Pre-Trib, Post-Trib, or Two Tribs?

[jasoncran]

The problem is that we have a different understanding of what Christ's coming means than did the apostles. Because of Darby and Scofield, et al. we have this doctrine of the rapture that says Christ's return will be to sweep His church up into the air at some point either before, in the middle, or after "THE GREAT TRIBULATION", in which that end-time boogeyman "THE ANTICHRIST", the physical incarnation of Satan Himself, will rise to power and bring hell on earth with Him.

This same view holds that - luckily for us in the church - this "ANTICHRIST" will come only to afflict the Jews.

This view is spun - quite literally - from the following verses:

Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:21, 31, I Thessalonians 4:16-18, and Revelation 4:1-2, where John being called into heaven is a metaphor for the church being raptured.

That's pretty much the extent of biblical scholarship that goes into the futurist view, and the people that hold to it appear incapable of little more than repeating these verses (plus maybe one or two others I missed) whenever the subject comes up.

The problem lies with our understanding of what Christ's "coming in the clouds" really means. The phrase has a history and meaning to the Jews that goes all the way back to the Old Testament, and that's where we need to go to understand it.

God's presence in the Old Testament is shrouded by clouds and smoke. In the first verse above, He appears in the cloud to lead them by day. However, at other times when he comes to the people in judgment, His coming is also attended by clouds or smoke:

This post is getting long, but hopefully you get the idea: Christ's "coming on the clouds with great power and glory" in Matthew is consistent with the imagery of God's glorious presence shrouded by clouds and smoke in the Old Testament.

The significant difference is that in the OT, God's presence was shrouded to protect the people. In the NT, Christ's coming is visible for all the tribes of the land, so that they would know Him whom they crucified and tremble at His return in judgment upon them.

Peace. Out.

so why bother even having revalation in the bible and repeat all that jesus said?? i mean you just stated that jesus said that ad 70 came and warned and what not. in matthew, justify to me the need for revalation to be in your bible? you dont even need to read it.

its should be like the book of maccabees then that describes the maccabean revalation and uh before darby et all the millenium was believed in.

and uh isreal goes and went through far worse then the sacking of jerusalem. 1.5 million jew died in that six in the holocaust.

somehow they didnt read that part on hey my peeps its over for you,i'm done letting the gentiles hating you.

and that isnt counting the jews that may have died in the stalinist purges or that the christians that killed them, ie the catholics.


no, that context in revalation in the last verse is to all to be ready for he comes in a thief in the night. if he came and is here, then why bother watching and pray? he came and judged men already. so its ok to sin? no worries dude jesus wont judge you. he did that already ON THE CROSS!!

 

[freeway]

I've used this illustration before, but it seems fitting to repeat here:

It's 50 AD. A man is working out in the fields. His wife sends their son to tell him dinner will be ready soon. Does he think she means dinner will be ready within the next few minutes, or sometime after the next 2000 years?

What would it mean to you?

If I tell you I'm going to pay you soon, do you expect payment within days or sometime after the next 2,000 years?

Soon means soon, then and now. Post-modern relativism does not good interpretation make.

Adam the day you eat of the fruit you will surely die.. What do you think that means? Sounds like a day to me 24 hrs.
If all your tribulation fulfillment happened in 70 AD, then quite frankly Jesus's kingdom is losing the battle here on earth. Somehow I feel, This Jesus when He comes back is goin to kick butt, and we will not have to suffer through our daily lives trying to beat sin.. Where is the Kingdom that should have been if Jesus wrapped it all up in 70 AD??? where??

 

[Stormcrow]

so why bother even having revalation in the bible and repeat all that jesus said?? i mean you just stated that jesus said that ad 70 came and warned and what not. in matthew, justify to me the need for revalation to be in your bible? you dont even need to read it.

Actually, Jason, the book of Revelation almost didn't make it into the canon of the Bible.

Revelation was accepted into the canon at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD.[31] Revelation's place in the canon was not guaranteed, however, with doubts raised as far back as the 2nd century about its character, symbolism, and apostolic authorship.[32]

2nd century Christians in Syria rejected it because Montanism, a sect which was deemed to be heretical by the mainstream church, relied heavily on it.[33] In the 4th century, Gregory of Nazianzus and other bishops argued against including Revelation because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the risk of abuse. In the 16th century, Martin Luther initially considered it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it",[34] and placed it in his Antilegomena, i.e. his list of questionable documents, though he did retract this view in later life. In the same century, John Calvin believed the book to be canonical, yet it was the only New Testament book on which he did not write a commentary.[35]

It remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, though it is included in Catholic and Protestant liturgies.

and uh isreal goes and went through far worse then the sacking of jerusalem. 1.5 million jew died in that six in the holocaust.

Yes, and as horrible and tragic as Hitler's Holocaust was, Revelation is about the destruction of the Temple, the fall of Jerusalem, and the utter end of the Mosaic Covenant. It was about God's vengeance being poured out on THAT GENERATION for rejecting and crucifying Messiah, completely fulfilling - to the iota of the Law - the Mosaic Covenant as seen in Leviticus 26.

God's redemptive plan through Christ has always been to unite Jews and Gentiles in His fold, and Christ's purpose in us since then has been, in part, one of reconciliation with Jews where, in Him, "there is no Jew or Greek."

His return then was one of judgment. He will not return again until they say:

{39}'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'" Matthew 23:39 (NASB)

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

 

[Stormcrow]

Adam the day you eat of the fruit you will surely die.. What do you think that means? Sounds like a day to me 24 hrs.

The day Adam ate it, he did die. You do know that death has two meanings expressed all throughout the Bible, don't you?

If all your tribulation fulfillment happened in 70 AD, then quite frankly Jesus's kingdom is losing the battle here on earth.

How little you think of Christ's sacrifice and Lordship.

Somehow I feel, This Jesus when He comes back is goin to kick butt, and we will not have to suffer through our daily lives trying to beat sin..

{24} Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? {25} Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Romans 7:24-25 (NASB)

He's already freed you from it.

Where is the Kingdom that should have been if Jesus wrapped it all up in 70 AD??? where??

{36} Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." {37} Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." John 18:36-37 (NASB)

If you're not finding the kingdom of God, maybe you're looking in the wrong place for it.

 

[jasoncran]

Actually, Jason, the book of Revelation almost didn't make it into the canon of the Bible.



Yes, and as horrible and tragic as Hitler's Holocaust was, Revelation is about the destruction of the Temple, the fall of Jerusalem, and the utter end of the Mosaic Covenant. It was about God's vengeance being poured out on THAT GENERATION for rejecting and crucifying Messiah, completely fulfilling - to the iota of the Law - the Mosaic Covenant as seen in Leviticus 26.

God's redemptive plan through Christ has always been to unite Jews and Gentiles in His fold, and Christ's purpose in us since then has been, in part, one of reconciliation with Jews where, in Him, "there is no Jew or Greek."

His return then was one of judgment. He will not return again until they say:

{39}'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'" Matthew 23:39 (NASB)

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

when has isreal had peace, theres a verse in zechariah that describes several things one:

1)
isreal is attacked and defended by the lord in the last day
2) when its attacked no city walls

and theres this

the tree of life in genesis is found in the new city of jerusalem

was the first one real or a literary devise? what about the second one?

 

[Stormcrow]

when has isreal had peace, theres a verse in zechariah that describes several things one:

1)
isreal is attacked and defended by the lord in the last day
2) when its attacked no city walls

and theres this

the tree of life in genesis is found in the new city of jerusalem

was the first one real or a literary devise? what about the second one?

I don't know what passage in Zechariah to which you are referring, so I'm not going to address that one (for now.) If you could find the passage, that'd be great.

As to the tree of life, I believe this is a metaphor for Christ. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." He didn't say, "I am the way, the truth, and the tree of life is right over there. You can eat from it when you get here."

He said He was the vine and we are the branches. He said anyone who eats His body and drinks His blood would have everlasting life. This is symbolic language, that's all.

Peace. Out.

 

[jasoncran]

I don't know what passage in Zechariah to which you are referring, so I'm not going to address that one (for now.) If you could find the passage, that'd be great.

As to the tree of life, I believe this is a metaphor for Christ. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." He didn't say, "I am the way, the truth, and the tree of life is right over there. You can eat from it when you get here."

He said He was the vine and we are the branches. He said anyone who eats His body and drinks His blood would have everlasting life. This is symbolic language, that's all.

Peace. Out.

heres the problem with that. in the genesis account they were removed from the tree of life, for if they eat of it would make them live forever. so they could eat from the tree of life? and also God was with them on the earth, why mention a tree of the fruit of knowledge and of life when God is that tree?

one wouldnt need a tree to be near a river or even mentioned if all was to taken metaphorically.

for instance God spoke to isreal via three means in the wilderness.

the pillar of smoke during the day, the smoking furnace at night, and the urim and thurimin and also directly to moses as needed.


so the first two arent literal? odd it says god guided them by them.

 

[warhorse]

Did you miss the corollary verse in Revelation that explains what this means?

Try this:

{1} Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, "Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. {2} "Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations [ethnos: Gentiles]; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months. Revelation 11:1-2 (NASB)

Clearly, the time of the fulfillment of the Gentiles mentioned in Luke 21 is the forty-two months of Rev. 11:2!

One more thing:

If Revelation were written in 96 AD, why is the angel telling John to measure the Temple in Revelation 11? The temple didn't exist in 96 AD and there is NO PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE that points to a third Temple in Jerusalem! None!

The only way to harmonize the futurist view with the New Testament is to throw out 90% of it and take what's left out of context!

Agreed to a point, The Jews had three temples to God in Jerusalam already and there is now a forth temple there to satan ( the dome of the rock) That word measure there is also understood to be judgement. So its would not be a real strech to see God use islam to judge Jerusalam and then leave it to the gentiles for final 3 1/2 years, the 3 1/2 years of the 2 witnesses. Given the detail that we have in the historic record i see no reason to believe there was 100% fullfillment in 70 ad.
Jesus did not return, the two witnesses did not appear, the apostles and the church did not return to be with him anywhere in the land.
Anyone who doesnt believe that all prophacy has been fullfilled has somewhat a futurist position. We do not all have the same expectations so please quite confusing mine with the futerist position because it is more like yours than you would believe.
Oh what would be the purpose in a highly confusing prophetical book if it was all complete when it was written? Most of the prophetical books were given hundreds of years before fullfillment.

 

[Sam21]

Yep. That's me.

I wonder why?

You are Mr Literal when it comes to the time element and Mr Symbolic when it comes to the fulfillment of endtime events. Your position cannot be any better then the folks who are symbolic when it comes to the time element and literal when it comes to the fulfillment of endtime events because you are doing the same thing,making literal what you want literal and symbolic what you want to be symbolic. It seems much more reasonable to believe the time element is just not what is obvious to us as we have an example of that in Adam not dying for over 900 years past the "in that day you will die", God's time is not always the way we see time. It is insanity to try to claim that the return of Christ and all the events in Rev have taken place,it would be easier to claim the earth is flat...the evidence just does not support that assertion.

 

[reba]

When i read 3 1/2 years my mind always goes to the time of Christ's earthly ministry.

Some how the single most important event in ALL of history, past and future, has some 'time' value. When we are discussing Biblical stuff some how i think His ministry should be in the forefront. The OT points to Him as does the NT.

 

[Hitch]

You are Mr Literal when it comes to the time element and Mr Symbolic when it comes to the fulfillment of endtime events. Your position cannot be any better then the folks who are symbolic when it comes to the time element and literal when it comes to the fulfillment of endtime events because you are doing the same thing,making literal what you want literal and symbolic what you want to be symbolic. It seems much more reasonable to believe the time element is just not what is obvious to us as we have an example of that in Adam not dying for over 900 years past the "in that day you will die", God's time is not always the way we see time. It is insanity to try to claim that the return of Christ and all the events in Rev have taken place,it would be easier to claim the earth is flat...the evidence just does not support that assertion.

How long was Christ in the grave?

 

[reba]

It seems much more reasonable to believe the time element is just not what is obvious to us as we have an example of that in Adam not dying for over 900 years past the "in that day you will die", God's time is not always the way we see time.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God is very direct in this verse... the point of argument/discussion IMO is not the day of death but which death. God said in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:


This is the death God was speaking of

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

God or the serpent? which was correct?

 

[Stormcrow]

in the genesis account they were removed from the tree of life, for if they eat of it would make them live forever. so they could eat from the tree of life?

{54} "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:54 (NASB)

Can people literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ today?

If we can't, how do we have eternal life?

See the problem with taking these things literally?

and also God was with them on the earth, why mention a tree of the fruit of knowledge and of life when God is that tree?

Why mention that people had to eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood while He was on earth with them? Was He advocating cannibalism?

Doesn't the tree of knowledge of good and evil represent the very first and most basic of God's Laws: "Obey me or die."?

And what did that law teach? "Believe what I say and live." "Have faith in my words and live." "Believe that what I'm saying is best for you."

Aren't these lessons that are taught consistently throughout the Bible?

Finally, what did Paul say of the Law?

{13} For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. {14} For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; {15} for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. Romans 4:13-15 (NASB)

So what does the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represent?

God's first commandment: the most basic law given to Adam and Eve to teach them about trusting in God's word. Without that law, there would have been no violation: no sin. Breaking it did what? It produced God's wrath.

God wanted Adam and Eve to live by faith as He wants all of us to live by faith: trusting in His Word. And His Word is Jesus. Therefore, the lesson of the fall is as important to us today as it was when Moses first wrote it.

In my humble opinion.

 

[Sam21]

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God is very direct in this verse... the point of argument/discussion IMO is not the day of death but which death. God said in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:


This is the death God was speaking of

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

God or the serpent? which was correct?

If we are totally literal and totally truthful,Adam did not die for over 900 years past the day he ate of the fruit,and God did tell Adam that in the day he would eat thereof he would surely die. My take on this is that the moment Adam ate from the fruit he begin to die,he immediately received a lifespan,something that he did not have before. Before he ate from the tree Adam was moving upward so to speak in the direction of an unending life,the moment Adam ate from the tree he begin to move downward,toward death. So the day Adam ate from the tree it was for sure(surely)that he would die,it is obvious that God did not mean that Adam would fall over dead the moment he ate from the tree,however that is what the statement by God appeared to mean.

 

[Stormcrow]

You are Mr Literal when it comes to the time element and Mr Symbolic when it comes to the fulfillment of endtime events.

I don't even know what that means.

Your position cannot be any better then the folks who are symbolic when it comes to the time element and literal when it comes to the fulfillment of endtime events because you are doing the same thing,making literal what you want literal and symbolic what you want to be symbolic.

Huh?

It seems much more reasonable to believe the time element is just not what is obvious to us as we have an example of that in Adam not dying for over 900 years past the "in that day you will die",

Ok, now I think I see where you're going with this. Because Adam didn't physically die until 900 years AFTER he disobeyed God, you think this provides a basis for taking the "time element" symbolically, right?

However, what you fail to realize is that Adam did die the very day he disobeyed God: it's called "sin" and it causes spiritual death.

Let's define death as the Bible defines it: physical death is what happens when the soul and spirit are separated from the body. Spiritual death is what happens when the human soul and spirit are separated from God. In the case of Adam, his physical separation from God and the garden coincided with his spiritual separation from God.

Get it? Death = Separation.

Adam died the day he disobeyed God: he was separated from God because of his sin; his disobedience. God did not lie.

God's time is not always the way we see time.

Neither is Christ's coming.

It is insanity to try to claim that the return of Christ and all the events in Rev have taken place,it would be easier to claim the earth is flat...the evidence just does not support that assertion.

Guess it depends on how one sees what He meant by this:

{27} For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to each according to his doings. {28} Verily I say unto you, There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew 16:27-28 (Darby)

I prefer to take Him at His word.

 

[reba]

Sam, I believe what God said. You believe what you think God "appeared to mean." So this is one of those points we will just not agree on. Big difference

 

[Sam21]

Sam, I believe what God said. You believe what you think God "appeared to mean." So this is one of those points we will just not agree on. Big difference

Yes,but your position(though popular)demands a manipulation of the reality of what is written in scripture,that is why I do not like the popular idea that "Adam died spiritually"because the bible does not say Adam died spiritually...man came up with that one. When Adam died at 930 years of age, the word "died"is the same word God used to say what would happen to Adam in the day he ate of the fruit. So I see my position as agreeing with what God said more than the man created idea that Adam died spiritually. Adam lost his sinless position the day he ate from the tree,however Adam still had a relationship with God through sacrifice,so the only death Adam experienced in the day he ate from the tree was that he begin to die. Besides all that,spiritual death is what those in hell experience.

 

[Stormcrow]

I do not like...

Without wanting to put too fine a point on this, I must say this isn't about what you "like."

It's about truth.

the popular idea that "Adam died spiritually"because the bible does not say Adam died spiritually

What does the Bible say about sin and how it affects our relationship with God???

 

[reba]

Last for me on this as it is off topic.....

I would rather die in body than in spirit.

 

[Sam21]

Yes,but your position(though popular)demands a manipulation of the reality of what is written in scripture,that is why I do not like the popular idea that "Adam died spiritually"because the bible does not say Adam died spiritually...man came up with that one. When Adam died at 930 years of age, the word "died"is the same word God used to say what would happen to Adam in the day he ate of the fruit. So I see my position as agreeing with what God said more than the man created idea that Adam died spiritually. Adam lost his sinless position the day he ate from the tree,however Adam still had a relationship with God through sacrifice,so the only death Adam experienced in the day he ate from the tree was that he begin to die. Besides all that,spiritual death is what those in hell experience.

Something else,just like preterism,we try to have it both ways when both ways are not possible. The truth is that God told Adam that on the day he ate from the tree he would SURELY die,the truth is also that after eating the fruit Adam lived for over 900 years before he actually died. Both of those statements are facts from the bible, to deny either is to deny the bible. If we believe both of them then we see Adam beginning to die on the day he ate from the tree but not coming to complete death until years later.