Pre-Trib - not strongly supported Biblically

Yes, but the Kingdom, second coming, resurrection and judgement are all tied together. If one happened, they all happened. </font>[/QUOTE]Judges....?

BBBBZZZZZZZZZZ

Sorry about that. They are tied together in the sense that Christ is the one who will consomate all of time. However, Christ said that he gave to his apostles the mysteries of the kingdom. That is how the kingdom now exists, in a mysterious way.

deafposttrib, NONE of those passages are a problem for me. I am still pretrib. Perhaps you meant that it is a problem for those who claim to be pretrib, but really just repeat what they have heard.

 

Futurist must believe the Kingdom comes in phases or else they would be Preterists. The Kingdom was fully established in the 1st century, unless you can show me the OT prophecies that speak of a phasing in process.

Matt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

It doesn't say part of the Kingdom, nor a phase of the Kingdom, or a "taste" of the Kingdom, it says Kingdom. Notice that with it comes Christ's coming and Judgement(vs 27).

 

I know that is one of the handful of texts that you use to filter the rest of Scripture, but that could be talking about the transfiguration (context would almost demand this) or the resurrection.

As for the resurrection already having taken place?

 

Daniel,

I would like to hear your comment on Matt. 24:29-31 please.

 

29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30 "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

OK, what seems to be the problem here?

I just don't understand you people (define that as you wish). Does anyone here see the possiblity that we could be wrong about all this?

When Jesus was explaining all of this to His disciples, who says that He was trying to cram it all in at once? If I recall, Jesus told them that He had much to tell them, but that they couldn't handle it right then (my paraphrase). So where does everyone get off trying to wedge their personal beliefs into the shape of what was recorded?

Have you ever seen The Karate Kid ? Mr. Miagi (whatever) would have Daniel do something, but not fill him in on all the details. Now, what the kid was doing was serving a purpose, but since he didn't know what that purpose was (or that there even was one), he just assumed that the old man was using him for cheap labor.

That's sort of the way Jesus had to work with His disciples. He didn't tell them everything at one time (remember Him explaining His parables to the disciples because they didn't understand?). The disciples were not ready for the whole kit-and-kaboodle, so He gave them a little at a time. If He had tried to explain the whole plan to them, they would have had no idea what He was talking about (how many years did it take them to finally get the picture of the necessity of the cross?).

By picking and choosing verses, we distort what the Scriptures tell us. I have told my wife many times that it is very easy to get the Bible to say anything that you want it to by taking individual verses and using them out of context. The same applies here...for everyone, myself included.

Yes, I am pre-trib and pre-mill. I believe that way because, when I read God's word without picking out pet verses, that is the picture that was painted for me. True, there are some verses that don't seem to fit, but when taken as a whole, it all makes perfect sense.

Personally, I don't see the thrill of trying to sound all pious and holy by "showing" others just how "wrong" they are and how "right" I am. I believe what I believe, and I seriously doubt that anyone will change that.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Tim, you are not letting the text stand here.

Verse 26
"And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Okay.

Verse 27
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."

When does the 70th week happen? Sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem. Note that Christ referenced this passage in Matthew 24. So, if the 70th week takes place AFTER the destruction of the temple/city, then Matthew 24 is about some time after the destruction of the temple.

Preterism is a joke. If you let the text say what it says, you will be premill, if not pretrib also.

 

Daniel David,

I am still waiting for your comment on Matt 24:29-31.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

Faithman, I agree with your comment that the Pre-trib. view does not have strong Biblical support. For instance, there claim to immanency could not have been held by the first century church when Peter was told he would die at an old age Jn21:18-19, Paul was told he had a long term purpose in God's plans Acts 9:15-16; 19:21; 20:22-23; 23:11 and John in Revelations was also told he had more work to do. Also, they have a terrible time trying to find one trumpet for I Cor. 15:51-52, let alone several and if they read down to verses 54-57 there is a quote from the old testament that is fulfilled at the Rapture and it's context is Post-trib.! If you want to read a good book on the Post-trib. view try the New Testament, it's great! Geno

 

I see you skillfully avoid the question. Did the Kingdom come at the Transfiguration?

Where do you put verse 27? At the Transfiguration also? If so, you are more of a Preterist than I.

If you could put away your futurism for a second, context would demand that there were some standing there who would see His coming/Judgement and see the Kingdom issued in. But like you say, there is no changing your mind.

 

DD,

Apparently you didn't catch my simple explanation--the phrase about the coming fullness of destruction is parenthetical. Simply read it as follows:

Daniel 9:26-27 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: (and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem just follows naturally as a result of the events of the 70th week, i.e. Christ leaving desolate the Jews who reject Him.

Ther is no compromise in the timetable at all. If Gabriel says it would take 70 "sevens" to accomplish the things listed in Dan. 9:24, then I simply believe what he said.

No joke.

Tim

 

Then explain what Jesus meant when he commanded us to pray that we may be counted worthy to escape all the bad things to come at the end times (see end of Luke ch. 21).

 

Like one earlier poster, I've been out for a while. Something good must have been put in the water in that time! This is an amazingly civilized discussion of the most contentious issue around.

As for difficult passages for pre-tribs, I have yet to see a thorough discussion of Matt. 11:20-24 and Mt. 12:41-42. If I recall, Scofield has 7 different judgments; Jesus seems to have only one, for Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, Capernaum, Chorzain, Bethsaida, the men of Nineveh (who were evidently saved?), the queen of the south (Sheba), and apparently for everyone (compare Jn. 5:28-29, where there are different qualities of resurrection for saved and lost, but evidently one resurrection including all.) Even historic pre folks have some difficulties with these, it seems. All the historic Baptist statements of faith have been "general judgment."
As to the "Fathers," you can quote the ante-Nicenes on almost any side of any issue, but it is hard to find more than one resurrection or one judgment in their writings except by some stretch of interpretation. The primary thing is simply this: "Jesus is Coming Again!" - R. Charles Blair -Romans 8;28

 

Blair,

Amen! I agree.

 

That is referring to the end of the Old Covenant, not the end of time. See verse 32 for a time reference of when all these things will be fulfilled.

 

The Old Covenant ended when the veil in the temple was ripped down the middle.

Here I am, a dispensationalist, arguing that the New Covenant actually did take happen when the Scriptures say it did.

 

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old . But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.

The writer of Hebrews seems to think the Old Covenant isn't quite over when this book was written, but was very close to ending. Since Hebrews was probably writtten late 60's what event just a couple of years later might have been a cause for the O.C. to end? Hmmmmm

 

Romans says that Jesus died to save me from wrath and 1. Thessalonians tells me that I ahve not been appointed to wrath. In Revelation 4 we see John caught up to heaven. In this chapter and chapter 5 he describes what he saw in heaven. In chapter 6 we see that the wrath of the Lamb and "the great day of his wrath is come". So from this moment on wrath is being poured out on the earth and judgments strikes this planet. If I had to endure that wrath and judgement, Jesus would have died in vain. If I have to endure judgement, why had Jesus to die for me? No, He died to save me from judgement and wrath.

Interpreting prophecy is a "may be / may be not"-thing (Daniel writes that knowledge and understanding would increase the closer we come). But the NT tells me pretty clear whether I have to endure wrath and judgement or not. So I interpret prophecy in light of this.

 

Don't count your chickens yet.

Tim

 

Grasshopper, I realize that is one of your favorite verses, you just misinterpret it.

What was still remaining wasn't the effect of old covenant. As we read in Hebrews 10:19-20

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh...

You see that? As far as God was concerned, the Old ended when Christ died, which is when the New began. There were still pockets of resistance by those who refused to accept the new. Those people would die off though.

According to you, God was using the Old and the New alongside each other for about 40 years.

And you blame dispies for clinging to the Old?

 

DD,

Vestiges of the Old Covenant remained until:

1. The old temple was destroyed, and thus obviously rejected by God.

2. The new temple (church) remained, and was thus obviously validated by God.

The NT chronicles the development of the church--the New Covenant people of God-- in the midst of the Jews--the Old Covenant people of God. That's overlap.

Tim