![]() We will see that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night. But Paul says you don't need that because we have something else that we will see. Why are Christians so concerned about times and dates? They refer to them as "high watch dates", they feel like here is where we really need to be paying attention. The Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, part 1ĥ Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. a seem more like excuses to try to hold the system together? Why are pre-trib interpretations so strained. ![]() for imagining one verse for the 'parousia', which is treated as one event in scripture, refers to one event in a pretrib system, and another verse that mentions that parousia arbitrarily is determined to refer to another events. You have to have a 'filter' that allows for it. You have to interpret words and phrases certain ways to make pre-trib make sense. I think the appeal to pre-trib can be more emotional than intellectual in some cases- really, really not wanting to suffer. John being told 'Come up hither' in a vision isn't good evidence for pre-trib. The idea that tribulational saints are appointed unto wrath isn't a good argument for pre-trib. Something like that is a really, really big assertion. When the Bible teaches various events happen at the return of Christ, then the burden of proof is one pre-tribbers to show that the return of Christ is actually returns of Christ. Pre-trib doesn't deserve to be the 'default' view. Pre-trib attempts at reconciling these passages with pre-trib are extremely strained. Eventually, I came to realize some passages just contradict pre-trib, like II Thessalonians 1. I was expecting a rapture to be mentioned in the book of Revelation. I was raised being taught pre-trib, but when I actually sat down and studied eschatology passages, pre-trib wasn't there. How in the world would a first century reader read any of these documents and come away with a pre-trib understanding?Ĭlick to expand.Why are pre-trib interpretations so strained. Why would first mean 'chief?' That's the problem with pre-trib. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Jesus taught that whoever would be 'first' shall be the servant of all.ĥ But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. Herod had a chief for 'first' men of Galilee'. We might say that has the sense of 'chief', but that is clear from context if we know about the Bible and commandments. Jesus called that commandment about loving God the first and greatest commandment. We don't get to just choose a translation of it,and strip it of its numerical meaning, whenever doing so fit with our eschatology. Instead, posts try to explain away passages about what happens at the second coming saying that isn't talking about the same coming as the rapture.Ĭan you find any examples of 'protws' being used to mean 'chief' where 'first' doesn't kind of make sense in translation? In context, it makes sense to translate it as 'chief' in some cases, but it is a number word that has a bit broader meaning. ![]() No one ever quotes a verse that lays out a time sequence with a rapture before the tribulation. No one ever presents a verse that shows that the 'parousia' is multiple events. The 'evidence' for pre-trib time after time is some kind of way to make it work with problem passages. Click to expand.This is a prime example of the pretribber trying to work around the passage somehow to make it fit with pre-trib.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |