Why I am Now Convinced of a Pre-Trib Rapture

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Does Sean know how to read?

How many times would you tell this to our old friend the good elder?

It is like we have been here before?

The only thing is the good elder was a tad smarter than Sean.

There goes Mikes' lap dog again....RRRUFF RRRUFFF....Howd I Do Mike????

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sean, I believe partial preterism. You're forgetting quite a lot in the last few days.

Okay, thats all I need to know, thats an interesting position, because it gives a guy room to wiggle out of the full preteristic viewpoint when the big guns start interpreting for you guys and it starts getting out of hand.


Loren just said all of Rev. is metaphoric?

Does that make him a full preterist?

It sounds to me like the guys that actually write or create the doctrines of the preterist books of interpretations are very highly esteemed in your circles.

They are incredibly clever.

I wish I had that kind of imagination...

These are probably the kinds of kids that could not stop pretending as children and kept it up through adult life.

They had a "different" reality than what everyone else saw.

Lucky them!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

Okay, thats all I need to know, thats an interesting position, because it gives a guy room to wiggle out of the full preteristic viewpoint when the big guns start interpreting for you guys and it starts getting out of hand.


Loren just said all of Rev. is metaphoric?

Does that make him a full preterist?

It sounds to me like the guys that actually write or create the doctrines of the preterist books of interpretations are very highly esteemed in your circles.

They are incredibly clever.

I wish I had that kind of imagination...

These are probably the kinds of kids that could not stop pretending as children and kept it up through adult life.

They had a "different" reality than what everyone else saw.

Lucky them!

All you write can be summed up as one grand set of circular reasoning, you are right because you are right. You've proved actually nothing.

And you trivialize our beliefs as wanting convenience. Sean we've been criticized for this but we hold on, since it's our sincere beliefs . Nothing wiggling about it. We'd be treated far better if we agreed with you. It's the pop prophecy view. But we hold true to our consciences and what God showed us.

[Sean]

No Mike, I am right because when I read the word of God, I dont READ INTO the word of God.
I let the word of God MASTER me. I dont MASTER the word of God.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

No Mike, I am right because when I read the word of God, I dont READ INTO the word of God.
I let the word of God MASTER me. I dont MASTER the word of God.

You can't answer questions, you say Matt 24:14 is not related to col. 1:5-6, you cannot deal with how we can be surrounded by an invisible new jerusalem and yet it has to come from the sky in the future before anyone is in it.... How it can be physical but invisible...

Be honest with yourself and ask why these details remain unanswered by you.

Revelation 1:1 defeats your entire claim of reading. Signified means related by signs. You refuse that very first and very vital verse.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Originalist

My rebuttal will be simple, appealing to simple grammatical construction....

Jesus starts his discourse speaking of a sorrowful time that is to come preceding his coming....


So we have sorrowful time that includes deception by false Christs, wars and nations rising against nations, etc. But then Jesus tells us more things that will happen at this time of sorrows...

In verse 9 he says…..Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Notice the word “Then” in this verse. “Then” is a pronoun, a word that takes the place of a noun. Every pronoun has an antecedent, which is the noun that the pronoun is replacing. It is found “ante” or before the pronoun in the discourse or sentence. So what is the “then” Jesus is referring to in verse 9 describing a time when men shall betrayed, delivered up, afflicted, hated and killed for their allegiance to the name of Christ? The answer is very simple. Look for the antecedent, which is this sorrowful time described in verses 5-8. Simple grammar. It’s a continual grammatical flow. This also applies to verses 10-14…



The pronoun “then” in verses 9 and 10 share the same antecedent. The continual use of the word “and” in verses 10-14 connect them to verse 9, which I’ve already proven to be connected to the sorrowful time described in verse 5-8. The grammatical river is flowing along nicely thus far.

Then, in verse 15, Jesus tells us what launches this time of sorrow…..



The word therefore is key here. It is backward looking, describing everything mentioned in verses 5-14 as a consequence of what happens in verse 15. The Abomination of Desolation launches this time of sorrows mentioned in verses 5-14, also known as the Great Tribulation…



Again we see the pronoun then pointing back to its antecedent found in verse 15, the Abomination of Desolation. Jesus is clearly talking about the same period of time in verses 5-22. The basic grammar dictates this.

Jesus continues on….


Verses 25-27 also prove that this whole discourse is talking about one period of time, the events immediately leading up to the coming of Christ and our gathering unto him. Notice in verse 25 he reminds them that he has already warned them about false Christs. He did this in verse 5. Therefore, verse 5 is connected to verses 26-27 which are telling us how to distinguish between false Christs and the real Christ, and the way we know the difference is how we see Christ at his second coming. This eliminates the possibility that, as you put it, verses 4-8 and verses 5-9 are describing separate periods of time.

Continuing…..



Notice the pronoun “then” in verse 30. The antecedent for "then" is the time immediately after the tribulation when supernatural, destructive cosmic events begin to happen. The son of man returns at this time and his saints are gathered.

Simple grammatical rules have proven that Jesus is referring to the same period of time from verses 5-31.

Of verses 36-51 you said…..

..

It appears that you are saying that the events in verses 36-51 are distinct from and happen prior to the events described in verses 29-31. Again, simple grammar will prove otherwise with no difficulty. Look at verse 36….



Ah, another one of those pesky, inconvenient pronoun that requires an antecedent!

Notice the pronoun “that (day)” in verse 36. What day? We must find the antecedent to know and the nearest antecedent is found in verses 30-31…..



“That day” in verse 36 is none other than the day that Jesus returns found in verses 30-31. To say otherwise is to ignore grammar. It will not work. This is also true of verses 37-51. The pre-trib doctrine falls without a whimper by simple grammar.

Let me note that I just discovered our brother Mike blume has made similar arguments to mine concerning the use of antecedents and pronouns in Matthew 24. While he and I hold to differing views of escatology, we both agreee that the grammar of Matthew 24 proves that Jesus was referring to the one event.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

All you write can be summed up as one grand set of circular reasoning, you are right because you are right. You've proved actually nothing.

What is really scary, is that Sean actually is convinced that he is having a dialog on eschatology. A dialog where he is actually refuting you with nothing more than quips. Well, I guess I can't say quips, because Sean isn't what I would consider witty. Come to think of it, he seems to have the mind of a small child. Anyway, you pretty much summed this discussion up quite well with your first line of your post. Sean is right because he is he is right. Yet, instead of an answering questions for you (like you are doing for him) so we can compare differences in the different eschatologies to show why you believe what you believe, and why Sean believes what Sean believes. We are led round, and round, up, and down a thread reading the same thing page after page. All this while Sean rides Rocinante towards yet another fire breathing windmill of eschatology.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And you trivialize our beliefs as wanting convenience.

But Brother Blume isn't that what Sean is doing with what he believes? Since he hasn't the foggiest idea what the Biblical symbols are in the Hebrew Bible, and how the early Israelites viewed and prophetically understood these symbols, he goes for the convenience of just making a seven horned, seven eyed, lamb with its throat slit, seated physically on a physical throne in the future a convenient interpretation. Just imagine if you had Sean explain the Temple of Ezekiel, and the Revelation New Jerusalem? The only thing he could possibly do is hunt through a Google search until he found something remotely close to what you are asking him. He doesn't know the problems with these issues, and hasn't clue how to deal with half the problems within the different eschatologies. He just truly believes that he is just vanquishing another windmill.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sean we've been criticized for this but we hold on, since it's our sincere beliefs . Nothing wiggling about it. We'd be treated far better if we agreed with you. It's the pop prophecy view.

Sean criticizing anyone's eschatology, is like a small child criticizing me for how I adjust the lifters on a 1961 XLCH Sporter. Sean, Goggle searches, and cuts and pastes. If he had just a sliver of honesty, you would go and study what he believes and strengthen his arguments. Come back and joust armed with some knowledge.

Originally Posted by mfblume

But we hold true to our consciences and what God showed us.

Yes, God showed us. Not sitting on a couch, not searching the Internet, but studying out book, chapter, and verse, with the sincere desire to understand the truth of God's word.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Let me note that I just discovered our brother Mike blume has made similar arguments to mine concerning the use of antecedents and pronouns in Matthew 24. While he and I hold to differing views of escatology, we both agreee that the grammar of Matthew 24 proves that Jesus was referring to the one event.

How many events does Sean see in Matthew 24?

The majority of Dispensationalist Pre Tribs see two events.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sean, I believe partial preterism. You're forgetting quite a lot in the last few days.

He doesn't care what form of Preterist eschatology you believe. He hardly reads anything that is posted to him.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You can't answer questions, you say Matt 24:14 is not related to col. 1:5-6, you cannot deal with how we can be surrounded by an invisible new jerusalem and yet it has to come from the sky in the future before anyone is in it.... How it can be physical but invisible...

Be honest with yourself and ask why these details remain unanswered by you.

Revelation 1:1 defeats your entire claim of reading. Signified means related by signs. You refuse that very first and very vital verse.

Sean doesn't what to dialog.

This discussion deteriorated pages back. Sadly, it won't get any better from here.