1. Among pre-mils there is an ongoing debate regarding Matt 24-25 if this is the rapture or the second coming. This debate is well beyond the scope of this thread.
2. To the preterist who think Matt 24-25 happened already, in AD70, there is no proof that anyone was raptured. The judgement of approx 1 million Jews in Jerusalem and the other details of the invasion by Titus does not meet the highly detailed Biblical requirements of end time events specified.
Unless the reader of Scripture uses the Word as simply an approx. rough guide the events of Matt 24-25 must be a future event.
I do agree that Matt 24 and 25 are future events.
Until a short time ago, I always tried to read Scripture and decide whether is lined up more with pre or post trib.
This thread and others, introducing the idea that the tribulation is not a seven year period defined in Daniel, but just a general time of turmoil, is something I had never heard expressed before, in Bible studies, books or sermons.
It is interesting food for thought.
It makes the whole situation more complex, and in fact, adds to your point that it makes Matthew a future event much more likely.
hard to say its a future event to us--when jesus told his disciples of his day they were going to see those things and that generation would not pass away till all things be fulfilled--and esp when jesus told the High priest of his day that he would see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven(in his own lifetime)
hard to get around these things and twist the scriptures.
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
I probably am a bit thin skinned. But what you said seemed (to me) to go after me personally rather than my understanding of scripture. If that's not the case then I apologize for being defensive.
Back to the debate: You posted the definition of hagios from Strong's and in your post you show that it doesn't have only one meaning. I'll quote it again for you:
This word can be used to describe anything holy. This word is used to describe the Holy Ghost (Matt 1:18 for example), the Holy city of Jerusalem (Matt 4:5), and even Jesus himself as the Holy One in Acts 3:14. So this word does not mean only saints. It can be used to describe anything that is holy.
And those other versions aren't the "problem" since I actually read only the KJV. I'll occasionally look online to compare to other translations but the only copies of scripture I own are the AV.
Regardless even if you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this verse can in no way ever be translated as anything other than saints, believers. I already explained that that interpretation is still totally consistent with the post-tribulation rapture.
She is. Thank you.
I have considered at length that the rapture and second coming are two separate events. I used to believe that myself and defend it. However the scripture is clear "Immediately after the tribulation of those days... send out the angels to gather the elect." And this has no bearing whatsoever on whether you believe the are two resurrections or not. That is determined by your view of the millennium not the rapture. The resurrections are separated by the millennium, not the rapture.... another support for the post-tribulation rapture/resurrection if you ask me :smilewinkgrin: