for you to show that the prophetic Philadelphians must be raptured,
as opposed to being protected some other way.  I have merely provided some
alternatives to show that rapture is not the only conceivable way.

To summarize then, you haven't demonstrated that "kept from" = "rapture."

Re: .210  (Mike)

I'll put a personal testimony on my list of things to do.

Mike, I've got a new verse for you.

Remember how you have been telling us about the Greek expression used
in Rev 3:10?

	"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also KEEP
	YOU FROM the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world,
	to test those who live on the earth."

Well, there is another place where this Greek phrase is used.  It is in
John 17:15

	"'My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you
	PROTECT THEM FROM the evil one."

In the latter case, the NIV translators even chose to use the word "protect"

Need I say more?

>               <<< Note 644.228 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
>              -< Rev 3:10 "kept from" vs. John 17:15 "kept from" >-
>
>Mike, I've got a new verse for you.
    
    Actually you don't.  I also included it in the many postings that you
    claim to have read.

>Need I say more?

    Yes, tell us what the phrase means in Greek.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Re: .222 (Garth)

>It is you who have to explain why the church should not have a role in the
>final week.  This is a critical mistake made by pre-tribbers.  What difference
>does it make what Daniel prophesied with regard to what Israel would be doing
>during this time?

Read Daniel 9:24-27 and tell me who the 70 Weeks of Daniel are for.  Also,
explain the Biblical phrases "Time of the Gentiles" and "Fullness of the
Gentiles."

>You are the one who is saying that the church *must not* and *cannot* be there.
>Do you have some scriptural precedent for making this bold claim?  It appears
>that you don't.

See above.

>I can't speak for Andrew, but I have never suggested that the church have
>any particular role in the affairs of Israel as described by Daniel.

What is the relationship of Israel and the Church with respect to prophecy?

>As far as I'm concerned, we have the Great Commission to fulfill, and 
>Daniel's 70th week is not going to change that.

Agreed.

Re: .223 (Garth)

>You posted them.  If you can't defend them, then don't endorse them.  You
>seem to be relying fairly heavily on the Word of Missler.  Why should we
>believe him?  It doesn't sound like we have any more reason to rely on his
>testimony than we have reason to rely on yours.  Is it because he has his
>own organization and has been at it for 40 years?  Perhaps then we should
>give more credence to the Watchtower society.  They have been interpretting
>end-times prophecy for over 100 years.

You tend to be awfully pessimistic toward things you aren't familiar with.  I
think I've demonstrated enough in here over the years for the brethren to know
I'm not easily swayed or prone to cons.

Re: .224 (Garth)

>Read reply .183 again.  There is no table.  Only a single reference to
>Rev 2:22.

Again, a table has been provided.

>How does it contradict God's Word to have the church delivered from His wrath
>some other way from being raptured?

Because nobody has demonstrated/revealed an alternative that is in the Bible.

Re: .225 (Garth)

>Classic _tu quoque_.

I have no idea what this is.

>                        So are you admitting that you haven't posted even one
>verse "straight out of the Word" that indicates that there will be a rapture
>7 years before the 2nd coming of the Lord?

Not at all.  I said it will be *at least* 7 years before.  Could be more.

>(As I explained earlier, I don't need to explain anything about the church with
>regard to the 70th week.  We have the Great Commission to fulfill regardless of
>what Israel does.)

Agreed, and neither should a pre-trib rapture give anyone an excuse not to
fulfill this Commission.  I'm not into escapism, just the literal Word of God.

>Your doctrine has been built, in part, on the notion that the church must be
>removed before the trouble beings.

Not exactly, my stance is built upon the Word of God.

>You appear to have backed down and are now saying that the "Tribulation = Day
>of the Lord" is perhaps only 3.5 years long. Therefore, your "he has not
>appointed us to suffer wrath" point cannot show that there will be a rapture
>any more than 3.5 years before the 2nd coming of the Lord.

I thought I said I was undecided at the moment.  You're forcing words that
aren't there.

>You appear to be shifting your argument from focusing on "God's tribulation/
>wrath" that we must be saved from to "Israel's 70th week" that we have no
>business in.

Not at all.  I just think it's an interesting and valid point that post-tribbers
have never addressed.

>Actually, it might be time for you to re-evaluate the position that you are 
>trying to argue.  Since you have now said that the "Tribulation = Day of the
>Lord" is perhaps only 3.5 years long, what does Daniel's 7 years have to do
>with Rev 3:10's "hour" of trial?

Not what I said.  I said I was undecided.  No since in trying to pigeonhole me
here because it doesn't apply.

Re: .226 (Garth)

>Can you be more specific?  Why is the context of Jesus' words to Thyatira 
>related to the context of the saints that came out of the Great Tribulation
>in Rev 7:14?

Christ is talking to a prophetic church in a prophetic (i.e., end-times) book.
It's no secret that there will be martyrs during this period.

>Interesting that you should ask that.  There certainly was a historical church
>at Philadelphia.  Where are they now?  Perhaps they have all died.
>
>If Philadelphia was a prophetic forshadowing of something to come, then
>shouldn't we look to see just what happened to the historic Philadelphians? 
>They weren't raptured, now were they?

Even more so, maybe we should look to see if they were spared from the Great
Tribulation and Christ has already turned.  That must mean we're in the
millenium now!  Darn, and I missed it all.  By the way, do you know of any
history books that document what modern nations were involved in Armageddon?
I'd also like to know what happened to the U.S.  Sure glad to hear Jesus is on
the throne in Jerusalem now!  I really love how the lions and the lambs lie down
together too!  All this lack of sin and disease is more incredible than I
expected!

>It is for you to show that the prophetic Philadelphians must be raptured,
>as opposed to being protected some other way.  I have merely provided some
>alternatives to show that rapture is not the only conceivable way.

You provided one amusing alternative.

>To summarize then, you haven't demonstrated that "kept from" = "rapture."

Can't get any clearer than the original Greek in intergrating all of these
scriptures.

Re: .227 (Garth)

>I'll put a personal testimony on my list of things to do.

Right.

    I found most of the customs in my Zondervan's Encyclopedia of the
    Bible (vol. 4 under marriage).  Most good Bible handbooks might have
    it.  Something along the lines of "Manners & Customs in the Bible"
    might have it too (I don't have one yet).  My pastor said he found his
    references in some materials by a Bill Gothard (sp?).
    
    Mike

Re: .229  (Mike)

>    Yes, tell us what the phrase means in Greek.
    
I don't have a lexicon or dictionary handy here at the office.  But I do have
an NIV Exhaustive Concordance.  The following are all the ways <tereo> is
translated in the NIV, and the top 10 of 78 ways that <ek> is translated.

<tereo>		<ek>

obey		from
keep		of
kept		by
keeps		out of
held		at
obeyed		with
obeys		in
protect		on
reserved	out
do		for
do so
does
guard
guarding
guards
held over
hold
keep under guard
keeps safe
kept watch over
not marry
observe
protected
save
saved
stood
take to heart

The above looks pretty unspecific to me.  It certainly doesn't match what
you are trying to force-fit into the meaning, which is that <tereo> <ek>
could only mean "rapture" in the context of protecting Philadelphia from
worldwide tribulation.

I find it highly ironic that the only other occurrance of the phrase is
in John 17:15

	"'My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you
	protect them from the evil one.'"
	<tereo>      <ek>

I also find it highly ironic that <tereo> <ek> is *not* used in the first
part of the verse ("take them out of").

A rapture would do just what Jesus excluded in his prayer.  A rapture
would literally "take them out of the world."

We know that the "evil one" is in the world, and lives among us.  Yet God
grants us special, even supernatural protection from the "evil one" while
we literally cohabit the world with him.

Re: .230  (Mike)

>Read Daniel 9:24-27 and tell me who the 70 Weeks of Daniel are for.  Also,
>explain the Biblical phrases "Time of the Gentiles" and "Fullness of the
>Gentiles."

Why, I'd be happy to answer your questions, Mike!

The 70 Weeks of Daniel are a prophecy concerning Israel.

"Times/fullness of the Gentiles/Nations" refers to a prophetic time period
that involves the gentile nations (i.e. non-Israel).

>>You are the one who is saying that the church *must not* and *cannot* be
>>there. Do you have some scriptural precedent for making this bold claim?
>>It appears that you don't. 
>
>See above.

I don't see anything "above" that necessitates that the church not be
around in the 70th week.  Certainly the very concept of the church transcends
the earthly boundaries between Israel and the gentile nations, since the
church knows no national boundaries and consists of both jews and gentiles 
irrespective of whether they are jews or gentiles.

>>I can't speak for Andrew, but I have never suggested that the church have
>>any particular role in the affairs of Israel as described by Daniel.
>
>What is the relationship of Israel and the Church with respect to prophecy?

Again, I'd be happy to answer your question.

The church is the spiritual reality of which the nation Israel is the type.
In a nutshell, the church is "spiritual Israel," consisting of all those
who have been circumcised of the heart, regardless of whether they are
of Israel or of "the nations."

>>As far as I'm concerned, we have the Great Commission to fulfill, and 
>>Daniel's 70th week is not going to change that.
>
>Agreed.

Then why don't you agree that we could still be around during the 70th
week, fulfilling our Great Commission?  How does Israel's entering back
into a prophetic role change that?

>>How does it contradict God's Word to have the church delivered from His wrath
>>some other way from being raptured?
>
>Because nobody has demonstrated/revealed an alternative that is in the Bible.

You didn't answer the question.

>>Classic _tu quoque_.
>
>I have no idea what this is.

A fallacy of argument.  Literally "you also."  When you are accused of 
something and respond by accusing your opponent of something else, instead
of addressing the point.  Usually used as a diversion.

Now, back to the original question:

>>                        So are you admitting that you haven't posted even one
>>verse "straight out of the Word" that indicates that there will be a rapture
>>7 years before the 2nd coming of the Lord?
>
>Not at all.  I said it will be *at least* 7 years before.  Could be more.

Okay, let me rephrase that:  So are you admitting that you haven't posted
even one verse "straight out of the Word" that indicates that there will be
a rapture at least 7 years before the 2nd coming of the Lord?

>>Can you be more specific?  Why is the context of Jesus' words to Thyatira 
>>related to the context of the saints that came out of the Great Tribulation
>>in Rev 7:14?
>
>Christ is talking to a prophetic church in a prophetic (i.e., end-times) book.
>It's no secret that there will be martyrs during this period.

Prophetic perhaps, but it does not say "end times."  Why do you insist that
Thyratira is an end-times church?

>>It is for you to show that the prophetic Philadelphians must be raptured,
>>as opposed to being protected some other way.  I have merely provided some
>>alternatives to show that rapture is not the only conceivable way.
>
>You provided one amusing alternative.

You may view it as "amusing," but you haven't objectively shown that it was
invalid.

>>To summarize then, you haven't demonstrated that "kept from" = "rapture."
>
>Can't get any clearer than the original Greek in intergrating all of these
>scriptures.

I think that my expose' of Rev 3:10 vs. John 17:15 has pretty much put an end
to your "original Greek" theory, despite your vehement claims to the contrary.

>>Read reply .183 again.  There is no table.  Only a single reference to
>>Rev 2:22.
>
>Again, a table has been provided.

There is no table in .183, as anyone can see for himself.  If you would just
look there, you too would see that there is none.  Either post the table
that you alluded to or point me to another note where it exists.

>               <<< Note 644.234 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
>                             -< the missing table >-
>
>There is no table in .183, as anyone can see for himself.  If you would just
>look there, you too would see that there is none.  Either post the table
>that you alluded to or point me to another note where it exists.
    
    see .189

>               <<< Note 644.233 by NETCAD::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
�>What is the relationship of Israel and the Church with respect to prophecy?
�
�Again, I'd be happy to answer your question.
�
�The church is the spiritual reality of which the nation Israel is the type.
�In a nutshell, the church is "spiritual Israel," consisting of all those
�who have been circumcised of the heart, regardless of whether they are
�of Israel or of "the nations."

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that you support
    Replacement Theology here?  It seems to me that you are.  I'm still 
    working on the rest, but this struck me as the heart of our different 
    perspectives.  This is the only common bond I've experienced in mid- 
    and post- supporters.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    I don't think one needs a whole new theology (i.e. replacement
    theology, whatever that might be) to accept the fact that the church is
    spiritual Israel.  There are enough clear statements to this effect.
    
    Let me ask you this.  According to your theological view of Revelation,
    has there been, is there or will there ever be, since Jesus's incarnation 
    until the end of time, one Jew who was, is, or will be saved outside of 
    the covenant of Jesus Christ?  More specifically, are the Jews, either 
    mentioned or interpreted as being represented in the Revelation account, 
    who are counted as righteous by God, made righteous by the fact of their 
    Judaism and law keeping without their acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior 
    and Lord?
    
    jeff

    Jeff, see 328.last.  Also, Jesus had sharp words to the church of
    Philadelphia for those who think they are Jews (Revelation 3:9).
    
    Mike

Re: .239  (Mike)

>    Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that you support
>    Replacement Theology here?  It seems to me that you are.  I'm still 

No.  I acknowledge the co-existence of the Church and Israel.  That the
church is "spiritual Israel" does not imply that the church replaces
Israel or nullifies its role.

Hi Garth,

I  entered a reply to this, and then realised that it's mnore relevant 
under note 328, so it's there at reply # 33.  I hope.  It did a wierd on me 
when I moved it, but I *think* it's still there. ;-)

							Andrew

Re: .238  (Mike)

>>                             -< the missing table >-
>>
>>There is no table in .183, as anyone can see for himself.  If you would just
>>look there, you too would see that there is none.  Either post the table
>>that you alluded to or point me to another note where it exists.
>    
>    see .189

Well I'm glad we finally resolved that.  Now, back to the original issue:

Re: .182  (Mike)

>>Where is scripture to show that the Church will be protected as Enoch was
>>from Noah's Flood?
>    
>    I'll make you a list in the next reply.

...reply .189, that is.

I actually went to the trouble of typing out all the references in the
your "rapture" column.  They are in reply .201/.202.  I re-read all those
scriptures and also the other ones you cited under the "2nd coming" column.

Did you actually read any of the scripture references you cited from
Missler's posting?

There are only two scriptures in that table that refer to either the Flood or
Enoch.  They are: 

	"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the
	heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by
	water.  By these waters also the world of that time was deluged
	and destroyed.  By the same word the present heavens and earth
	are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and 
	destruction of ungodly men."  (2 Peter 3:5-7)

	"Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: 'See,
	the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy
	ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all
	the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all
	the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'"
	(Jude 14-15)

So we have a restatement of the fact of the Flood (in the context of the
2nd coming,) and a prophecy by Enoch about the 2nd coming.

Where is scripture to show that the Church will be protected as Enoch was
from Noah's Flood?

Perhaps we've both said enough about Rev 3:10, and it is time to move on.
I'll use the "Church vs. Enoch" issue as a lead-in to focus on another
issue from way back:

Re: .81  (Mike)

>>Even Noah was not removed from the earth while it was being destroyed
>>out from under him. 
>    
>    Noah is a type of Israel who goes through the Tribulation.  Enoch is a
>    type of the church, who was raptured before the flood.  This is basic 
>    Bible study, Garth.

In .84, I asked you for a scripture reference to support this.  

On the face of it, it appears to me that this is a circular argument.  The
circular argument goes like this:  Israel will go through the Tribulation,
whereas the Church will be raptured prior to it.  Noah went through the Flood,
whereas Enoch was raptured prior to it.  Therefore Noah is a type of Israel 
and Enoch is a type of the Church.  Because Noah is a type of Israel and Enoch
is a type of the Church, therefore Israel will go through the Tribulation,
whereas the Church will be raptured prior to it. 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Since you say that this is "basic Bible study," I expect that your scriptural
defense will be of an extremely straightforward nature, such that it would be
obvious to even the most "basic" of Bible believers.

      Your 702.41 caused me to read the last two replies.
    
      Nice replies Garth!  I'll hang out for an answer to 
      these as well.
    
    						Tony

    I finally got around to reading Barry's "Olivet Discourse" presentation
    and really enjoyed it.  The only thing I slightly question is
    MacArthur's timeline of 9 phases for the Messiah's coming.  #7 "Jews
    from around the world would be gathered back to Israel" is already
    happening and has been for a few years.
    
    Barry, you really do need to get more pre-trib stuff in it though ;-)
    
    Mike

Re: .246  (me)

Let's get back to Noah=Israel vs. Enoch=Church.

Mike, what have you to say about it?

    I'm working on it.  Between you and Tony, I have too many irons in the
    fire and not enough hours in the day ;-)

    Re: Note 644.248 by OUTSRC::HEISER

�    I finally got around to reading Barry's "Olivet Discourse" presentation
�    and really enjoyed it.  The only thing I slightly question is
�    MacArthur's timeline of 9 phases for the Messiah's coming.  #7 "Jews
�    from around the world would be gathered back to Israel" is already
�    happening and has been for a few years.
    
    Thanks for the compliment, Mike. I didn't bother to check MacArthur's
    sources, since they're extra-biblical anyway. I just thought it was
    interesting.
    
�    Barry, you really do need to get more pre-trib stuff in it though ;-)
    
    Would that I could. Seems that Jesus wasn't that concerned with
    providing details of the two phases of His next advent. I deliberately
    limited the scope of the study just to the Olivet Discourse.
    
    	BD�

Re: .250  (Mike)

>    I'm working on it.  Between you and Tony, I have too many irons in the
>    fire and not enough hours in the day ;-)

It's now been 3 weeks since you wrote this note, and you have found ample
time to contribute on a variety of topics in this conference.

What are your intentions regarding my reply .246 and this topic in general?

    Garth, the world doesn't revolve around you and this topic.  I don't
    have to answer to anyone as to what topics I participate in.  I have
    what I consider other priorities right now.  If you have the time, as
    it seems you do, feel free to continue with your views.
    
    Having said that, when I receive the book I expect to be back.
    
    Mike

Re: .253  (Mike)

>                                -< pushy pushy >-
>
>    Garth, the world doesn't revolve around you and this topic.  I don't
>    have to answer to anyone as to what topics I participate in.  I have
>    what I consider other priorities right now.  If you have the time, as
>    it seems you do, feel free to continue with your views.
>    
>    Having said that, when I receive the book I expect to be back.
    
No need to be offended, and no offense intended.  I only was looking for a
statement of your intentions.  Set your priorities as you see best.

    My apologies for taking your note the wrong way.

Re: .255  (Mike)

No problem.  I am pretty busy myself right now with other things.  I want
to make clear, however, that I am committed to following up on all the
relevant points of this topic, one by one.  Lord willing.

    No exactly on topic, but we've but expositing our way through 1 & 2
    Thessalonians (just started 2) on Sunday mornings and we just started
    Revelation again last Sunday night (did it 3 years ago too).  
    
    I find the similarities between Daniel and John striking.  They weren't
    just prophets, but they were also called beloved prophets by God/Christ, 
    an honor not shared by many in God's Word.  They both contributed the most 
    important eschatological books in each testament (the Holy Spirit even
    uses very similar speech in both).  Both also had their lives spared by 
    the hand of God.  
    
    Most are familiar with Daniel and the Lions den.  Some historians
    record (Pliny the Elder?) that the Roman Emperor threatened John with 
    being boiled in oil if he didn't stop spreading the gospel of Christ. 
    John responded with the statement that he will not be silent.  When
    they put him in the boiling oil, not a thing happened to him.  Not a
    blemish on his skin.  To keep him "quiet" they had to exile him away from 
    everyone and put him on Patmos.  He left Patmos for Ephesus when he was an 
    elderly man.  He was the only disciple to die a natural death.
    
    Mike

    just an update:  I have several books I'm reading at the moment, but
    I've managed to finish the first 2 chapters in Kimball's "The Rapture."
    I at least know now what my position is technically called ;-)
    
    Mike (still a futurist)

Re: .258  (Mike)

>    just an update:  I have several books I'm reading at the moment, but
>    I've managed to finish the first 2 chapters in Kimball's "The Rapture."
>    I at least know now what my position is technically called ;-)
    
"Pretribulationism."  Personally, I'd prefer to use a label that doesn't drag
the word "tribulation" into it.  But I haven't been able to come up with one.  

What I found highly ironic about the first two chapters is that Kimball cites
many of the same references to writings of the early church as evidence that
the teaching of pretribulationism was absent, as Missler/you cite as evidence
that it was present!  But then, why am I surprised?  After all, if you can
embellish what is written in scripture, you can just as easily embellish what
is written in anyone else's writings.  I think Eric Ewanco did that issue
justice.  

Actually, I think that Kimball himself made too much of Margaret MacDonald's
alleged prophecy.  After carefully reading the excerpt, I concluded that there
was nothing in it that supported pretribulationism.

In any case, I am not particularly interested in whether pretribulationism was
present or absent for how long in the church, although there is a credibility
issue having to do with misrepresentation of historical writings.  

And again, I am not particularly concerned even with the actual timing of the
rapture of believers.  God will do what he plans, regardless of any of our
protests to the contrary, or our pet doctrines.  My goal in this notes topic
is to establish that pretribulationism is a teaching that is not substantiated
by the canon of scripture. 

    
    Well, I'm with you Garth on the matter of the doctrine of
    pretribulationism (whew! what a word).  I have heard many good sermons
    on Revelation, most in a context of a series going through the whole
    book.  The dispensationalist view just never has clicked in my mind.
    
    jeff

    Re: Note 644.259 by NETCAD::WIEBE
    
�My goal in this notes topic
�is to establish that pretribulationism is a teaching that is not substantiated
�by the canon of scripture. 
    
    ... because you don't think Scripture teaches the (specific)
    tribulation, or because you don't think Scripture teaches the "pre",
    i.e. the removal of the Church before the tribulation starts?
    
    	BD�

    Jeff, we use the expository approach too, yet I still see 
    "Pretribulationism" in it.
    
>"Pretribulationism."  Personally, I'd prefer to use a label that doesn't drag
>the word "tribulation" into it.  But I haven't been able to come up with one.  
    
    Garth, "futurist" kind of fits but the problem is that we're all
    futurists where the 2nd Coming is concerned.  Maybe prefuturist ;-)

>that it was present!  But then, why am I surprised?  After all, if you can
>embellish what is written in scripture, you can just as easily embellish what
>is written in anyone else's writings.  I think Eric Ewanco did that issue
>justice.  
>
>In any case, I am not particularly interested in whether pretribulationism was
>present or absent for how long in the church, although there is a credibility
>issue having to do with misrepresentation of historical writings.  
    
    Fair enough, and I'm sure we'll get to it before summer's end.

>And again, I am not particularly concerned even with the actual timing of the
>rapture of believers.  God will do what he plans, regardless of any of our
>protests to the contrary, or our pet doctrines.  My goal in this notes topic
    
    Agreed.
    
>is to establish that pretribulationism is a teaching that is not substantiated
>by the canon of scripture. 
    
    We shall see.
    
    Mike

    
      Personally, I don't really care whether the rapture will happen
    before or after the great tribulation. All of you here are dwelling on
    small trivial issues. If it were for us to know when, God would have
    told us already in his Word. 
      Jesus said "Learn this parable from the fig tree: When ever its
    branch grows tender and it puts out leaves, you know that summer is
    near. Similarly, when you see these things happen,you will know that He
    is near, at the door."
      Do not worry about when this will happen, only serve Him who sent us
    and watch and pray. And when you see the foretold events happening,
    then you will know He is near. 
      It is useless to try and discover when the rature will happen,
    because Jesus said that He didn't even know, only his father in heaven. 
    And who amoung us may add even a single hour to his life by worrying?
    
    
    Sit back and relax,
    
    Joe  
    

Hi Joe, 

Remember 2 Timothy 3:16.  And Revelation 1:3. There are many things taught
in Scripture which take some wrestling out, and while most of us in this
particular *discussion* (not necessarily 'conference'!) agree in how we
understand the teaching of God's Word concerning end times events, this
aspect in particular has strong followings in opposite directions.  It is
our pleasure to study the World to find out what God is telling us.  Not, I
hope, to multiply words, or engender bad feeling, but because God does not 
do anything pointlessly.  He has given us the Bible to study, that He 
might reveal His glory to us through meting Him there.

You should realise that the purpose of this discussion is not to put a date
on either the rapture, or the return of the LORD (if they should not
coincide;-), but rather to understand and be ready for the path of His
purposes being worked out through us. 

To many this discussion will seem academic.  Their natural choice is not to 
be involved.  But for those who have studied this area, it has a lot to 
tell us about the fulfillment of salvation in us.

						God bless
							Andrew

    Joe, as Andrew said we're not into date setting.  That's impossible. 
    However, in looking at the parable of the fig tree that you referenced,
    Christ was telling us that we can know the season.
    
    Mike

    Re: Note 644.265 by OUTSRC::HEISER

�    Joe, as Andrew said we're not into date setting.  That's impossible. 
    
    You're slipping, Mike. The post-tribbers could quite easily set dates.
    Just start counting when antichrist signs the treaty with Israel. Seven
    years later, look up! :-)
    
    	BD�

    Sorry Barry, I guess I assumed that imminency is important to everyone
    since Christ addressed it.
    
    Mike

�    You're slipping, Mike. The post-tribbers could quite easily set dates.
�    Just start counting when antichrist signs the treaty with Israel. Seven
�    years later, look up! :-)

Barry!  You should know your Bible better than that!  After all I've been 
showing you for years...!

						;-)
							Andrew

    Does anyone know if the "June 9th" thing - of last year fame - has
    begun again?  Yesterday, a girl in Nathan's class told him some 
    strange thing about if you have a black thing on your arm, you
    go to heaven and if you don't, or if you try to run away, you have
    to live in hell naked in the fire and that the killer bees are
    coming this summer.  Someone is teaching this child some weird
    things.  Nathan told her that the Bible does not say that but 
    when he got home it took about an hour to explain to him that
    people take things from the Bible and change them around and 
    make them say things totally different. 
    
    Anyone else experienced this recently?
    
    Pam
    
    
    What a pain!

Re Note 644.267 (Mike)

>    Sorry Barry, I guess I assumed that imminency is important to everyone
>    since Christ addressed it.
    
    You may have accidentally established a new dialog where this subject
    can be discussed without the old baggage. Maybe instead of breaking the
    camps into pre-tribbers and post-tribbers we should start referring to
    ourselves as imminency and non-immenency <P}.
    

Re Note 644.268 (Andrew)
    
> Barry!  You should know your Bible better than that!  After all I've been 
> showing you for years...!
    
    You're right, my friend. I should know the Bible better. Just keep
    showing me - I may get it eventually ;-).
    
    	BD�

    Re: Note 644.269 by CSC32::P_SO
    

�    Does anyone know if the "June 9th" thing - of last year fame - has
�    begun again?  Yesterday, a girl in Nathan's class told him some 
�    strange thing about if you have a black thing on your arm, you
�    go to heaven and if you don't, or if you try to run away, you have
�    to live in hell naked in the fire and that the killer bees are
�    coming this summer.  Someone is teaching this child some weird
�    things.  Nathan told her that the Bible does not say that but 
�    when he got home it took about an hour to explain to him that
�    people take things from the Bible and change them around and 
�    make them say things totally different. 
    
�    Anyone else experienced this recently?
    
    I haven't seen this specific thing (I don't even know what the "June
    9th" thing is), but occasionally one of my kids either asks a question
    or provides an answer to one of my questions. If their response isn't
    right, they can predict my reply: "What's the Word say?"
    
    I figure the best investment I can make in their young lives is to
    reinforce that the most important, reliable, objective source of truth
    is the Bible. No matter what teachings they're exposed to - or from
    whom - I want to instill in them an automatic reflex to compare what
    information they've been given with what the Bible says.
    
    	BD�

 Amen, Barry...

Guess they got it the wrong way round.  If you have this thing on your 
forehead or the right hand you qualify for the punishment.  It's optional, 
but refusal is made rather inconvenient.  And no colour is specified in 
Revelation 13 ff.

Like Barry says - if you want to know truth, look in the Word.

							Andrew

Re: .261  (Barry)
    
>>My goal in this notes topic
>>is to establish that pretribulationism is a teaching that is not substantiated
>>by the canon of scripture. 
>    
>    ... because you don't think Scripture teaches the (specific)
>    tribulation, or because you don't think Scripture teaches the "pre",
>    i.e. the removal of the Church before the tribulation starts?
    
Yes, let me clarify, because there are two distinct issues here that are being
lumped into one.  The first is the length of the so-called "tribulation."  The
second is the rapture of believers.  Regarding these two issues:

1.)  I don't believe that scripture says anything about a 7-year "tribulation."

2.)  I don't believe that scripture says anything about a rapture 7 or more
     years prior to the "every eye will see him" return of the Lord.

I might also add the following:

3.)  I don't believe that scripture teaches that the "every eye will see him"
     return of the Lord will occur prior to any "tribulation" mentioned in 
     the scriptures. 

As Mike himself said, "We shall see."

Re: .266  (Barry)
    
>    You're slipping, Mike. The post-tribbers could quite easily set dates.
>    Just start counting when antichrist signs the treaty with Israel. Seven
>    years later, look up! :-)
    
Careful there, Barry.  If you keep this up you'll get dragged into this 
go-around for sure!

    Pam, the false prophet behind last year's June 9th blunder is John
    Hinkle.  An apology or correction was never issued by TBN.  I've heard
    lately that they're now pushing Hinkle again on some new prophecy but
    I'm not sure of the details.
    
    He's a false prophet and should be treated as such until he confesses
    that last year was of his flesh and not from God.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
>    He's a false prophet and should be treated as such until he confesses
>    that last year was of his flesh and not from God.
    
    Why put the "until he confesses..." qualifier on it? If memory serves,
    the prophets of God were accurate 100% of the time. If you miss once
    you didn't get a second chance. (If I'm wrong on this, please someone
    correct me.)
    
    	BD�

    last coupla
    
       Naw call the Spumino family in Medford. Good upstanding Catholic
    family. Bathtub Madonna on the front lawn to prove it. These the bros
    will break legs for $25 each, if he doesn't repent, then for another
    $50 they'll make him an it and kill his dog.
    
       I have a friend, who is a devout Christian of Eastern Orthodox
    tradition. He and his wife live more a Christly life than a cattle
    car load of teevee and mass media preechahs. He and his wife have
    told me many tales of when they were deeply involved in what the
    world sees as the lunatic fringe of the faith; what people call 
    thumpers and the ones who preach one things and do another......
    and don't forget to send money.......small bills stuffed in a shoe
    box and sent to ............
    
      i won't besmirch anyone's ministry by naming names, SNL's "Church
    Lady" has parodied some of them, Steve Martin did a swell job nailing
    others in Leap of Faith...there's a lot of wolves wearing wool
    sweaters out there. 
    
    ttfn, ray

Re Note 644.275 (Garth)
    
> Careful there, Barry.  If you keep this up you'll get dragged into this 
> go-around for sure!
    
    I've been dragged into worse things :-).


Re Note 644.274 (Garth)
    
    Thanks for the clarification made so far. If you don't mind, I'd like
    to probe just a bit deeper to make sure I really understand you...

> 1) I don't believe that scripture says anything about a 7-year "tribulation."

    Is it the "7-year" or the "tribulation" that you dispute? That is, do
    you believe that Scripture says anything about a specific time of
    tribulation, but you don't accept the 7-year duration? If so, is this
    tribulation yet future?
    
> 2) I don't believe that scripture says anything about a rapture 7 or more
>    years prior to the "every eye will see him" return of the Lord.
    
    Is my paraphrase of your belief correct, viz. that you don't believe
    that Scripture says anything about a "phased approach" of the Lord's
    collecting His own to Himself? (Again trying to see if the "7" is the
    problem or if it's simply a multi-phased approach of gathering the
    Church.)

> 3) I don't believe that scripture teaches that the "every eye will see him"
>    return of the Lord will occur prior to any "tribulation" mentioned in 
>    the scriptures. 
    
    I think I understand what you're saying here - and I agree with you.
    
    --------------------
    
    The concept of a "tribulation" is crucial to my understanding of your
    beliefs. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you would be so
    kind as to clarify exactly what (if anything) you think the Word
    teaches about a specific period of tribulation where His wrath is
    unleashed on the world. Thanks!
    
    	BD�

    A friend once told me - Hope for Pre-trib and live or get ready for 
    Post-trib.
    
    Things are kind of covered that way :-)
    

>    Why put the "until he confesses..." qualifier on it? If memory serves,
>    the prophets of God were accurate 100% of the time. If you miss once
>    you didn't get a second chance. (If I'm wrong on this, please someone
>    correct me.)
    
    Barry, actually you're correct but I was trying to be kind ;-)  I don't
    give Hinkle any attention and I don't think anyone else should.  TBN
    owes the Church an apology.  They allow and promote so much heresy on
    there now that Pastor Chuck Smith took his show off the network.  The
    local affiliate has been wooing my pastor for years, but he refuses to
    get involved with them and has told him why.
    
    Mike

Re: .279 (Barry)

>> 1) I don't believe that scripture says anything about a 7-year "tribulation."
>
>    Is it the "7-year" or the "tribulation" that you dispute? That is, do
>    you believe that Scripture says anything about a specific time of
>    tribulation, but you don't accept the 7-year duration? If so, is this
>    tribulation yet future?
    
It is the "7-year" that I dispute.  A future "tribulation" I have no problem 
with.

>> 2) I don't believe that scripture says anything about a rapture 7 or more
>>    years prior to the "every eye will see him" return of the Lord.
>    
>    Is my paraphrase of your belief correct, viz. that you don't believe
>    that Scripture says anything about a "phased approach" of the Lord's
>    collecting His own to Himself? (Again trying to see if the "7" is the
>    problem or if it's simply a multi-phased approach of gathering the
>    Church.)

Your paraphrase is correct.  I see nothing written to support a "phased 
approach," let alone a "7+ year phased approach."

>> 3) I don't believe that scripture teaches that the "every eye will see him"
>>    return of the Lord will occur prior to any "tribulation" mentioned in 
>>    the scriptures. 
>    
>    I think I understand what you're saying here - and I agree with you.
    
Oops.  I didn't say that right.  I must have been typing too fast.  
Let's try this again: 

3) I don't believe that the scripture teaches that any "rapture" will occur
   prior to any "tribulation" mentioned in the scriptures.

>    The concept of a "tribulation" is crucial to my understanding of your
>    beliefs. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you would be so
>    kind as to clarify exactly what (if anything) you think the Word
>    teaches about a specific period of tribulation where His wrath is
>    unleashed on the world. Thanks!
    
Will put it on my list of things to do.

    In our recent studies of Revelation, it's amazing to me how often we 
    have to go to Genesis for cross-references as well as clarification and
    definition.  
    
    It's just like God to tie the first and last book of His Word together
    like that! ;-)
    
    Mike

Re: .279 (Barry)

>    The concept of a "tribulation" is crucial to my understanding of your
>    beliefs. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you would be so
>    kind as to clarify exactly what (if anything) you think the Word
>    teaches about a specific period of tribulation where His wrath is
>    unleashed on the world. Thanks!
    
The word "tribulation" is used several places in the New Testament, and is just
a descriptive word that means "trouble/distress/affliction."  In Rev 7:14, a
reference is made to <the> <tribulation> <the> <great>, which I take to be
a specific time period/event.  

What I dispute are all of the following notions:

	- That wherever else the word "tribulation" is used, it must also refer
	  to the Rev 7:14 event.

	- That "tribulation" = "wrath"

	- That "The Great Tribulation" of Rev 7:14 is equivalent to "The time 
	  of God's wrath"

	- That Daniel's 70th week is equivalent to "tribulation"

In any case, the topic of discussion in 644.* is the timing of the rapture.
I am trying to avoid getting caught up in a discussion of the timing of
"The (Great) Tribulation," even though the very word "trib" is entangled in
the labels we are using. 

    Re: Note 644.284 by NETCAD::WIEBE
    
�In any case, the topic of discussion in 644.* is the timing of the rapture.
�I am trying to avoid getting caught up in a discussion of the timing of
�"The (Great) Tribulation," even though the very word "trib" is entangled in
�the labels we are using. 
    
    I realize that I haven't officially gotten "dragged in", but since the
    definition of the rapture is keyed to the Great Tribulation, wouldn't
    it make sense to make sure that we all agree on what that term means?
    The pre-tribbers think we won't go through it; the mid-tribbers think
    we'll go part way through it; the post-tribbers think we'll go all the
    way through it... shouldn't we be sure we know what "it" is?
    
    	BD�

    Garth,

    Here is how I understand your position (from 644.282 and .248). Please
    let me know whether I've captured your beliefs accurately. Thanks.

    1. There will be a specific period of Great Tribulation (still future)
       as mentioned in Rev. 7:14.

    2. All occurrences of the word "tribulation" don't necessarily
       refer to the Rev. 7:14 event.

    3. The Great Tribulation (of Rev. 7:14) is *not* "the time of God's
       wrath".

    4. Daniel's 70th week is *not* equivalent to "tribulation"; nor is it
       the Great Tribulation.
    
    5. The duration of the Great Tribulation is unspecified, i.e. there's
       no Scriptural evidence for its being 7 years long.

    6. Everyone alive at the time of the Great Tribulation will go through
       it (unless they die), i.e. there's no Scriptural evidence for
       the saved to be exempted from the Great Tribulation.

    7. There will be an event (still future) where Jesus will physically
       return to earth. All who are living at the time will see His return.

    8. There is no Scriptural support for a "phased approach" of Jesus'
       collecting His own to Himself.
    
    	BD�

    For those of you now getting Chuck Missler newsletter, check out page
    12 in the new June issue.  It appears solid documented evidence has
    been found where Ephraem of Nisibis (306-373 A.D., Syrian church) taught
    pre-tribulation rapture.  
    
    Of course this doesn't prove that the stance is scriptural, but it does
    prove that the concept existed long before the 1800's.  Strike 1
    against William Kimball and similar critics.
    
    BTW - if you don't get Missler's "Personal Update" and would like to,
    send your address to them and ask for the free 1-year trial subscription:
    
    Koinonia House
    P.O. Box D
    Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816-0347
    
    Mike (I'm not connected with this ministry in any way)

Re: .285, (Barry)

>>In any case, the topic of discussion in 644.* is the timing of the rapture.
>>I am trying to avoid getting caught up in a discussion of the timing of
>>"The (Great) Tribulation," even though the very word "trib" is entangled in
>>the labels we are using. 
>    
>    I realize that I haven't officially gotten "dragged in", but since the
>    definition of the rapture is keyed to the Great Tribulation, wouldn't
>    it make sense to make sure that we all agree on what that term means?
>    The pre-tribbers think we won't go through it; the mid-tribbers think
>    we'll go part way through it; the post-tribbers think we'll go all the
>    way through it... shouldn't we be sure we know what "it" is?
    
I never claimed that the rapture was keyed into the Great Tribulation.
That is your idea.  The scriptures certainly don't contain any labels such
as "pre-trib," "mid-trib," or "post-trib."  I maintain that we should get
this "-trib" business out of the discussion of the rapture, unless you can
show me how it ought to be tied in.

And I'm still looking for a non"-trib" label, so I can stop having to use
this silly contemporary christian jargon.

Re: .286  (Barry)

>    Here is how I understand your position (from 644.282 and .248). Please
>    let me know whether I've captured your beliefs accurately. Thanks.
>
>    1. There will be a specific period of Great Tribulation (still future)
>       as mentioned in Rev. 7:14.

I won't dispute that.  On the other hand, I am questioning how this is
relevant to the rapture of believers.

>    2. All occurrences of the word "tribulation" don't necessarily
>       refer to the Rev. 7:14 event.

True.

>    3. The Great Tribulation (of Rev. 7:14) is *not* "the time of God's
>       wrath".

What I mean is that there is a "Great Tribulation," as described in Rev 7:14,
and there is an outpouring of God's wrath, as described elsewhere in 
Revelation.  Suppose the Rev 7:14 event is 3.5 year long.  Does that mean 
that there is a coincident and continuous outpouring of God's wrath during 
that same period of time?  Not necessarily, because "tribulation" does not
necessarily equate to "wrath."

>    4. Daniel's 70th week is *not* equivalent to "tribulation"; nor is it
>       the Great Tribulation.
    
Again, there is Daniel's 70th week, which speaks of a covenant, broken in
the middle.  And then there is "tribulation," which is never spoken of as
being 7 years long.

>    5. The duration of the Great Tribulation is unspecified, i.e. there's
>       no Scriptural evidence for its being 7 years long.

True.  

>    6. Everyone alive at the time of the Great Tribulation will go through
>       it (unless they die), 

I certainly claimed nothing of the sort.

>i.e. there's no Scriptural evidence for
>       the saved to be exempted from the Great Tribulation.

Your "i.e." however, is true.

>    7. There will be an event (still future) where Jesus will physically
>       return to earth. All who are living at the time will see His return.

Amen.

>    8. There is no Scriptural support for a "phased approach" of Jesus'
>       collecting His own to Himself.
    
True.

    Garth, since there will be a Great Tribulation, as mentioned in
    Revelation, sometime in the future; it seems relevent to discuss
    the rapture as being either before, during, or after this significant
    event.  I don't understand why you have a problem with this, perhaps
    you could explain?
    
    If you look at it logically, there are no other choices for the timing
    of the rapture.  Either it will occur before this event, during this
    event, or after this event.  Perhaps it is the marker that most
    Christians use (the Great Tribulation) that bothers you?  What marker
    would you prefer, if this is the problem?   Or perhaps it is the use of
    such a marker that you disapprove of?
    
    
    -steve

    I agree, Steve. Even this topic's title has "tribulation" in it. I
    don't see how one can discuss a "pre-/mid-/post-<something> rapture"
    without agreeing on what the <something> is. It would be as difficult,
    for example, as trying to discuss plans for a wedding party without
    knowing what a wedding was.
    
    	BD�
    
    P.S. I'll take a stab: The Tribulation is that period of the unleashing
    of God's wrath on the world after the Church is raptured :-)

Re: .290  (Steve)

>    Garth, since there will be a Great Tribulation, as mentioned in
>    Revelation, sometime in the future; it seems relevent to discuss
>    the rapture as being either before, during, or after this significant
>    event.  I don't understand why you have a problem with this, perhaps
>    you could explain?
    
I don't see what the Rapture has to do with "tribulation", much less "The
Great Tribulation."  Perhaps you could provide some scripture to connect 
the two events?  (I know of none.)

>    If you look at it logically, there are no other choices for the timing
>    of the rapture.  Either it will occur before this event, during this
>    event, or after this event.  Perhaps it is the marker that most
>    Christians use (the Great Tribulation) that bothers you?  What marker
>    would you prefer, if this is the problem?   Or perhaps it is the use of
>    such a marker that you disapprove of?
    
Well, perhaps we may as well say that the Rapture will occur before, during, or 
after my 2nd child, (now 1.5 years old) is potty trained.  After all, there are
no other choices for the timing of the Rapture.  So which will it be? 
Pre-potty?  Mid-potty?  Or Post-potty?

Do you have a problem with my proposed marker?

Re: .291  (Barry)

>    I agree, Steve. Even this topic's title has "tribulation" in it. I
>    don't see how one can discuss a "pre-/mid-/post-<something> rapture"
>    without agreeing on what the <something> is. It would be as difficult,
>    for example, as trying to discuss plans for a wedding party without
>    knowing what a wedding was.
    
Well then, what have you to say about my new proposed "significant event"
As you say, we certainly can't discuss a "pre-/mid-/post-<something> rapture"
without agreeing on what the <something> is.  Shall we diverge to discuss my
son's potty training then?

>    P.S. I'll take a stab: The Tribulation is that period of the unleashing
>    of God's wrath on the world after the Church is raptured :-)

Scripture reference, please.

    It was my understanding that the topic was an ongoing discussion on the
    possible timing of the rapture, in regards to the Great Tribulation. 
    
    
    -steve

>    It was my understanding that the topic was an ongoing discussion on the
>    possible timing of the rapture, in regards to the Great Tribulation. 
    
It's all Andrew's fault.  Andrew, what do you have to say for yourself?

� It's all Andrew's fault.  Andrew, what do you have to say for yourself?

Uh, Garth,

struggling to catch up everywhere else, and maybe even put something
together here, I thought I had experientially disproved the theory that we
get to skip the Great Tribulation.... 

							;-)

�    It was my understanding that the topic was an ongoing discussion on the
�    possible timing of the rapture, in regards to the Great Tribulation. 

Agreed, Steve, but we have to define our terms.  For instance, someone was
quoted who gives a lot of labels to the 'Great Tribulation', which actually
refer to very specific events, not specifically the tribulation.  These
events are close enough to it in time and sequence (as we understand
Scripture) for people to loosely use their name as a flag for the
tribulation, but strictly to say they refer to the 'Great Tribulation' is
too inaccurate in as precise a study as we should be conducting here. Until
we know what we mean by 'The Great Tribulation', we can't say what we
expect to precede or follow it, or to happen during it. 

							Andrew

    I think scripture is very clear that there will be a 7-year time span
    of tribulations like none the world has seen to this point.  The latter
    half of this 7 years would seem to be the Great Tribulation, because
    Satan will be cast out of heaven and down to the earth.  He will have
    great wrath as he knows his time is short (he can do the math- he has
    3.5 years until Jesus comes back in the Second Coming).
    
    This seems to match the "Time of Jacob's Trouble" mentioned in Daniel-
    the 70th week.
    
    I think if the Bible is read neutrally, without trying to fit personal
    views/doctrine into it, it is fairly clear.  This is my opinion,
    anyway, which I know will not be universally accepted.  8^)
    
    Another opinion I hold in regards to the last 7 years is that the first
    3.5 years will likely be a time of world-wide peace, though the
    anti-Christ will be solidifying world-wide power to a vice-grip control
    of the populations.  This peace would seem wonderful if it weren't for
    all those pesky natural disasters that keep getting worse in intensity
    as well as frequency.  The trigger for this sudden world unification? 
    Could be the rapture.  Millions of people vanishing without a trace,
    all over the world, could very well cause enough the nations of the
    world to unite against a "common enemy" or "common threat".
    
    The last 3.5 years, when Satan posses the anti-Christ, will be a horrible 
    reality of man's ultimate evil.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The 
    world peace-through-control (world government) will be revealed as the 
    false hope it truly is.  The attempted destruction of Israel will begin in 
    earnest, as will the total subjugation of the population of the world.  
    Satan's wrath will be hard, as he knows his time is short.  He will inflict 
    suffering on the world unlike any known previously.  The natural disasters 
    will continue, but the focus seems to shift to extremely prolific demonic
    activity.  The population not protected by God will be tortured by
    Satan and his demons (Revelation- forget the verse, but it has to do
    with demons being given the authority to inflict suffering on all those
    who are not sealed by God ...  "in those days they shall seek death,
    but death will ellude them").  Those who refuse the mark will be put to
    death. (this is in no specific order, as you may have guessed, the mark
    would come first, I believe, the torture a bit later in the 3.5 years).
    
    These ramblings are, once again, my opinion on Revelation.
    
    
    -steve

    Re: Note 644.296 by ICTHUS::YUILLE
    
�I thought I had experientially disproved the theory that we
�get to skip the Great Tribulation.... 
    
    Good one, Andrew! :-)
    
    	BD�

    Re: Note 644.298 by CSOA1::LEECH
    
�    The natural disasters 
�    will continue, but the focus seems to shift to extremely prolific demonic
�    activity.
    
    Starting with Trumpet 5 (Revelation 9).
    
�    "in those days they shall seek death,
�    but death will ellude them").
    
    Five months duration of infernal torment, where one cannot even escape
    via death (same chapter: T5).
    
    As much as we could dive into Revelation, I suspect that we'll need to
    be much more systematic in the (continued?) development of this topic
    if it's to reach any conclusion.
    
    	BD�

<---- no snarf..... sniff....

Andrew,

As long as you and I keep throwing around the term "-trib", the likes of
Mike Heiser, Steve Leech, and Barry Dysert will continue to define the
rapture as having something to do with a "-trib".

And we will continue to hear endless _ad hoc_ stories about it.

Put your thinking cap on, be imaginative, and try to think of a better term.

We are "Rapture-at-Jesus'-2nd-coming-ists", right?  There's got to be a
better way of labelling it.

Re: .246 (me)

Well, I'm done waiting for someone to respond to my reply .246 on the topic of
Noah=Israel vs. Enoch=Church.  The best I can assess of this is that it is
all just a circular argument:

	Because there is a pre-trib rapture, Noah=Israel and Enoch=Church.

	Because Noah=Israel and Enoch=Church, there will be a pre-trib rapture.

Perhaps this is all there is to Mike's "basic bible study."

Let's move on.

In 644.83, we were discussing why we are supposed to believe that the Lord's
coming as described in Matt 24 is different than the Lord's coming as
similiarly described in 1 Thess 4.

To review, here are the relevant passages:

	"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, 
	and all the nations of the earth will mourn.  They will see the 
	Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great 
	glory.  And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and 
	they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of 
	the heavens to the other."  (Matt 24:30-31)

	"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud
	command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet 
	call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.  After that, 
	we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together 
	with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air."  
	(1 Thess 4:16-17)

Mike and others suppose that the above are two entirely different events,
the former event preceeding the latter event by at least 7 years.  Why?

To justify the above, some vague allusions were made to the Feast of Trumpets
and Jewish traditions.

Regarding the Feast of Trumpets, I have found nothing in the scriptures
describing it that would compel us to see the Matt. 24 coming as different
from the 1 Thess 4 coming.

Regarding Jewish traditions, I'd like to cite the following:

	"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from 
	Jerusalem and asked, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition
	of the elders?  They don't wash their hands before they eat!'
	Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the
	sake of your traditions?  For God said, "Honor your father and
	mother," and "anyone who curses his father or mother must be put
	to death."  But you say that if a man says to his father or
	mother, "whatever help you might otherwise have received from me
	is a gift devoted to God," he is not to "honor his father" with
	it.  Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your
	tradition.'"  (Matt 15:1-7)

The point of the above passage is to underscore the fact that Jewish 
traditions are not necessarily a reliable tool for us to use to 
understand God's word.

So now, is there any more that can be said on this sub-topic?

    Like I said I wanted to plow my way through the book before I
    continued.

Hi Garth,

As I outlined in .51, the clear reading of Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4
both refer to the LORD's return as an event which takes 'the world' totally
by surprise, while it is anticipated by Christians.  To split either
passage between one return (or collection!) experienced by Christians only,
and another, later return, experienced by the rest of the world is to do
violence not only to the individual points of each passage, but also to the 
overall sense of the passages.

Some apparently think that there is a date-setting problem; that the end of
the tribulation time is totally predictable from its beginning, and we know
that this is impossible, because 'no-one knows the day or hour' of the
LORD's return (Matthew 24:36).  However the idea that the beginning of the
Great Tribulation fixes when the LORD Jesus returns, relies on the 7 years
of the AntiChrist's treaty with Israel determining the time of His
fulfillment.  Jesus' return is not tied to man's timescale.  In particular,
Matthew 24:22 explicitly states that the normal timescale of that period
will be abbreviated: 

   "If those days had not been cut short, no-one would survive, but for 
    the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."

ie - those who suffer can rest assured that the time will not exceed 3.5
years following the desecration of the temple, but they don't know exactly
how much closer than that His coming may just be....

					God bless
							Andrew 

    I'm going to be leaving on vacation Thursday, but I wanted to
    contribute a few remarks to this topic before it got any more stale.
    Unfortunately, I'll be quite busy upon my return so I may not be able
    to contribute much more until later, but at least this gives the
    post-tribbers (perhaps for Garth's sake I should use the term
    "single-phase return proponents"?) some understanding of my position in
    case it hasn't been adequately covered thus far.

    I'll try to be conservative in my rationale, i.e. trying to not base it
    on arguments from silence, and trying to not establish doctrine based
    upon typology, tradition, parables, or examples. Plenty of such
    "anecdotal" evidence could be provided to support what I think is the
    clear teaching of Scripture (e.g. the cases of Noah, Lot, etc.; the
    apparent lack of mention of the Church from Rev. 6-19; the fact that
    Daniel's first 69 weeks did not include the Church, so why should the
    70th; etc.). I repeat, though, that I don't want to follow ratholes
    about such anecdotal support. If we're to come to some sort of
    understanding, I think we'd be safest in limiting ourselves to the
    straightforward passages.

Point 1: Believers are not to experience God's wrath (1 Thes. 1:10; 5:9).
    Instead, the wrath of God "comes upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph.
    5:6). Since the tribulation is the time of God's wrath (Rev. 16:1 et
    al.), I believe He will rescue the Church from this period.

Point 2: The Coming of the Lord will come "as a thief in the night" (1
    Thes. 5:2). I believe this means it will be unexpected in the sense of
    the timing being unpredictable (Matt. 24:44). Revelation is chock full
    of signs, pointers, and chronological indicators so that anyone who can
    read will be able to pinpoint exactly when and where Jesus will return.
    Indeed, Rev. 16:14-16 and 19:19 tell us that the earthly armies will be
    gathered to fight Him. I can't see any other way for the Return to be
    unpredictable except for it to happen in two phases: an unpredictable
    one followed by a predictable one.

Point 3: The Coming of the Lord is imminent, i.e. it can happen at any time
    without any other prophecies needing to be fulfilled. I believe this
    teaching permeates the NT (e.g. Matt. 24:42; John 5:25). I don't see
    how the Return can be imminent given that the stuff from Rev. 6-18
    hasn't yet happened - unless it is to happen in two phases.

Point 4: Matthew 24:37-39 tells us that "as the days of Noah were", so will
    be Jesus' coming. This passage indicates that life is going on as
    usual, with people living it up in typical worldly fashion, e.g.
    "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage." A look at the
    horrors that will be occurring immediately prior to Jesus' visible
    return tells me that the world will be as far from normal as it has ever
    been. Extremely dissimilar as compared to times immediately prior to
    the Flood.

Point 5: Paul's letters to the Thessalonians make a clear distinction
    between the saved and the lost. Check out the pronoun shifts in 1 Thes.
    5:1-5 (I'll emphasize the key words for clarity) ->

         But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, YOU
         have no need that I should write to YOU. For you
         yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so
         comes as a thief in the night. For when THEY say, "Peace
         and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon THEM, as
         labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And THEY shall not
         escape. BUT YOU, brethren, are not in darkness, so that
         this Day should overtake YOU as a thief. YOU are all
         sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the
         night nor of darkness.

    It seems to me that Paul is saying that the lost will be there to
    experience this Day, but the saved will not be there; hence, the saved
    don't even need to know "the times and the seasons". The saved won't be
    there; they won't be overtaken as a thief.

Point 6: Providing the mortal seed for the Millennium. If the Church were
    not raptured until the end of the Tribulation, then all of the saved
    "sheep" (Matt. 25:32) would get their immortal bodies (1 Cor.
    15:51-53). Since all of the unsaved "goats" are destroyed at the end of
    the Tribulation, there would be no mortals available to enter the
    Millennium.

Point 7: (You wouldn't expect me to stop with 6 would you!?) The two-part
    judgment of John 5:25-29. Jesus promised that a select group of people
    will hear His voice and live. This is contrasted later with the fact
    that *all* will hear His voice, but at that time, the hearers are
    broken into two camps. The saved will obtain resurrection unto life,
    but the lost will obtain resurrection unto condemnation. I think the
    first "select" group is the raptured folks, and the second group
    (that's broken into two camps) comprises the folks alive at the visible
    return, i.e. the sheep/goats judgment already referenced in Matt.
    25:32).
    
    	BD�

Ephraem The Syrian - from Chuck Missler's newsletter, June 1995
------------------
In recent years, many opponents of the pre-trib rapture view have made dogmatic
assertions that this view was never taught before 1820 A.D.  There have been
attempts to attribute the origin of this view to John N. Darby.

Grant Jeffrey has found an ancient citation from a sermon ascribed to Ephraem of
Nisibis (306-373 A.D.) which clearly teaches that believers will be raptured and
taken to heaven before the Tribulation (The citation was found in a footnote
in Paul J. Alexander's "The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition," University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1985, p. 210.  Dr. Paul Alexander is probably
the most authoritative scholar on the writings of the early Byzantine Church).

Ephraem of Nisibis was the most important and prolific of the Syrian church
fathers and a witness to early Christianity on the fringes of the Roman Empire
in the late 4th century.  He was well-known for his poetry, exegetical and
theological writings, and many of the hymns of the early Byzantine church.  So
popular were his works that in the 5th and 6th centuries he was adopted by
several Christian communities as a spiritual leader and role model.

This sermon is deemed to be one of the most interesting apocalyptic texts of the
early Middle Ages.  The translation of the sermon includes the following
segment:

     "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."

This text was originally a sermon called "On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and
the End of the World."  There are 4 existing Latin manuscripts (the Parisinus,
the Augiensis, the Barberini, and the St. Gallen) ascribed to St. Ephraem of to
St. Isidore.  Some scholars believe this text was written by some unknown
writer in the 6th century and was derived from the original Ephraem.

The sermon describes the events of the last days, beginning with the rapture,
the Great Tribulation of 3� years duration under the Antichrist's rule, followed
by the Second Coming of Christ.  In Ephraem's book "The Book of the Cave of
Treasures," written about 370 A.D., he expressed his belief that the 69th week
of Daniel ended with the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah.

This, of course, doesn't prove that the pre-trib view is correct; only that it
was held (by some) in the early centuries and was not unique to the revival of
the 1830's.  It simply documents that this view was held by a remnant of the
faithful from the beginning until today.

These notes were provided through the kind courtesy of Grant Jeffrey in
anticipation of his latest book, and by Tommy Ice in anticipation of his
publication in "Bibliotheca Sacra" this fall.

For the complete text in Latin and English, contact:

Tommy Ice, Executive Director
Pre-Trib Research Center
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Suite 801
Washington, D.C. 20024
FAX (202) 488-0806

Well, it's been two and a half months and I haven't got a response to my
reply .304 regarding Matt 24 vs. 1 Thess 4.

I thought I would address Barry Dysert's more recent reply concerning his
"7 points" of pretribulationism next.

Re: .307  (Barry Dysert)

>Point 1: Believers are not to experience God's wrath (1 Thes. 1:10; 5:9).
>    Instead, the wrath of God "comes upon the sons of disobedience" (Eph.
>    5:6). Since the tribulation is the time of God's wrath (Rev. 16:1 et
>    al.), I believe He will rescue the Church from this period.

"Tribulation" and "wrath" are two entirely different terms.  Rev 16:1 does
not say that "tribulation" = "wrath" or that "the tribulation" (whatever
period you mean by that) consists entirely of wrath upon all people.

Re: .307  (Barry Dysert)

>Point 2: The Coming of the Lord will come "as a thief in the night" (1
>    Thes. 5:2). I believe this means it will be unexpected in the sense of
>    the timing being unpredictable (Matt. 24:44). Revelation is chock full
>    of signs, pointers, and chronological indicators so that anyone who can
>    read will be able to pinpoint exactly when and where Jesus will return.
>    Indeed, Rev. 16:14-16 and 19:19 tell us that the earthly armies will be
>    gathered to fight Him. I can't see any other way for the Return to be
>    unpredictable except for it to happen in two phases: an unpredictable
>    one followed by a predictable one.

"As a thief in the night" applies to the unbelieving, who are unprepared,
and will always be unprepared, because they are unbelieving.  They would be
unprepared even if God specified an exact day, because they refuse to believe
God at his Word.  They don't even believe in the first coming of Christ, which
is an event past!  How could they be expected to believe in the second coming
of Christ, which is an event yet to happen?  

"As a thief in the night" does not apply the believing, who are prepared,
regardless of how vague the bible is, because they are saved by faith and
not temporal works. 

Therefore, "as a thief in the night" has nothing to do with the timing of
the rapture.

Re: .307  (Barry Dysert)

>Point 3: The Coming of the Lord is imminent, i.e. it can happen at any time
>    without any other prophecies needing to be fulfilled. I believe this
>    teaching permeates the NT (e.g. Matt. 24:42; John 5:25). I don't see
>    how the Return can be imminent given that the stuff from Rev. 6-18
>    hasn't yet happened - unless it is to happen in two phases.

The stuff of Rev 6-18 does not pin a date for the Lord's return.  The only
thing we can conclude from these events when they happen is that the Lord's
return is nearer.  Those with children understand phrase "like birth pains." 
That baby can come at any time.  The pains increase, you know it's nearer,
but you an never pin a time for the even until that baby finally pops his
head out.

In any event, anyone will find out how imminent the Lord's Coming is if they
suffer a sudden and unexpected fatal heart attack.  

Re: .307  (Barry Dysert)

>Point 4: Matthew 24:37-39 tells us that "as the days of Noah were", so will
>    be Jesus' coming. This passage indicates that life is going on as
>    usual, with people living it up in typical worldly fashion, e.g.
>    "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage." A look at the
>    horrors that will be occurring immediately prior to Jesus' visible
>    return tells me that the world will be as far from normal as it has ever
>    been. Extremely dissimilar as compared to times immediately prior to
>    the Flood.

This makes me again ponder whether perhaps "The Day of the Lord" is more than
a mere 24 hours long.  And it fills my mind with other unanswered questions,
as well.

But it certainly does not compel me to invent a "pre-trib" rapture.

Re: .307  (Barry Dysert)

>Point 5: Paul's letters to the Thessalonians make a clear distinction
>    between the saved and the lost. Check out the pronoun shifts in 1 Thes.
>    5:1-5 (I'll emphasize the key words for clarity) ->
>
>         But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, YOU
>         have no need that I should write to YOU. For you
>         yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so
>         comes as a thief in the night. For when THEY say, "Peace
>         and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon THEM, as
>         labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And THEY shall not
>         escape. BUT YOU, brethren, are not in darkness, so that
>         this Day should overtake YOU as a thief. YOU are all
>         sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the
>         night nor of darkness.
>
>    It seems to me that Paul is saying that the lost will be there to
>    experience this Day, but the saved will not be there; hence, the saved
>    don't even need to know "the times and the seasons". The saved won't be
>    there; they won't be overtaken as a thief.

Perhaps "it seems to you" that way.  But it seems to me a far more generic
exhortation.  It seems to me that WE have nothing to fear, and THEY have
everything to fear, regardless of when the rapture occurs.  Why are THEY in
darkness whereas WE are not?  Because THEY don't believe whereas WE do.
Because THEY don't have the indwelling Holy Spirit whereas WE do.

Re: .307  (Barry Dysert)

>Point 6: Providing the mortal seed for the Millennium. If the Church were
>    not raptured until the end of the Tribulation, then all of the saved
>    "sheep" (Matt. 25:32) would get their immortal bodies (1 Cor.
>    15:51-53). Since all of the unsaved "goats" are destroyed at the end of
>    the Tribulation, there would be no mortals available to enter the
>    Millennium.

Or perhaps the Church will be raptured and Israel saved from destruction.
You are merely inventing a rapture to remedy problems you invented in the
first place.  Suppose the Church was raptured 24 hours before the end of
The Tribulation?  Israel sees the event, believes, and enters the 
Millenium at the end of the day.  Your problem is now solved without a
pre-trib-rapture, at least hypothetically.

Re: .307  (Barry Dysert)

>Point 7: (You wouldn't expect me to stop with 6 would you!?) The two-part
>    judgment of John 5:25-29. Jesus promised that a select group of people
>    will hear His voice and live. This is contrasted later with the fact
>    that *all* will hear His voice, but at that time, the hearers are
>    broken into two camps. The saved will obtain resurrection unto life,
>    but the lost will obtain resurrection unto condemnation. I think the
>    first "select" group is the raptured folks, and the second group
>    (that's broken into two camps) comprises the folks alive at the visible
>    return, i.e. the sheep/goats judgment already referenced in Matt.
>    25:32).
    
My reading of John 5:25-29 is simply that the saved dead will rise to 
eternal life, and the unsaved dead will rise to eternal condemnation.

To make more of it than that is just begging the question.

Re: .307  (Barry Dysert)

Notice that all of Barry's points appeal to mere logistics.  

I was musing about what kind of predictions Barry might have made if he was in
the assembly of Israel during the exodus from Egypt, when they had the Red Sea
in front of them and the pursuing Egyptian army behind them.

Now to the best of my knowledge, Barry is a believer.  He wouldn't have been
one of the infidels who exclaimed "We're doomed!"  But Barry is also
presumptious in his speculation.  I mused that he would come up with a story
that went something like this:  "The Egyptian army is behind us, and the Red
Sea is in front of us.  Since we cannot get across the Red Sea, and it is
unreasonable to expect the Egyptian armies to turn back, we must be about to
witness one more plague.  God will strike them with another plague, and they
will stop their advance or die." 

I think it's time we stopped all this speculation about the particulars
concerning what God is going to do, where he hasn't spelled it out in
black and white.

>Well, it's been two and a half months and I haven't got a response to my
>reply .304 regarding Matt 24 vs. 1 Thess 4.
    
    I'm currently in chapter 8 of Kimball's "The Rapture," so I'm almost
    done.  I have to confess that his answers make me ask more questions
    and he seems to ignore some critical issues.
    
    call me disappointed,
    Mike

    Hey, Garth - you decide to address these points now while I'm at
    training. No fair ;-)
    
    Btw, you can be assured that I am a believer. Thanks for giving me the
    benefit of the doubt.
    
    	BD�

Re: .318  (Mike Heiser)

>    I'm currently in chapter 8 of Kimball's "The Rapture," so I'm almost
>    done.  I have to confess that his answers make me ask more questions
>    and he seems to ignore some critical issues.
>    
>    call me disappointed,

Are you disappointed because you didn't find a more appealing story than the
pretribulationist one which purports to explain anything and everything in
Daniel, Ezekiel, and the book of Revelation as it applies to the end-times?

Pat answers and sensationalism are what disappoint me.

    Garth, not at all.  He overlooks topics that I think are relevant, at
    least up to chapter 8.  From my margin notes, here's what has me asking
    more questions about his answers:
    
    1. No mention of early church writings that support the pre-trib view,
       which I have given sources for already in here.  This automatically
       voids the first 2 chapters and hinders his argument and credibility.
    
    2. I question the credibility of some of his sources too.  One I am
       familiar with that he quotes often is Hans K. LaRondelle.  This 7th
       Day Adventist and anti-Semite represents the typical view of the
       replacement theologists and the SDA church.  In his book "The Israel
       of God in Prophecy," he states:
    
    	  "the New Testament unmistakably *universalizes* Israel's territorial 
           promises...the Middle East focus, or Palestinian restriction, is 
           consistently eliminated in its ecclesiological and apolcalyptic 
           applications...Even in Romans 9-11 Paul does not look for a
           restored theocracy of national Palestine..." (p. 208, his emphasis).
    
       This is the official SDA stance that the Church has become the New
       Israel, completely replacing natural Israel.  On pp. 160-164 in the
       same book, LaRondelle again misses the mark with his interpretation
       of Matthew 23:39.  He forgets that this verse goes hand-in-hand with
       the future application of Zechariah 12:10.  This is *NOT* "a new way
       of salvation - 'by sight' instead of 'by faith'" which goes against
       the very grain of the eternal gospel of God (Romans 10:17).  Not
       surprisingly, LaRondelle has to deal with Matthew 23:39, Amos 9:11-12
       (as applied in Acts 15:16-18), Isaiah 11:10-12 (Israel's 2nd Gathering)
       and Luke 21:24 (in the context of 1967's 6 Day War) in his section
       called "Problematic Texts" (pp. 147-169).  {my source on LaRondelle is
       "Our Hands Are Stained with Blood" by Michael L. Brown}  Like most
       post-tribbers and replacement theologists, this completely distorts the
       critical scriptures in Daniel, both Thessalonians, Revelation, and the
       Olivet Discourse in the Gospels.  This causes them to apply passages
       to the Church that were intended for Israel, completely missing the
       mark.
    
    3. No mention of reconciling Enoch's rapture with his view.
    
    4. No mention of who the elect or saints are and reconciling that with 
       his view.  Are all the saints and/or elect in the Church?  NO!
    
    5. Confuses God's Wrath and Man's Wrath and mixes them interchangeably
       with respect to the Great Tribulation.
    
    6. Neglects explanation of saints in heaven in Revelation.
    
    7. Misinterprets the context of the prophecies to the 7 Churches.  He
       views it historically when obviously some of it has eschatological
       implications.
    
    8. He neglects imminency.
    
    9. Tries to apply an Oriental wedding custom to a Hebrew scripture. 
       Hebrew weddings don't have any commonality with what he describes on
       page 129.  He confuses or ignores other Hebrew cultural aspects too
       such as the blowing of the shofar.
    
    I can provide more later, if interested.
    
    Mike

Re: .321  (Mike Heiser)

Ummm, it just occurred to me:

>    Garth, not at all.  He overlooks topics that I think are relevant, at
    
>    3. No mention of reconciling Enoch's rapture with his view.
    
Didn't you overlook responding to my challenge to justify your claim that 
Enoch=Church and Noah=Israel?

See reply .246

Next let's deal with this subject of the "elect."

Mike Heiser and others insist that the "elect" are Israel, and that us
non-pretribulationists are always overlooking this alleged truth.

With my new Bible software, I did a search for all occurrances of the Greek
lexical word <eklektos>, which is NIV G/K #G1723, Strong's #G1588.  In the NIV,
it is translated "chosen" 12 times, "elect" 9 times, and "God's elect" 1 time. 

Here are all 22 verses:

     MT 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."
     
     MT 24:22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive,
     but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
     
     MT 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform
     great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were
     possible.
     
     MT 24:31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and
     they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the
     heavens to the other.
     
     MK 13:20 If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would
     survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has
     shortened them.
     
     MK 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform
     signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.
     
     MK 13:27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the
     four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
     
     LK 18:7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who
     cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off?
     
     LK 23:35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at
     him. They said, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the
     Christ of God, the Chosen One."
     
     RO 8:33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?
     It is God who justifies.
     
     RO 16:13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been
     a mother to me, too.
     
     COL 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved,
     clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and
     patience.
     
     1TI 5:21 I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the
     elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do
     nothing out of favoritism.
     
     2TI 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that
     they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with
     eternal glory.
     
     TIT 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the
     faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to
     godliness--
     
     1PE 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers
     in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia
     and Bithynia,
     
     1PE 2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but
     chosen by God and precious to him--
     
     1PE 2:6 For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a
     chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will
     never be put to shame."*
     
     1PE 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy
     nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of
     him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
     
     2JN 1:1 The elder, To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in
     the truth--and not I only, but also all who know the truth--
     
     2JN 1:13 The children of your chosen sister send their greetings.
     
     REV 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will
     overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with
     him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."
     
Note that this last verse, Rev 17:14, has the <eklektoi> returning with Jesus
to make war against the beast and his kingdom (see also Rev 19:19).

>Mike Heiser and others insist that the "elect" are Israel, and that us
>non-pretribulationists are always overlooking this alleged truth.
    
    Correction: I stated that it *includes* Israel.
    
>With my new Bible software, I did a search for all occurrances of the Greek
>lexical word <eklektos>, which is NIV G/K #G1723, Strong's #G1588.  In the NIV,
>it is translated "chosen" 12 times, "elect" 9 times, and "God's elect" 1 time. 
    
    Now search the O.T. for the Hebrew equivalent of the above or "elect"
    or "saints."
    
    Mike

>Didn't you overlook responding to my challenge to justify your claim that 
>Enoch=Church and Noah=Israel?
    
    nope, not overlooked.  Just wanted to finish Kimball's book first.
    
    Mike

Re: .324  (Mike Heiser)

>>Mike Heiser and others insist that the "elect" are Israel, and that us
>>non-pretribulationists are always overlooking this alleged truth.
>    
>    Correction: I stated that it *includes* Israel.
    
Please clarify.  Thanks.

>>With my new Bible software, I did a search for all occurrances of the Greek
>>lexical word <eklektos>, which is NIV G/K #G1723, Strong's #G1588.  In the
>>NIV, it is translated "chosen" 12 times, "elect" 9 times, and "God's elect"
>>1 time. 
>    
>    Now search the O.T. for the Hebrew equivalent of the above or "elect"
>    or "saints."
    
No occurrances of "elect*".  Don't know what you mean by "Hebrew equivalent."

Here is result of search of O.T. for "saint*" in NIV:

     1SA 2:9 He will guard the feet of his saints, but the wicked will be
     silenced in darkness. "It is not by strength that one prevails;
     
     2CH 6:41 "Now arise, O LORD God, and come to your resting place, you
     and the ark of your might. May your priests, O LORD God, be clothed
     with salvation, may your saints rejoice in your goodness.
     
     PS 16:3 As for the saints who are in the land, they are the glorious
     ones in whom is all my delight.*
     
     PS 30:4 Sing to the LORD, you saints of his; praise his holy name.
     
     PS 31:23 Love the LORD, all his saints! The LORD preserves the
     faithful, but the proud he pays back in full.
     
     PS 34:9 Fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him lack
     nothing.
     
     PS 52:9 I will praise you forever for what you have done; in your name
     I will hope, for your name is good. I will praise you in the presence
     of your saints.
     
     PS 79:2 They have given the dead bodies of your servants as food to
     the birds of the air, the flesh of your saints to the beasts of the
     earth.
     
     PS 85:8 I will listen to what God the LORD will say; he promises peace
     to his people, his saints-- but let them not return to folly.
     
     PS 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his
     saints.
     
     PS 132:9 May your priests be clothed with righteousness; may your
     saints sing for joy."
     
     PS 132:16 I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her saints
     will ever sing for joy.
     
     PS 145:10 All you have made will praise you, O LORD; your saints will
     extol you.
     
     PS 148:14 He has raised up for his people a horn,* the praise of all
     his saints, of Israel, the people close to his heart. Praise the LORD.
     
     PS 149:1 Praise the LORD.* Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise
     in the assembly of the saints.
     
     PS 149:5 Let the saints rejoice in this honor and sing for joy on
     their beds.
     
     PS 149:9 to carry out the sentence written against them. This is the
     glory of all his saints. Praise the LORD.
     
     DA 7:18 But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and
     will possess it forever--yes, for ever and ever.'
     
     DA 7:21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and
     defeating them,
     
     DA 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in
     favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they
     possessed the kingdom.
     
     DA 7:25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and
     try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed
     over to him for a time, times and half a time.*
     
     DA 7:27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms
     under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people
     of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all
     rulers will worship and obey him.'
     
     DA 8:12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints* and the daily
     sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did,
     and truth was thrown to the ground.

So what's the point?  Please explain.  Thanks.

>Please clarify.  Thanks.
>So what's the point?  Please explain.  Thanks.
    
    It's rather simple.  
    
    Are all the elect  talked about in the Bible in the Church?  NO!  
    Are all the saints talked about in the Bible in the Church?  NO!  
    
    There are passages referring to both saints and elect in both
    Testaments, but we only know who is being talked about within context.
    Sometimes it is obviously Israel, sometimes it is obviously the Church,
    but we know that it is shared.  The Church does not have a monopoly on
    sainthood or the elect.
    
    Mike

Re: .327  (Mike Heiser)

Thanks for the clarification.  So it looks to me like the "elect" discussion
does not argue for pretribulationism, but is a consequence of it.  So for
example, the Matt 24 "elect" are the "tribulation" saints because the NT church
has already been raptured.  And the Rev 17:14 "elect" coming back with Jesus
couldn't be the remaining "tribulation" saints because they are still on the 
earth. 

And that's what you mean by "context."  Do I have your story right yet?

So I would conclude that it is useless for us to discuss who the
pretribulationist "elect" are until such time as we have determined whether
pretribulationism is correct to begin with.

    Garth,
    
>Thanks for the clarification.  So it looks to me like the "elect" discussion
>does not argue for pretribulationism, but is a consequence of it.  So for
    
    Not exactly.  I think you're putting the cart before the horse.  The
    elect and the saints existed long before the Church was born.
    
>So I would conclude that it is useless for us to discuss who the
>pretribulationist "elect" are until such time as we have determined whether
>pretribulationism is correct to begin with.
    
    I think it's more important to acknowledge just who the elect and
    saints are.
    
    Mike

Re: .329  (Mike Heiser)

>>Thanks for the clarification.  So it looks to me like the "elect" discussion
>>does not argue for pretribulationism, but is a consequence of it.  So for
>    
>    Not exactly.  I think you're putting the cart before the horse.  The
>    elect and the saints existed long before the Church was born.
    
Yes, the "elect" and the "saints" did indeed exist long before the Church was
born.  My point is that the pretribulationist "who's who" in the end times is
contingent upon a pretribulationist rapture.

>>So I would conclude that it is useless for us to discuss who the
>>pretribulationist "elect" are until such time as we have determined whether
>>pretribulationism is correct to begin with.
>    
>    I think it's more important to acknowledge just who the elect and
>    saints are.
    
It may be more important, but it is besides the point of when the rapture is,
which is what topic 644.* is about.

I recommend that we first agree on when the rapture is (or isn't).  Then we can
discuss who's who when. 

And unless you make some claim about the "elect" and the "saints" arguing for a
pre-trib rapture, I'm no longer interested in the "who's who" discussion. 

My fault for feeding that tangent.

    I feel the topics are intertwined.

    btw - I finally finished the book on the plane trip.  After all has
    been said and done, I think I've changed my mind on where I stand.  I
    can honestly say I no longer support the pre-trib view.  Through
    prayer and study, I feel God has moved me to the stance of
    
    pre-antichrist-revelation rapture of the church! ;-)
    
    Mike

Re: .332  (Mike Heiser)

>    pre-antichrist-revelation rapture of the church! ;-)
    
Where in the scriptures does it say that the church will be raptured
before the antichrist is revealed?

The most obvious pointer is in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, which says that the day 
will not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed.  The context is
clearly addressing the problem the Thessalonians were asking, of 'has Jesus
already returned?', and this was given as a landmark to know that He 
hadn't.  The Pre-trib-[antichrist]-rapture position has to get round this, 
and I've heard all sorts of ways which take this verse and make it totally
inappropriate to the context.  The whole point was that the Thessalonians 
(or equivalent Christians du jour) would be there to see and recognise the 
advent of the antichrist.  That was Paul reason for mentioning it.  Not to 
say, 'if you see him, you missed it!'.

							Andrew

    Thanks for pointing out the verse, Andrew, but needless to say I don't
    agree with your interpretation or the intended context.
    
    Mike

    I'm taking a survey...
    
    Do you believe that Jesus Christ can return today?
    
    I say YES!

Re: .337  (Mike Heiser)

>    I'm taking a survey...
>    
>    Do you believe that Jesus Christ can return today?
>    
>    I say YES!

Never mind the survey.  I am still waiting for you to answer the questions
I have posed to you in this topic.  

The last one was in reply .333, and we can work backwards from there.

    I thought we beat this to death already.  We can't even agree on the items 
    put forth in the 4 replies prior to that (elect & saints).  If you
    don't want to answer the question, you don't have to.  Others may want
    to though.
    
    Mike

    I think today would be a good day.
    
    Jill
    

 OK by me.

    He saith, "Surely I come quickly."  With John I say, "Amen. Even so,
    come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
    Amen." (Re.22:20&21)
    
    The Lord could come at any time, and any time would be fine with me!
    :-)
    
    /Wayne

    If I may, I see this in 2 ways. It is good for the rapture to occur,
    for the sake of those who are suffering, and will benefit being
    translated (beamed up, caught away, twinkling of an eye etc...).
    
    For those who remain, it will not be at all pleasant. If I remember
    correctly, God will take the church out of the world, when the last
    person who is to be saved in the age of Grace says "Yes, Jesus".
    
    Then, 7 years of tribulation as the world has never seen.
    
    So a part of me, says "the sooner, the better", and another part of me,
    says, "I gotta tell as many as I can, as led by the Spirit of the
    Living God, as the next one, mught be the last one scheduled.
    
    Bob

Re: .339  (Mike Heiser)

>    I thought we beat this to death already.  We can't even agree on the items 
>    put forth in the 4 replies prior to that (elect & saints).  If you
>    don't want to answer the question, you don't have to.  Others may want
>    to though.

No, we did not beat this to death.  The way we left it, I thought that you
were going to get back to me with scripture justifications to substantiate
your various claims.

Never mind the "elect."  Never mind the "saints."  I have posted every 
scripture that references them, and you haven't used them to demonstrate
either your original "pre-trib" rapture or your latest "pre-beast" rapture.

Re: .332, where in the scriptures does it say that the church will be raptured
before the antichrist is revealed? 

Re: .325, where in the scripture does it say that Enoch=Church and Noah=Israel?

...and so on and so forth.

Re: .343  (Bob Shallow)

Don't start with the "pre-trib-rapture" doctrine until you have gone back
and read up on all of 644.*.  I've been after Mike Heiser on this topic
for a long, long time.  You might want to do a little research here.

    Hi Garth,
    
     I'm a hopin it is pre, but if it isn't, it might be at 3.5 years into
    it, and I'll probably be killed for not taking the mark, if that is so.
    If it is a post trib scenerio, I probably won't be here that long to
    see it. Whatever happens, His grace will be sufficient for me, you,
    Mike, and all the other believers.
    
    I don't have time to research what really doesn't matter to me at this
    point. God has full knowledge of it, and that is sufficient for me.
    
    God bless you all richly with His grace over the long weekend.
    
    Shalom,
    
    Bob

Re: .346  (Bob Shallow)

Rest assured that this is not a central doctrine of the Christian faith.
And I'm not anti-Heiser either, though it may seem like it the way I harangue
him in this topic. 

The "pre-trib-rapture" is a concoction of men, an interesting tale for
those with itching ears (like mine about a decade ago, I'll admit).  But
if you'll read through your bible looking for it, you won't find it anywhere,
despite the vehement protests of the dispensational elite.

Mind you, God can do anything he wants, including rapture anyone he wants,
without any obligation to inform us ahead of time in holy writ.  He did it 
to Enoch, and he did it to Elijah.  But be assured he has written nothing in 
the bible about any pre-trib-rapture. 

    
    Hi Garth,
    
     I only have a few minutes before I'm off to church. I'll comment more
    on what you said later, as the Lord permits.
    
     Enoch and Elijah, one just walked into heaven, and one went in a
    chariot. Some speculate, in order for God's Word to be true to the
    letter, they will be the 2 prophets spoken of in Rev., where they appear
    somewhere near the beginning of the 3.5 mark, are killed, and rise
    again on the 3rd day. Then, the verse "It is appointed unto man once to
    die, then the judgement.
    
     My question is; Is God bound to His Word, or can He make exceptions to
    the rule, if He so desires to do such?
    
    Shalom,
    
    Bob

|No, we did not beat this to death.  The way we left it, I thought that you
|were going to get back to me with scripture justifications to substantiate
|your various claims.
    
    You thought wrong.  The justifications are there for those that seek
    them.

|Never mind the "elect."  Never mind the "saints."  I have posted every 
|scripture that references them, and you haven't used them to demonstrate
|either your original "pre-trib" rapture or your latest "pre-beast" rapture.
    
    neither have you demonstrated evidence of an alternative position. 
    Your questions below are just as applicable to your way of thinking.

|Re: .332, where in the scriptures does it say that the church will be raptured
|before the antichrist is revealed? 
|
|Re: .325, where in the scripture does it say that Enoch=Church and Noah=Israel?

Re: .349  (Mike Heiser)

>|No, we did not beat this to death.  The way we left it, I thought that you
>|were going to get back to me with scripture justifications to substantiate
>|your various claims.
>    
>    You thought wrong.  The justifications are there for those that seek
>    them.

Please provide a pointer to the reply containing your justification for
your relatively new assertion in .332 that the church will be raptured before
the antichrist is revealed. 

Also, in reply .325 you seemed to indicate that you would provide a
justification for your assertion that Enoch=Church and Noal=Israel after you
finished reading Kimball's book.  Please provide a pointer to the reply. 

>|Never mind the "elect."  Never mind the "saints."  I have posted every 
>|scripture that references them, and you haven't used them to demonstrate
>|either your original "pre-trib" rapture or your latest "pre-beast" rapture.
>    
>    neither have you demonstrated evidence of an alternative position. 
>    Your questions below are just as applicable to your way of thinking.

By using the word "neither", are you conceding that none of the scriptures
about the "elect" and the "saints" provides any evidence for a "pre-trib"
or "pre-beast" rapture?

Regarding my "alternative position":  My position is and has been that there 
exists no scriptural backing for a pre-trib or (pre-beast) rapture of the
church.  I simply state that I have read my bible cover to cover and found no
such thing.  All you need to do to refute me is provide some evidence.
Otherwise, my point stands.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Attorney for the prosecution:  "This man is a criminal."

Attorney for the defense:  "You have provided no evidence to show that he is."

Attorney for the prosecution:  "But neither have you provided any evidence to
                                show that he isn't."

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the rapture passages have been posted in here.  If you don't
    believe them because of your view on who the saints and elect are, then
    we'll just have to keep seeking the Lord to reveal it to us in His
    Word.
    
    Mike

Re: .351  (Mike Heiser)

>    Most of the rapture passages have been posted in here.  If you don't
>    believe them because of your view on who the saints and elect are, then
>    we'll just have to keep seeking the Lord to reveal it to us in His
>    Word.
    
I'm sorry Mike, but I honestly don't know where you have posted those rapture
passages.  Can you be more specific?

Please provide a pointer to the reply containing your justification for
your relatively new assertion in .332 that the church will be raptured before
the antichrist is revealed. 

Also, in reply .325 you seemed to indicate that you would provide a
justification for your assertion that Enoch=Church and Noal=Israel after you
finished reading Kimball's book.  Please provide a pointer to that reply as
well.

    your questions can be answered by contacting the research center:
    
    Pre-Trib Research Center 
    Tommy Ice, Executive Director
    370 L'Enfant Promenade SW, Suite 801
    Washington D.C., 20024

Re: .353  (Mike Heiser)

>                         -< Pre-Trib Research Center >-
>
>    your questions can be answered by contacting the research center:
>    
>    Pre-Trib Research Center 
>    Tommy Ice, Executive Director
>    370 L'Enfant Promenade SW, Suite 801
>    Washington D.C., 20024

I don't think so, since my questions were about specific statements that you
made in this notesfile.

For example, in .332 you made the relatively new assertion that the church
will be raptured before the antichrist is revealed.  (Is this even a claim
of the "Pre-trib Research Center"?  If so, then why are they calling themselves
that name?")

I have been *painfully* straightforward in asking you to explain why you
think that there is going to be a rapture anytime before the visible 2nd
coming of the Lord.  I have brought up scripture after scripture, claim after
claim that you have made, and asked for simple, straightforward explanations
of why each should even hint at such a doctrine.

Since I have seen no evidence of any such doctrine anywhere in the Bible, and
since you have not given me any scripture or reason to believe in such a
doctrine, I really have no need to contact this "Pre-Trib Research Center". 

If you have no intention on defending your doctrine, perhaps you should take
a different approach in this forum.  Perhaps you should say "The Pre-Trib
Research Center believes that there will be a pre-[whatever it is] rapture of
the church."  And when we then ask, "Why do they believe that?" then you could
answer "I don't know.  But here's their address if you want to ask them."  And
that would be the end of the discussion, until such time as someone becomes so
inclined to contact them and report back what they said. 

    Well according to past replies, I stated that it was my opinion that
    the rapture would occur pre-beast.  I never discussed it any more than
    that and don't really intend to.
    
    As for scriptures, there were plenty posted in here.  One was an
    article from Chuck Missler that listed all the rapture passages. 
    SEARCH/NOTE=644.* "MISSLER" should find it for you.
    
    I think the folks who have all the questions would benefit more from
    contacting the research center.
    
    regards,
    Mike

    .177 ff

Re: .355  (Mike Heiser)

>    Well according to past replies, I stated that it was my opinion that
>    the rapture would occur pre-beast.  I never discussed it any more than
>    that and don't really intend to.
    
Wrong.  You did not state it as your "opinion".  It sounded to me like you
claimed some level of inspiration from God.  You said in .332: "Through prayer
and study, I feel God has moved me to the stance of pre-antichrist-revelation
rapture of the church!" 

So which is it?  Did God "move" you to the "pre-beast" stance, or was it just
that your own opinion changed?

I am also having trouble with your continued reference to this "Pre-Trib
Research Center."  In reply .332, you also said "...I think I've changed my
mind on where I stand.  I can honestly say I no longer support the pre-trib
view."  Yet your recommendation of the "Pre-Trib Research Center" predates
your change of doctrine.

The problem I am having with all this is that unless the "Pre-Trib Research
Center" also changed their doctrine (but not their name) at the same time that
you did, then you and they now believe different things.  Yet you still
recommend that we contact them for details about the claims that you have made
in this forum about a "pre-trib" rapture when you don't even support a 
"pre-trib" rapture anymore.

This also applies to your references to "Chuck Missler," whom you have 
recommended both before and after your conversion from "pre-trib" to
"pre-beast", and the scriptures that you claimed support the "pre-trib" view
when you were still "pre-trib" and not yet "pre-beast."

Either way, I think you owe us an explanation, or at least a clarification.

    Garth (and Mike),
    
    I would encourage you to carefully consider what's really at stake here
    before drawing battle lines.
    
    /Wayne

    Garth, you took one line out of context in .332 and I don't owe anyone
    anything.
    
    have fun,
    Mike

Re: .359  (Mike Heiser)

Well, I guess that's all I've got to say on our dialogue of pre-trib/beast
rapture, unless you bring it up again.  The readership will have to judge 
our debate for themselves.

I do owe you a testimony that I promised from way back.  I'll post that as
a separate reply.

Mike Heiser asked me some time ago in this topic to give a testimony as it
relates to my acceptance and later rejection of pretribulationism.

It all started in the summer of 1985 when Jehovah's Witnesses first visited
my doorstep.  Their focus on eschatology (end-times) stimulated my interest
in this area.  I read their 1983 "Live Forever in Paradise on Earth" doctrinal
book, and decided to do some investigation of some of its points.  At a local
bookstore I found several of Hal Lindsay's "Late Great Planet Earth" series
of books, which advocated a rapture of the church before the "tribulation"
and second coming of Jesus.  I did some further research into some of the
references in the JW book and Hal Lindsay's books, travelling to the Boston
Public Library to research both the historical basis for the JW 1914 prophecy
and Hal Lindsay's reference to Sir Robert Anderson's _The Coming Prince_.

I found out that the JWs were calculating their prophecy from an incorrect
date for the fall of Jerusalem, invalidating their 1914 chronology altogether.
I presented this to them, but they could offer no rebuttal.  I also presented
to them what I learned about Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks, and how Sir
Robert Anderson determined that the first part of the prophecy predicted the
triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem right down to the very day, based on
a starting point of the decree by Artaxerxes Longiminus of Persia to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem, as documented in Nehemiah.  I maintained that the
Jehovah's Witnesses were incorrect in establishing the endpoint of the prophecy
as Jesus' baptism, and likewise heard no convincing rebuttal.

Initially, I thought that the Jehovah's Witnesses were just another sect of
orthodox Christianity, and was unaware that they were a pseudo-Christian cult.
Nevertheless, I was turned off by their stubborn refusal to even consider my
objections.  My course of study led me to a local Christian bookstore, and 
there I picked up countercult materials and realized the full extent of the JW 
deception, creating in me a great burden to turn them away from the Watchtower
Society and reach them with the true gospel of Christ.  But that is another
story I won't elaborate on further in this note.

I think a key thing in my mind was that Hal Lindsay vs. The Watchtower was an
either-or proposition.  Since I rejected the Watchtower, I accepted Lindsay.
I also bought into Hal Lindsay's criticism of post-tribulationism as espoused 
by authors such as Ladd and Gundry without even investigating any of their
literature.  Besides, the pre-trib story was very appealing to me.  So I became
a fervent pre-tribber.

Next I got involved in a lunchtime bible study at the Mill, headed at that 
time by a Digital employee by the name of George Woods.  He was a pre-tribber,
too.  The problem was, another man by the name of Norm Pollitt attended that
bible study.  One day George Woods decided to lead a bible study on the topic
of the rapture, and Norm Pollitt was there.  Norm declared that there was no
such thing in the bible and that it was contrary to God's word.  I didn't
believe him at the time, but I admired his conviction and it planted a seed. 

As I came to know Norm better, there were several instances where he challenged
me on my pre-trib views.  He challenged me to go back to the scriptures.  He
said there was no such thing.  As time went on, I became less confident in
pretribulationism.  I had no rebuttal to Norm's challenges.  So I gave it up.
Norm gave me a copy of Kimball's _The Rapture: A Question of Timing_ (the book
I gave Mike Heiser).  This solidified my views further.  

The next significant incident was at a church cell-group bible study.  An
individual there volunteered to lead one of the meetings one time with the
popular film "Thief in the Night".  This is a story of a woman who gets left
behind after the rapture, doesn't take the mark, and is chased around by the 
beast police until she is finally apprehended and faces a guillotine.

The opening scene in that film quoted the following scriptures in the following
sequence:

  "...and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of
   the heavens to the other."

  "Then there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the
   world until now -- and never to be equalled again."

When I saw that, I interrupted the bible study, insisted that the film be
paused, and declared to everyone:  "Hey!  They quoted those two verses from
Matthew in the wrong order!"  The first quote is from verse 31, and the second
quote is from verse 21.  I watched the entire film in disgust, and just shook
my head.  After the film was over, I was not the first person to comment,
however.  Another woman asked plainly why the film had to be shown in this
group meeting, and said that she had a problem with fear and that this film
played on fear, rather than edifying believers.  She was visibly upset.  I 
also noticed that the gospel was presented by the film's church pastor 
character in the spirit of "you should accept Jesus or else you will miss out
on the rapture," which is a distortion of the gospel to begin with.

As time went on, I had opportunities to ask pre-trib aquaintances of mine
if they could justify their doctrine.  None of them could.  Some even converted
at my urging, including my wife-to-be, one of her friends, and another person
in that bible study.  I debated the person who showed the film by e-mail, and
he backed down and said that pre-trib was just one interesting viewpoint and
that the film was just supposed to stimulate discussion.

When Marvin Rosenthal's _The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church_ came out in
1990, I bought a copy and read it.  This is the other book I mentioned in an
earlier reply.  Marvin Rosenthal headed up a prominent Messianic Jewish
organization which had pretribulationism in its creed.  As a result of the
persistent questioning of a certain lay individual, Rosenthal gave up his
pre-trib doctrine, and was forced to resign from his organization due to the
fact that he could no longer agree to its creed, which he in part wrote.
Although I didn't fully buy into his final alternative conclusion, his 
arguments against pretribulationism likewise had an impact on me.

As time grew on, I grew weary of hearing the pre-trib story, and usually made
it a point to challenge anyone who would bring it up.

Which brings us to this forum and my contributions here.

    Garth,
    
    What exactly about the pre-trib veiw do you find untenable - the
    rapture itself, or the timing?
    
    The word "rapture" is not mentioned in the Bible, verbatim, but the
    idea behind it is supported in the Gospels.  The timing for this event,
    according to these prophesies, will be "like in the days of Noah". 
    Though the people were warned of the flood, they ignored Noah, and were
    busy with every-day life when it hit (I don't have my Bible at work, so
    I'm unable to give you specifics or chapter and verse).  
    
    In the last days before Jesus arrives at Armageddon to keep us from
    destroying each other, life will not be going on as usual.  There will
    be great strife and tribulations... very unlike before the flood hit in
    Noah's day.  This is not proof of anything, and is only one prophesy of
    several that point to a pre-second coming rapture, but it does leave
    one with the impression that the timing of the transalation of church
    will be before Armageddon ("two women will be working at a mill, one
    will be taken the other will remain").
    
    
    -steve

Re: .362  (Steve Leech)

>    What exactly about the pre-trib veiw do you find untenable - the
>    rapture itself, or the timing?
    
That there is going to be at least one 1 Thess 4:17 event, which we commonly
refer to as "the rapture" is indisputable, because it is described right there
in 1 Thess 4:17 in very explicit terms. 

That it will happen anytime before Matt 24 says it will in verse 31 is
not defensible.

Work out your logistics so that they are in line with the scriptures.  Don't
alter the plain sense of the scriptures to fit your logistics.

    http://www.best.com/~dolphin/asstbib.shtml#anchor287739