Quote:

Tim>>>>> doubt is a good thing for those who have been bamboozled into believing
a fabricated story.

Jason>>> Proverbs 14:6 A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but
knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Tim> Be careful how you handle the sword, Jason. It is very sharp. Your verse above says,
"prove all things." And that is great advice. So, rather than misapplying passages from Proverbs,
why don't you set out to prove that the particular aspect of this alleged Jewish wedding custom
is genuine? I mean, what's the big deal? If its real, and not made up, then you should be able to
provide documentation from both historical Jewish sources as well as the Bible. The problem is,
it's not in the Bible, and pre-tribbers seem unable to find it in historical documents as well! What
we have here is pre-tribbers quoting other pre-tribbers - a great big circular argument! If this
alleged custom is genuine, then it souldn't be so hard to track it down, especially since
pre-tribbers like yourself place so much weight on it.

Quote:

Tim: In Jewish custom, the feasting takes place for the entire seven days!

Jason: In the two Biblical accounts of the bridal week, the feasts occur at different
times. In Juges 14, the feast is the full 7 days. In Genesis 29, the feast comes
before the bridal week, before the time when Jacob slept with his new "wife", which
would actually fit YOUR allegations and scheme of how this fits, unless I am
mistaken. I do not find a clear example in scripture where the wedding feast is at the
end of the week, except in Rev 19, where I see that as being obvious from the fact
that nearly everyone agrees Rev 19 is at the end of the tribulation week.

So then, you are admitting that you have no basis at all for the alleged "custom" of the feast
following the bridal week! I guess you made that part up, eh? You are mistaken about the feast
occurring before the bridal week in the Genesis account. Laban prepared the feast at the
beginning of the bridal week. The feasting was to begin as soon as the consumation took place
on the first day. Jacob was fooled by Laban, and he received Leah instead. Immediately after
the consumation, when he emerged from the huppah, he spoke to Laban. Laban indicated that
Jacob should "fulfill her week," meaning continue with the feast, and afterward he could work for
seven more years for Rachael. The fact that the feast was prepared at the beginning of the
week, indicated that the feasting was to last for the entire "bridal week," just as in the story of
Samson indicates.

Your last statement about Revelation 19 proving your case is a joke, right? You are assuming
what you are trying to prove, a logical falicy. We are, after all, trying to interpret Rev. 19
according to established Jewish wedding customs. There are two examples of wedding customs
above, both of which show that the wedding feast does NOT follow the bridal week, as you
claimed in your previous post. And since the "marriage of the Lamb" has only arrived at the
extreme end of the tribulation, and the beatitude, "blessed are they that are called to the
marriage supper of the Lamb," indicates that the marriage feast has not yet occurred either,
your entire pre-trib wedding analogy is demolished! Obviously, the consumation of the wedding
has not yet occurred in Rev. 19, and neither has the 7 day feast! So, if the Church was raptured
to heaven 7 years earlier, why no wedding??? Why wait until the very end to anounce that the
"marriage of the Lamb is come, His wife hath made herself ready?" What happened to the seven
years of the tribulation = the bridal week?

Quote:

The point, however, is that in both the story in Judges and in Genesis, there are
some deceptive results that occur, specifically because the feast is not at the end.
If you read the accounts, the groom would probably not have been tricked, in either
story, if the feast was at the end of the week. Of course, you can accuse me of
reading that into the stories all you like.

Nevertheless, if you take the Jacob story, with the feast at the beginning of the
week as the proper example of end time views, you would have to say that the
purpose of the feast in Rev 19 is to deceive Jesus as Jacob was deceived, and I
don't think you want to make that comparison, do you?

Boy are you reaching! You are confusing TYPOLOGY with CUSTOMS. No one here [pre-tribbers
included] is saying that either of these two accounts is a TYPE of Christ's wedding! All I am
suggesting is that the details of the Jewish wedding customs DO NOT support a wedding feast
AFTER the bridal week. If you are going to say that the end-time scenario is the working out of
the Jewish wedding customs, then you'd better darn sure stick to the customs in the Bible as a
pattern! You have no business making up your own customs just to support your fabricated
scenario! The fact is, the examples in the Bible of actual semitic weddings indicate that the
feasting took place for the entire 7 days of the bridal week. And this presents a glaring problem
for your pre-trib view in Revelation, where the ONLY explicet mention is made of Christ's wedding
to His bride. It simply does not fit the pre-trib scheme if you stick to the customs mentioned in
the Bible (rather than making up your own). If you interpret Rev. 19 in accordance with the
examples in both Genesis and Judges, then the wedding MUST BE POST-TRIB! There is simply no
alternative!

Quote:

Tim: When Revelation 19 says, "the marriage of the Lamb is come, his bride hath
made herself ready,"
the wedding HAS NOT YET TAKEN PLACE.

Jason: Well, for such an obvious truth, you sure seem to struggle with this. And, you
repeat this allegation of yours, and with many exclamation points, as if that helps
the argument. I believe it is based on the verb tense of "come" being present tense?
The funny thing is that many other verbs are past tense. "his bride HATH MADE
herself ready." I agree with you that the wedding feast is about to occur. And of
course, this is where we disagree on timing of the feast. I say it's at the end, you
say the beginning of the bridal week.

Your argument has completelty fallen apart, Jason. The Greek verb for "is come" clearly means
"has finally arrived." And in this context, it does NOT say, the "marriage FEAST of the Lamb is
come." It says "the MARRIAGE of the Lamb is come." That is a HUGE difference. It indicates that
Christ is NOT YET MARRIED by Chapter 19! And the expression, "His wife hath made herself
ready" indicates that she has just now (at the end of the tribulation) become RAPTURE READY
for the MARRIAGE (not just the feast). Furthermore, it is not just a question of opinion as
whether the wedding feast occurs before or after the bridal week. I have given Biblical PROOF
that the feast takes place from the very beginning of the bridal week, from the moment the
marriage commences. You have given absolutely nothing to support your claim, except your
preconceived idea of a pre-trib rapture.

Quote:

Tim: RE Esther: First off, you are quoting something that a Persian king did with his
wife. This has nothing to do with a wedding!

Jason: The point is that the wife was to be revealed at the end of the week in this
example from the Bible text. It was the only example I have yet found in the Bible
text which has the "revealing" of the wife at the end of a week long feast. The text
does not say whether it is a marriage or not, but it was certainly an extraordinaily
festive occasion. I do not rely on it to "prove" anything. It's just a very interesting
and compelling story. It is up to the readers to decide whether they see a parallel in
this or not. You are right, that this is a very "unclear" parallel. I would say it would
take faith to think it fits.

But the point is, we are discussing JEWISH WEDDING CUSTOMS. We are not discussing the
drunken parties of Persian kings! The story in Esther 1 has nothing whatever to do with a
wedding! Therefore, it is irrelevant to this discussion, and proves absolutely nothing.

Quote:

RE the statement by Gundry: "a marriage custom that isn't even mentioned in the
biblical text at hand" and the many Bible texts I quoted regarding such customs
relating to Christ and the Church and His return.

Tim>I am NOT arguing that the Jewish wedding customs are unrelated to the
end-time scheme! They certainly are! I am arguing that the REAL customs mentioned
in the Bible DO NOT FIT THE PRE-TRIB SCHEME!

Jason: Then you should pick your quotes from men as authorities more carefully,
because the statement by Gundry does not reflect the intent of your article,
because, as we both know and agree, the Bible is filled with wedding customs which
are mentioned in Rev. 19. As I was proving Gundry wrong, and not you, you should
not have taken it personally.

The article you attacked from my website was mine. I only briefly quoted Gundry. His comments
were only a minor point.

Quote:

RE Rev 4 & 5 is this enthronement ceremony which takes place right after the
rapture in Rev 4:1.

Tim> I looked real close at Rev. 4:1, and didn't see any enthronement ceremony!

Jason: That's because it's not in Rev 4:1. As I said, it's in Chapters 4 & 5. Keep
reading, you will notice things about thrones and crowns.

Nope, no enthronement ceremony anywhere in chapters 4 or 5. Maybe you could point out the
exact verses, and quote the words that show an "enthronemnt ceremony" of the bride and
groom. BTW, the first time the "bride" is mentioned in Revelation is chapter 19, and this is in
ANTICIPATION of the wedding! All I see in chapters 4&5 is the worship of Jehovah, and the
Lamb. Nope, no bride there!

Quote:

Incidentally, did you know that one of the purposes of a trumpet blast is to herald
the enthronement of a new king?

2 Samuel 15:10 But Absalom sent spies throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, As
soon as ye hear the sound of the trumpet, then ye shall say, Absalom reigneth in
Hebron.

1 Kings 1:39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and
anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king
Solomon.

Also, another purpose of the trumpet blast is a call to war. And at the pretribulation
rapture, Satan is cast out of heaven, Rev 12. (Yes, I know some say this is mid-trib,
and we can argue about that if you like.)

So what exactly does this prove? There was also a trumpet blast when God came down on Mt
Sinai to give the Law. So, can I infer that trumpet blasts mean God is coming down on a
mountain? Come on, Jason! There are a variety of trumpets in the Bible, including the seven
trumpets in Revelation that bring plagues, and the trumpet sounded by Jesus to gather His elect
"immediately after the tribulation." Trumpets are simply used to anounce important events, and
to get people's attention. Lets not read between the lines. I mean, if you can't find your theory
written ON THE LINES, then maybe you need to rethink your theory.

Quote:

Tim: Therefore, the tribulation MUST end BEFORE the Day of the Lord begins. There
is no alternative.

Jason: Yes, actually there is an alternative. You see, it does not say "great
tribulation" in Matt 24:29. And if this is simply a double reference to both the great
trib, and the general trib of our day, then it's really not a problem.

Bbbzzzzzzzzttt! Wrong again, Jason. Matthew 24:21 says "great tribulation," and verse 29 says,
"immediately after the tribulation OF THOSE DAYS." This refers back to verse 21's "great
tribulation." Furthermore, what occurs "immediately after the tribulation of those days" and the
darkening of the sun and moon? It is the COMING OF CHRIST in glory. Jesus' POST-TRIB coming
takes place IMMEDIATELY after the tribulation, and in CONJUNCTION WITH the cosmic signs.
And, since the same signs occur BEFORE THE DAY OF THE LORD [Joel 2:31, Acts 2:19,2 , the
Day of the Lord is AFTER the tribulation at the time of the second coming. You can see the same
sequence in Joel 3:9ff, where the armies of the nations are already gathered for the Battle of
Armageddon around Jerusalem (end of trib) and THEN the sun and moon are darkened. Notice
just before the cosmic signs, while the armies are gathered together, it says: "Multitudes,
multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. (v.
14). Not present, or past, but NEAR, or about to come to pass. And this is clearly AT THE VERY
END of the tribulation. I can give you other Scripture that proves the same thing. The phrase
"the Day of the Lord cometh" occurs twice in the OT, and BOTH times immediately describe the
Battle of Armageddon. Take a look at Zech 14. It describes the "Day of the Lord." So, what does
it describe, the tribulation? No way! It describes the Battle of Armageddon. Isaiah 2 says "the
Lord alone will be exalted" in the Day of the Lord. That is an exclusive statement. NO ONE ELSE
can be exalted or worshipped in the Day of the Lord. Yet, the Antichrist is worshipped as God in
the tribulation. Therefore, the Day of the Lord is AFTER the tribulation, when Jesus comes to
defeat him. From that moment on, THE LORD ALONE will be exalted. You have given absolutely
no evidence that the Day of the Lord begins at the beginning of the trib, just your wishful
thinking. Well, you are wrong, Jason. And that one error skews nearly everything else you are
teaching about this subject. I have given my proof. And you cannot refute it, because it is
solidly backed up with plain literally interpreted Scripture.

Quote:

Furthermore, if the Day of the Lord is AFTER the tribulation, as you alledge, you
have many major problems. The first of which is that both the DotL and the GTrib
are a time unlike any other, and both are the birthpangs. If one was after another,
bsp; then you would have two times of birthpangs, both terrible times, unlike any other,
which would be a terrible contradiction and logical inconsistency. Of course this
topic is beyond the scope of this article.

No, it is beyond the scope of TRUTH. You gave no Scripture to support your assertions above,
bsp; and you cannot, because there is no such thing. You are blowing smoke. You just pulled them
out of thin air. The great tribulation is said to be unparalleled tribulation in history. The Day of
the Lord is the Day of Christ's POST-TRIB coming to put an end to it. I gave my PROOF, where is
yours?

Quote:

Tim:You pre-tribbers have now joined the A-millennialists in supporting your theory
EXCLUSIVELY with allegory. Well, I guess I can't blame you. That's how it started
out, with J.N. Darby using the "man child" in Revelation 12 as symbolic of the
rapture!

Jason: Actually, I did not know Darby taught that about the manchild as I do. I have
not read Darby. I have read a lot of your webpages, however, before I came to any
conclusion about the pretribulation rapture. Your many errors helped me to arrive at
a conclusion as to the correct view.

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are
approved may be made manifest among you.

Well, my views are based on 20+ years of study of Bible prophecy. Apparently, yours are based
on looking at web pages. You need to get off the internet and get your nose into the Bible,
brother. Instead of throwing around the "H" word, why don't you prove that I am wrong from the
Bible? I am open to correction if you (or anyone else) can give me the proof from Scripture. But,
I'm not going to budge when all you offer is your opinion which flows counter to the plain sense
of the Word of God. The Bible is NOT your plaything, brother. It is the very Words of Almighty
God. And you'd better not forget it. So far, all of your arguments have been shown to be either
unbiblical, illogical, or having no basis at all in fact! You are far better at insulting people, and
throwing around the "H" word than doing proper exegesis of Scripture.

Quote:

I agree with you that one of the reason many pretribbers make errors is the overly
strict adherance to literalism, and the rejection of types and allegories, which the
Bible uses repeatedly. To reject allegory as a proper method of interpretation is to
reject the Bible itself. The Bible's own descriptions of the manchild are fully
consistent with the Church.

Rubbish! Allegorical interpretation is nothing other than SUBJECTIVE interpretation. I can make
up an allegory from just about any passage in the Bible, to prove just about anything I want!
The ONLY way to get at objective truth, is if the Bible is the FINAL AUTHORITY. And the ONLY
way it can be the final authority, is IF IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. Objective (literal)
interpretation is "grammatical/historical" interpretation. That is, trying to understand a passage
in the way the INTENDED AUDIENCE would have understood it, given their historical setting, and
using proper grammer (including proper verb tenses BTW).

Quote:

Tim: You are attempting to stretch the seven days into seven years by showing that
the number "7" is sometimes used of "years."

Jason: I don't think the word in question was a number. It means "week--seven days
or seven years". If you are counting, 6,7,8, you would not use that word, just as
you would not say 4,5,6, week, 8, 9... In the Bible there are weeks of years,
because every seven years there is a sabbath year, where the land rests, and
slaves are set free. The word for this "week" is not the same as "the number 7". So
the comparison and use of this word is a stronger parallel than you think, and your
critique of it is not accurate, and thus, not valid.

But it is valid. We are talking about JEWISH WEDDING CUSTOMS here, not just the number "7".
The CONTEXT indicates that the 7 days were actual DAYS, not 7 years. There is no case in the
Bible or Jewish history where the Bridal week lasted seven years. I am being literal. You are
playing games with the text. It's as simple as that!

Quote:

Tim: The point is, what did Jesus mean by "my Father's house" in the context of
John 14:1-3, the Upper Room Discourse? My point was simply that such terminology
from Jesus had previously clearly referred to the physical Temple in Jerusalem.

Jason: No, that was not "simply your point". Your point was that becuase it could
refer to the temple, then that meant we could not be taken to heaven. And the
temple/heaven comparisons are quite strong. And it is clear that John 14:1-3 is
talking about taking us to heaven, because no other interpretation makes sense. I
agree with you that we will be on earth in the long run, during the millinnium. Being in
heaven is only for the duration of the tribulation week. Thus, if there is no
pretribulation rapture, there really is no point of going to heaven at all. Thus, once
again, showing a major fallacy of the post trib position.

Just what in John 14 indicates that we are going to heaven? I don't see anything of the kind.
Jesus said that he was going to prepare a place for the disciples in "My Father's house." Where
did He go after this? He went to the Temple for trial by the Sanhedrin, then to Pilate, Herod,
back to Pilate, and then to the cross. He PREPARED a place for the disciples in His "Father's
house" (His Millennial Kingdom) by going to the cross, and atoning for their sins! In the very
same discussion, Jesus spoke of the disciples joining Him IN THE KINGDOM, sitting at his table,
and sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel (Luke 22:28-30). There is NOTHING in this
discourse to indicate that they would go to heaven when Jesus comes back for them! He simply
said, "that where I am, there ye may be also." If He is going to set up the Millennial Kingdom,
then that's where they would go. Nothing here about their going to heaven. You are just reading
between the lines again. BTW, did you know that the Irenaeus (2nd century Early Church
Father) also viewed this passage as referring to the Millennium?? Read: Against Heresies, book V,
Ch. XXXVI. He claimed that his mentors, who had actually heard the Apostles, reported that this
was Jesus' teaching, and gave more details about Jesus teachings regarding the Millennium.

Quote:

Tim: Can you please explain to me how the groom is supposed to feast for the seven
years of the tribulation
with us, when Jesus clearly said above that He is NOT going to partake of the wine
again UNTIL the Kingdom comes??? And, please don't claim that the "Kingdom" begins
at the beginning of the tribulation. That is simply not true. Isaiah 2 clearly says that
THE LORD ALONE will be exalted in
the "Day of the Lord." Therefore, the Anti-Christ's being worshipped as God CANNOT
occur durring this time. ANd the cosmic signs being AFTER th etribulation but BEFORE
the Day of the Lord prove that they do NOT overlap.

Jason: I am very glad you brought up this crucial misunderstanding regarding Satan
being exalted during the tribulation. He will NOT be exalted then.

Exalted in Hebrew means to be high, inaccessibly high. Many words for high there.
And also it means to be set secure and safe on high.

07682 sagab {saw-gab'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 2234; v
AV - high 6, exalted 6, defend 2, safe 2, excellent 1, misc 3; 20
1) to be high, be inaccessibly high
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be (too) high (for capture)
1a2) to be high (of prosperity)
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be high
1b2) to be set on high, be (safely) set on high
1b3) to be exalted (of God)
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to set on high, set (securely) on high
1c2) to exalt, exalt (in effective hostility)
1d) (Pual) to be set (securely) on high
1e) (Hiphil) to act exaltedly

But Satan is NOT set on high safe and secure during the tribulation. He is CAST
LOW. Satan is humiliated and cast out of heaven, down to earth, and brought lower
than he ever has been in his entire life, scared and angry, not secure and safe at all.

Rev 12
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength,
and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our
brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
...
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters
of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great
wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the
woman which brought forth the man child.

Isaiah 24:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the
host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.

See also Ezekiel 28, a famous chapter for describing the judgment and humiliation of
Satan in the time of the end.

Additionally, in the context of Isaiah 2, it should be realized that Satan must be
included in the phrase "upon every one that is proud and lofty". Satan's biggest sin is
pride, and Satan will be brought low during the Day of the Lord, the tribulation..

Isaiah 2:11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men
shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
Isaiah 2:12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud
and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

Thus, the Day of the Lord is the time of trouble & the great tribulation, when Satan
will be cast out of heaven, and brought low to the earth. And the millinnium starts
with the Day of the Lord, when Christ begins to reign, in Heaven.

And thus, getting back to the original point, Jesus partakes of wine, the communion,
right at the start of the bridal week, right at the start of his Kingdom & millinnial
reign.

Ummmm, maybe you forgot this verse:

II Thess 2:3-4
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a
falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is
God.
(KJV)

Jason, you have just given us a classic demonstration of what is called "eisegesis," that is,
reading into the text (forcing) your own interpretation, rather than gleaning the INTENDED
meaning. There is absolutely no question that the Antichrist will EXALT HIMSELF to the point of
being worshipped as God. Rev. says the whole world will worship the Beast (who's names are not
in the Book of Life). If that is not being EXALTED, then I don't know what is. Furthermore, Isaiah
14 describes the Antichrist's aspirations of exaltation, saying: "thou hast said in thine heart, I
will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the
mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the
clouds; I will be like the most High." But God says to him, "Yet thou shalt be brought down to
hell, to the sides of the pit." It is undeniable that the Antichrist will be worshipped and exalted
during the tribulation. It is at the end, when Christ defeats him that "the Lord alone will be
exalted in that day." And Isaiah calls this day, the "Day of the Lord." If the "Lord alone" is
exalted in the Day of the Lord," the Day of the Lord CANNOT come until AFTER the reign of
Antichrist. Also, did you notice that Isaiah also said that all idols will be abolished in the Day of
the Lord? Well, the Image of the Beast will be worshipped in the tribulation. Just more proof that
the Day of the Lord is AFTER the tribulation. (BTW, this also rules out the pre-wrath view of the
"Day of the Lord" being the last months BEFORE Armageddon.)

Quote:

RE: The phrase, "I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you
unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also" is what a groom would say to
the bride when he would leave to build the bridal chamber where they would
consummate their marriage week.

Tim> Would you please provide some historical documentation to validate your claim
that this is what the groom said to the bride, rather than repeating the rumor?

Jason: You might want to look up the footnotes and references at the end of
www.ldolphin.org/risk/ult.shtml --he lists many references and books.
or, you can check
www.geocities.com/Heartland/2175/ --Eddie Chumney's book, the Seven Festivals of
the Messiah, chapter 7. I don't see any references at his page.
www.returnToGod.com/ --Click on "Hebraic Roots" on the left, then, both "wedding"
and "bride" for two articles on this topic, but I don't see any references.
www.tckillian.com/greg/wedding.html is another source. Greg Killian doesn't even
believe in a rapture.

Been thee, done that. There is absolutely no documentation for that claim. It is a total
fabrication made up by the wishful thinking of pre-tribbers, and then presented to unsuspecting
suckers as though it was historical fact. BTW, I wrote to Greg Killian a couple of years ago
challenging a few of the statements in his article, like this one and the idea of the groom
kidnapping his bride. Greg answered my e-mail, but was unable to give any historical
documentation. The best he could do was suggest I attend a modern Jewish wedding. Well,
there is a lot of info on the internet about Jewish wedding customs (from Jewish sources), but
NOTHING about these particular alleged customs. Greg also suggested that I should check with a
rabbi. Well, I did that too, and the rabbi (who was very knowledgable of ancient Jewish customs)
wrote back and said he was not aware of any such Jewish custom. It seems this Jewish custom
is unknown to the Jews! It is only known to pre-tribbers who WISH it was biblical so they can
support their failing theory! I am NOT questioning the entire wedding custom scenario presented
by pre-tribbers, only certain elements that are alleged to support a pre-trib rapture. Most of the
scenario is true. But those elements, like the bride being taken by surprise, I have not been able
to verify from genuine historic sources.

Quote:

Tim: And, maybe you should read Matt. 24:29-31 which says Jesus's elect are going
to be gathered together "immediately after the
tribulation."

Jason: Compare Matt 24:31 with Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the
nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed
of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Why did you forget to include the next verse which PROVES that this is NOT the event described
by Jesus?

Isa 11:14
sp; 14 But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall
spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children
of Ammon shall obey them.
(KJV)

Jesus did not refer to this passage at all. He said that He would send His ANGELS, with the
sound of the trumpet, to GATHER TOGETHER HIS (JESUS) ELECT. He did not say He would send
the Philistines! And, since you are doing comparisons, did you forget to do a comparison of Matt.
24:29-31 with 1 Thess 4? Both have Jesus coming in the clouds, both have the trumpet, both
have angel(s), both have the gathering of Jesus' elect.

Quote:

Isaiah 27:12 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall beat off from
the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by
one, O ye children of Israel.
13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and
they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts
in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.

This refers to the Jews returning on foot to Israel when Jesus comes to set up His kingdom. The
trumpet is the trumpet sounded by Jesus to dispatch His angels to gather JESUS' elect (not the
Jewish nation), and the Jews will hear this trumpet, realize what has happened, and begin
returning to Israel. These are NOT gathered by the Angels, as Jesus' "elect" are gathered in
Matt. 24:29-31.

Quote:

Tim: How about showing me a "resurrection" prior to the "first resurrection" in Rev.
20!

Jason: Please read the gospels about our Lord Jesus who rose from the dead. If you
do not believe in this resurrection which came prior, you are not a Christian.

When John wrote Revelation, (ch. 4ff) he was writing the FUTURE, just as Jesus informed him
(Rev. 4:1,2). So, in the context of FUTURE events (from John's perspective AD96), the FIRST
RESURRECTION will be at the end of the tribulation. You are making John a liar if you do not
admit that the FIRST (future) RESURRECTION includes the martyrs of the tribulation, and so
must be post-trib. First means FIRST. There are NO RESURRECTIONS after AD96 but before the
end of the tribulation. That is what this passage plainly says. And your alleged pre-trib
resurrection makes John a liar.

Quote:

Tim: Your argument from the silence of the rapture in Revelation 19 is meaningless.

Jason: No, the silence speaks volumes. There is no resurrection. No trumpet. No
rapture. No open door. No change to incorruption. No mention of anyone being made
immortal. No end of death being done away with. And Rev 19 is an entire chapter
devoted to the return of our Lord Jesus. The silence on these seven rapture topics is
overwhelming.

The other bible chapter devoted to the return of our Lord Jesus is Zechariah 14. And
each and every one of these things is absent from that account as well. The silence
is is a huge testimony against your theory. A gaping hole so wide, so overwhelming,
it makes a complete mockery of your entire position.

Then, will you please explain where Matthew 24 fits into the mix? Jesus will gather together His
elect "immediately after the tribulation." There is no mention of this in Rev. 19 either, is there?
So, does that mean Revelation 19's coming is not the same coming as Matt. 24:29? Your
argument is fatally flawed. And as I pointed out earlier, if the absence of the specifics of the
rapture in Rev. 19 PROVE that no rapture occurs there, then you have just proven that NO
RAPTURE OCCURS BEFORE THE TRIBULATION, because there is not a single verse in the Bible
that places the rapture before the tribulation! I mean, Jesus spoke of the sequence of events in
Matt. 24 in great detail, including the beginning of the tribulation, abomination of desolation, etc.
Where is your pre-trib rapture??? Nowhere! You are trying to hold me to a standard that you
cannot even accept for your own interpretation. All sides acknowledge that no single passage
gives all the details. Each account of the second coming focusses on certain details, and does
not mention others. And all sides, including pre-tribbers, acknowledge that you must harmonize
all of the passages to get the big picture.

Quote:

And these are not just 3-4 verse descriptions, but entire chapters! Likewise, in the
two big rapture chapters, 1 Thess 4, and 1 Cor 15, where the actual description of
the rapture is made at the very end of the chapter, in both accounts, there is never
a mention of a tribulation which must be endured first, nor is there a description of
the Lord returning in wrath upon his enemies. Again, the silence and complete
absence of these topics speak volumes.

Your own method destroys your own case! If you are going to argue from the silence of
particular details, then I have news for you. Matt. 24:29-31 has FAR MORE IN COMMON with 1
Thess. 4, than does 1 Cor. 15! Matt. 24 has the Lord's coming, the trumpet, the clouds, the
angels, and the "gathering" of the living. All are also found in 1 Thess. 4. But, 1 Cor. 15 only has
the trumpet, no clouds, no coming of the Lord, no angels, no gathering of the living! The only
things they share is a resurrection and a trumpet! All this proves is that your whole method is
bogus! The very method you use to disqualify post-trib, also disqualify's pre-trib! Just where is a
sequence of tribulation AFTER the rapture in any passage in the entire Bible? Just where is any
resurrection, or coming of Christ mentioned as specifically pre-trib? Nowhere! You have just
sawed off the limb you are sittin on! If you are going to use an argument from silence to
disprove post-trib, then you'd better be real sure your theory can withstand the same argument!
It can't! It's a straw man argument. It makes a lot of noise and proves absolutely nothing!

Quote:

And to merge those four chapters into one account does serious violence to both
the Biblical texts, but also to the double witness of two chapters on each account.
You are gravely mistaken.

Show me the violence, Jason. All of the second coming passages fit together just fine INCLUDING
the rapture passages. There is NOTHING at all in any of them that will not fit into one single
coming at the end of the tribulation. And I challenge you to prove it from the Bible!

Quote:

Tim> There are Christians in heaven right now!

1Thes 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring
with Him those
who sleep in Jesus.

Jason: If Christians are in heaven right now, they are alseep. The people in heaven
in Rev 19:1 do not look like they are alseep.

Really?? Do they snore?? "Sleeping" is in referrence to the death of the body. They are as
conscous as you and I. How do you think the tribulation martyrs under the altar at the 5th seal
speak to the Lord? Did they just wake up for this one occasion, then go back to sleep? Come on,
Jason! You are making this stuff up as you go along, just to avoid the obvious!

Quote:

Jason>>> When the groom comes for his bride to steal her away, this is a noisy,
public, action. Blowing trumpets at midnight in a large wedding party to announce
the arrival of the groom is sure to wake the neighbors! So there is a public
announcement of what is going on, it's not like
the bride and groom are doing anything obscene. Finally, the marriage supper or
wedding feast would be inapproprate at midnight, it happens the next week.

Tim> Now, you are showing your ignorance of Jewish wedding customs! The groom
comes with his wedding party for the bride around midnight, on the prescribed day
(which the bride and her family knows beforehand). The bride comes out to meet
him, and they all proceded back to the bride and groom's future home (which was
prepared by the groom). The wedding ceremony commenced immediately, and then
the bride and groom would enter the chamber and consumate the act by being
intimate. Then, both would emerge in an hour or so, and the seven days of feasting
began. This is the scenario supported BOTH by Scripture and historical
documentation.
And it cannot support the pre-trib scheme on several counts.

Jason: You are right on that, I was wrong to say a feast is always inappropriate at
the start of the bridal week. The feast was held at various times during the bridal
week, as I mentioned. The point, however, is that the union of the bride and groom,
is at the START of the bridal week. And if the bridal week is the tribulation week,
then the union of the bride and groom is at the start of the tribulation, and there is
a pretribulation rapture. But you are ignorant of the customs if you say, likewise,
that the feast was never a week later, because sometimes it was. Again, whenever
the marriage feast is held, that has no bearing on the rapture. The rapture is
represented by the abduction of the bride, and the time of union between the bride
and groom, which is at the start of the week.

Your comment above, "if the bridal week is the tribulation week" illustrates the problem nicely!
You are arguing in circles! The wedding customs IN THE BIBLE show that the feast is for the
entire 7 days. But, regardless, the fact that Rev. 19 indicates that the Lamb has not yet been
married, PROVES that the rapture has not occurred yet! I agree that the wedding commences
right after the groom fetches the bride. And since the wedding has not yet occurred by Rev. 19,
the rapture and resurrection of the saints has not yet occurred. Therefore, the bridal week is
AFTER the tribulation, not during the tribulation!

Quote:

I wrote my comments above when you made the wild allegation that the bride and
groom, if they were united at the start of the week and then the feast is at the end
of the week, you considered that to be infidelity or something. That's MAJOR
ignorance of the customs.

No, no, no! I was referring to the fact that Rev 19 indicates that the WEDDING itself (not just
the feast) had not yet occurred! Only at the very end of the tribulation is it said, that marriage
(not just feast) of the Lamb is come. And only THEN has the bride finally "made herself ready"
(by remaining faithful in the tribulation).

Quote:

Tim: If Jesus takes the bride into the wedding chamber 7 years before the "marriage
of the Lamb," then he is a fornicator!

Jason: Yes, major ignorance going on there about how the bridal week worked. The
marriage feast and wedding supper of God is simply at the end of the week.

Look again at the text, Jason. It says "the MARRIAGE of the Lamb is come," NOT "the MARRIAGE
FEAST of the Lamb is come." You are the one confusing things. Jesus has NOT YET BEEN
MARRIED! (Neither has the feast begun, which occurs DURING the 7 days as I have shown from
Scripture.) So BOTH facts (consumation of the marriage and the marriage feast) prove you are
wrong. My point above was that since the actual marriage has not yet occurred by Rev. 19, IF
Jesus was to rapture the Church 7 years BEFORE the wedding, that would make Him a fornicator.
(He had been intimate with the Church 7 years BEFORE the actual wedding!)

Quote:

Tim: This fact destroys the pre-trib idea of "imminence"

Jason: Yes, you are right. It does destroy the "at any moment" kind of 'imminence'.
The phrase "at any moment" is NEVER found in scripture, and I do not support that
doctrine. It does not, however, destroy the "rapture comes first" kind of
"imminence", which is fully supported by about 20-30 Biblical texts.

Well, according to John Walvoord, considered the number one pre-trib scholar, the idea of
imminence is the key pillar supporting a pre-trib rapture! Without it, your pre-trib rapture theory
is like the cartoon characters that run off a cliff and keep running in mid air as long as they don't
look down

Quote:

Tim: Well, so now not only does your theory make Jesus a fornicator, but two of the
three passages you provide to support the "secret kidnapping" of the bride are
actually dealing with RAPE! Are you suggesting Jesus is also a rapist??? The other
passage you provided has nothing to
do with the groom's alleged coming for his bride (to whom he was already espoused).
So, it seems my challenge is still unanswered!

Jason: You must have looked at those when you were tired. Try looking at them
again. Particularly Judges. And look at the penalty for the rape/seduction of a
virgin... it's MARRIAGE THAT CAN NEVER BE DIVORCED EVER AGAIN. Also, do as I
suggested, and see my website for the explanations.

Jesus NEVER forced anyone! And if you are going to attempt to portray the rapture as a rape,
then this is where I get off. Are you a hyper-Calvinist? Does your God force people like a rapist??

Quote:

Yes, rape is very similar to harpazo and the bridal theft. They all mean "to seize", but
Jesus is hardly a rapist. It's a type. Look at Hosea. He married a prostitute which
was a symbol of Israel which was unfaithful to God. Sometimes a truth is a strange
thing to see. The rapture is all about being "TAKEN".

You have sunk to a new low in defending pre-trib, Jason. There is a huge difference between
"harpazo" and rape. Force is NOT the key element. In the passages you referred to that speak of
rape, forced sexual activity AGAINST HER WILL is the key component. Harpazo is nothing at all
like rape. And by even suggesting such a thing you demonstrate your lack of skill in handling the
Word of God.

Brother, let me tell you something. You need to handle the Word of God with more respect. God
will hold you accountable if you presume to teach, especially when you go around calling people
heretics, and you don't know what you are talking about.

To Tim,

Historical documentation for the wedding? You demand historical proof of when the feast is, as if
that's the only thing stopping you from jumping over into the pretrib camp, yet we both know
that wouldn't convince you anyway. Perhaps if you become convinced that the pretribulation
rapture is the truth, you will devote your time to such research. My focus has been to show
these wedding themes in the Bible, such as Judges 21, Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 22, and so on,
in about 18 webpages at my site.

The point is, the bridal week is twice-mentioned in the Bible, and that's the key feature to
determine the timing of the rapture, which is when the groom comes for his bride. The most
reasonable view is to let the bridal week be a type of the tribulation week. And in all views of
the bridal week, the union between the bride and groom takes place at the start of the week.
That ONLY fits the pretribulation rapture view.

; The only point of debate is when the marriage supper or wedding feast happens. Since this can
vary, from being at the start, or end, or all through the week, you will always be able to find
some point to argue. You may wish to argue this point forever, but I will not indulge it.

You have yet to prove that the bridal week cannot stand for the tribulation week, and you have
yet to show that such would be unreasonable or in contrast to any scriptural rule in any way.
Yes, it is an allegorical interpretation, but we are looking at an allegory. When a person tried to
interpret an allegory as literal, they were wrong. That's the reason Jesus spoken in parables. See
Matt 13:10-17

You are like Nicodemus here:

John 3:
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again,
he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second
time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Likewise, your view that we will be raptured to the temple, and not heaven, is overly literal, and
makes as much sense as Nicodemus' statement, and is a private interpretation that virtually
nobody will agree with. (Despite cheers from the peanut gallery "way to go Tim, post trib, Woof!
Woof! Woof!"). Again, you have yet to show that the temple CANNOT represent heaven, as is
shown in Hebrews 9:23,24 & Matt 23:20-22.

I do believe Samson's wedding IS, indeed a type of Christ's. If you notice in Rev 19 and Judges
14, they both engage in a slaughter of their enemies at the end of the wedding. If you notice in
Judges 14:3,4 the entire purpose of this wedding was from the Lord to cause an occasion
against them, to justify Sampson's killing them. If the entire purpose was this killing at the end of
the wedding, that can hardly be ignored. Yes, I know that there is a reason in the context of
that Old Testament story, but also, it is prophetic.

Similarly, Jacob's wedding is also strongly prophetic. I'm sure, in your 20 years of Bible study,
you have heard of the "time of Jacob's trouble"? Jer 30:6,7. Nearly everyone says this is the
great tribulation, both are times unlike any other, and like the birthpangs. Of course, when you
look back at Jacob's life, and examine his "times of troubles" you note this troublesome wedding,
and also how his family is led down to Egypt. Both times are 7 years in length. I do not think
that is a coincidence, but rather a prophetic type to reinforce for us the length of the tribulation
as seven years. Note, the bridal week with Leah turned into an additional 7 years of Labor for
Rachel.

The Bible tells us repeatedly that these Old Testament stories are types for understanding end
time prophecy.

[1Cor 10:11] Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for
our admonition, uponwhom the ends of the world are come.
[Rom 15:4] For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we
through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
[Hos 12:10] I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used
similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

You wrote: "I mean, if you can't find your theory written ON THE LINES, then maybe you need to
rethink your theory."

As shown above, prophecy comes in similitudes, and types, and as shown below, in the Feasts,
Sabbath days, and new moon Feast, or Feast of Trumpets.

[Col 2:16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of
the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
[Col 2:17] Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I really think you should study the Feast of Trumpets. Particularly since you believe the Feasts
are types of prophecies already.

Regarding the exalted debate. Yes, I do not think you know what it means to be exalted at all.
You impose "worship" into the definition from Strong's, and worship is not a part of the definition.
In 2 Thess 2, yes, Satan exalts himself. But is Satan really exalted as in the true sense of the
word? Satan is not safe, not secure, not too high for capture, not set on high. You also fail to
realize that the Bible often speaks in metaphor, hyperbole, exaggeration, & generalization.

You also exempt Satan from being brought low, when it says in Isaiah 2:12 "For the day of the
LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted
up; and he shall be brought low:" Is Satan somehow not proud in your theological reasoning?

Yet, it is a 100% fundamental and absolute truth that starting right at the beginning of the Day
of the Lord, at the start of the tribulation, when Satan is cast out of heaven, that God alone will
be exalted in heaven, so Isaiah 2 is perfectly literal & accurate. Yes, Satan on earth, might be a
type of exception. But there are other exceptions as well.

There are other examples of people not worshipping God during the millinnium, see Isaiah 65, on
occasion, certain men die and are considered cursed. See Zech 14, certain nations fail to exalt
God and come to Jerusalem to worship. Are either of these reasons to say the Day of the Lord
does not include the millinnium? Of course not. Therefore, neither is Satan's vain attempt to
exalt himself.

When we apply the Day of the Lord to include the millinnium, you still have people worshipping
Satan towards the end. Would you use that as a proof to say the Day of the Lord does not
come until after the millinnium, because Satan is exalted once again as he misleads the world
one last time? Nobody makes this conclusion. So, likewise, you should not use such assumptions,
which you impose onto the text, to say that the Day of the Lord cannot include the tribulation.
Again, why use Satan's rebellion in the tribulation as an exemption, yet not the final rebellion in
Rev 20?

When you quote Isaiah 14, it is almost as if you hope Satan will succeed and exalt his throne
above God, so that your theology will be correct. Hence, we see the true colors of your post trib
position being revealed.

You deny the Resurrection of Jesus, or exempt it, when you try to interpret Rev 20.
Then, you exalt Satan in the trib to say the Day of the Lord is not present.

Heresies both, which reveal the true nature of your theology for all who have eyes to see it.

I believe it is truly revealing as well, when I mentioned I had read a lot of your website, and you
castigate me for it.

"Apparently, yours are based on looking at web pages. You need to get off the internet and get
your nose into the Bible, brother."

Actually, if you have been to my webpage, you will note that the majority of the text in my
"articles" do not consist of my words, but rather, scripture.

Finally, regarding rape/harpazo, and whether or not we are forced by God... YES! We are forced.
The difference is, some resist, like you do.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy
Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

When on the end of a losing argument, the loser always says, IF HONEST, I'm forced to agree.
All men are FORCED to acknowledge God, regardless of their will in the matter.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto
them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:

Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every
tongue shall confess to God.

But the key aspect of the rape/harpazo comparison is not force, although it is certainly a valid
element, contrary to your thoughts on the matter.

Another comparison is seduction. The law I quoted for you in Exodus 22 includes seduction of a
young virgin, no force included.

And in Judges 21, it is not rape at all, but simply an abduction of a mass of virgins at once, for
the intent of taking them to be as wives.

Finally, I will answer your request for information on why the Day of the Lord starts at the same
time as the tribulation.

---------
Here are my five scriptural reasons in summary, with three more reasons, for a total of EIGHT.
Each of the five has a webpage or two devoted to proving the topic with all the scriptures
spelled out and explained, among other details added as well. Each of these points I have argued
for weeks at a time, with no valid or scriptural challenges to the presentation, each skeptic who
engaged the debate on each topic withered under the weight of the scriptural evidence. They
didn't always agree with me in the end, because they KNEW where the conclusion would lead,
but they all failed to show my specific argument was without merit. Some of the lamest excuses
come from people after arguing and coming to the end of the discussion, where they still refuse
to agree, such as, "You'd better be right." or "Well, it's not obvious". Where does the Bible say it
presents its hard mysteries in an obvious way? But I try my best to present these truths as
clearly as I can.

1. Satan is cast out of heaven when the stellar signs occur. Ezekiel 32,
Isaiah 24. Satan is cast out at the beginning of the tribulation, Rev 12.
These stellar signs are the beginning of the Day of the Lord. Joel 2.
www.geocities.com/biblepr...nsfall.htm

2. The great tribulation, the time of trouble, and the Day of the Lord are
all the unique "day unlike any other". Thus, they must be covering the same
time frame. The only difference is that the Day of the Lord lasts 1000 years,
whereas the great trib, and the time of trouble are only the first seven
years.
www.geocities.com/biblepr...lation.htm

3. These three aforementioned times, Great Tribulation, Time of Trouble, and Day of the Lord,
are all also known as the birth pangs, so they are all the same time, except the Day of the Lord,
which lasts 1000 years, as I mentioned.
www.geocities.com/biblepr...lation.htm

As an aside to points 1-3, yes, I'm well aware that Matt 24 says "after the tribulation". This was
one of the main points that caused me to hesitate regarding the pretribulation rapture when I
first heard of it, and it caused me to desire to investigate the subject thoroughly. However,
know and understand this! The Bible defines its own terms. Jesus in the Olivet Discourse
mentioned the "great tribulation". But in verse 29, he does not say "great". Why not? And the
Bible describes TWO times as tribulation, both this future "great" one, and our time today.

Further, all the signs he gave were fulfilled in that generation, as any good preterist or historicist
will tell you. Further, John applied the many false Christs to the many antichists and concluded
that the tribulation of his day WAS, in fact that same one being spoken of in the Olivet
Discourse.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world
ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Of course that "tribulation in the world" is NOT like the great tribulation, which is that specific
unique time, as defined by scripture. See point 2 again. The great tribulation is UNIQUE. So, we
must conclude that either Jesus was misleading John, or that John was WRONG AND LYING when
he made the application, OR there is a double
reference, and "after the tribulation" which, through the Biblical definitions, can refer to BOTH
after the tribulation of the age of the apostles, which we are still in, AND to the great
tribulation. The double reference is the ONLY solution which harmonizes the scriptures, and
prevents Jesus and John from being liars. Furthermore the double reference makes complete
sense because all the main features of the entire Olivet Discourse has had past fulfillment, and
yet we also expect a future fulfillment.

To acknowledge all the other double references such as (1) the abomination of desolation as the
destruction of the former temple, and (2) the false Christs as the many antichrists, and yet to
deny "after the tribulation" as a double reference is not consistent interpretation.

Thus, after the "tribulation in the world" of today, will begin the great tribulation.

So, the three applications of Matt 24:29-31 that I see are as follows:
1. After our tribulaitons today, we will see the signs of the Day of the Lord, and the
pretribulation rapture.
2. After the great tribulation, Israel will be gathered together, as I quoted those verses from
Isaiah for you.
2A. After the great tribulation, the saints will be gathered together from out of heaven to follow
Jesus in his return as in Rev 19.

Again, that Matt 24:29 is speaking of a PRETRIBULATION event is noted by the stellar signs, see
point 1.

Moving on to other reasons why the Day of the Lord is the tribulation.

4. The 70 years were the fury and anger and wrath of the Lord upon the people
of Israel in the first dispersion. In Daniel 9, these 70 years become 70
weeks of years, a seven fold worse judgment. If the first was the wrath of
God, and a curse, then also the 70 weeks are the wrath. And by extension, the
70th week is the wrath of God. The 7 year tribulation by everyone's
definition who agrees on a 7 year trib. The Day of the Lord is ALSO known
universally as the wrath of God.
www.geocities.com/biblepr...thweek.htm

5. The Day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night.
The "thief in the night" is a bridal reference to how the groom will come for his bride, as seen in
the Bible example I gave you from Judges 21. This is the start of the bridal week or tribulation
week. See
www.geocities.com/biblepr...ding12.htm

There are three other arguments I have seen recently on the Day of the Lord & tribulation, but I
have not put these into webpages yet.
1. Zeph 1:15 mentions several other descriptive terms for the Day of the Lord, one of which is
"trouble". Thus, linking it with the "time of trouble". Also Isaiah 26 uses the same word "trouble".
Additionally, one way that particular Hewbrew word for "trouble" has been translated is
"tribulation."
2. The vials in Revelation describe events which include events as described in the Day of the
Lord. I have to do more study to flesh out this argument, I'm sorry I cannot yet present it in full.
Something about sea creatures dying?
3. Finally, the argument we have gone over, about the Lord alone being exalted in that Day.
Since Satan is cast down at the start of the trib, this makes sense that the Day of the Lord
begins at that time.

Hi Jason,

The issue of when the feast takes place in relation to the Bridal week is proven from the two
illustrations of Jacob's wedding and Samson's wedding. To my knowledge, there are the only two
cases in Scripture that discuss this aspect of the wedding customs. You continue to claim that
the feast is after the week. But, you have no evidence from either the Bible or history. So, the
bottom line is; do we take what the Bible says, or what Jason says? I choose the Bible.

Secondly, the feast is only a minor point. The MAJOR point is that prior to Rev. 19, the Marriage
itself has not yet occurred. Therefore, no part of the bridal week has expired before Rev. 19,
since in Jewish customs the marriage occurs at the BEGINNING of the bridal week. Again, your
view flatly contradicts the Bible. I have indeed shown that the 7 year tribulation CANNOT be the
bridal week, because that would place the bridal week BEFORE the marriage ceremony according
to Revelation.

Rev 19:7-9
7 "Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and His wife has made herself ready."
8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen
is the righteous acts of the saints.
sp; 9 Then he said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of
the Lamb!'" And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God."
(NKJ)

You simply cannot get around the fact that Jesus has not yet married the Bride prior to Rev. 19's
coming!

Regarding John 14, and whether Jesus referred to heaven, my view is the most natural possible.
It takes into account Jesus' earlier statement about "my Father's house" (John 2:16,17), and it
fits in with the scenario that Jesus had just told His disciples 2 days earlier (Matt. 24/Mark 13).
There He told them to watch for the signs of His coming "immediately after the tribulation." Your
view requires that after Jesus told the disciples to watch for the "abomination of desolation," as
well as the cosmic signs "immediately after the tribulation," just 2 days later He told them just
the opposite! That is, according to your view, Jesus told them they would go to heaven and miss
all the things that He had just told them to be watching for! How ridiculous is that?? And you
scoff at this, saying that even sunday school children know that Jesus was referring to heaven!
Well, its not because John 14 says so. Its because pre-tribbers have taught them!

You say that I have to prove that the bridal week is not the tribulation, and that Christians don't
go to heaven at the rapture. No I don't! There is a plethora of passages that indicate a coming
of Jesus after the tribulation. You have the burden of proof, since you are the one claiming a
secret coming that is nowhere mentioned in the Bible!

Regarding your appeal to allegories and types to support your pre-trib rapture, that is subjective
and carries no weight at all. The problem is, you are searching for types to support your
pre-conceived ideas, rather than interpreting what the Bible actually teaches in plain language. I
am NOT against types and allegories. But one CANNOT use them to develop doctrine, because
they can be used to support just about anything! They are useful ONLY as an aid to illustrate
what is elsewhere clear LITERAL teaching of the Scriptures.

Why don't you use the PROTECTION of the children of Israel in Egypt during the plagues for your
"type?" I'll tell you why! because it would indicate that God preserves His people IN EARTHLY
SETTINGS while he judges the ungodly! See, you can pick and choose your "types" to prove
whatever you want. That is subjective, and therefore worthless.

Regarding the Feasts' relation to end-time prophecy, I do not see them as "types" but actual
prophecy. But, even the feasts can be interpreted in a variety of ways, so they cannot be used
to establish firm doctrine. For example, you see the feast of Trumpets as pointing to the rapture,
and the Day of Atonement as pointing to Armageddon. Well, I agree that this is a distinct
possibility. But, whereas you have seven years between the two, I would argue that there are
only 10 days between the two, since there are ten days between Trumpets and Atonement on
the Jewish calander. I'm actually being more true to the Feasts by maintaining the time
difference. You are stretching things quite a bit. But, neither of us can use this to prove either
pre- or post-. Why? Because such things are simply too flexible and non-specific! We need to
rely on plain teaching, and there is plenty of it! The only reason you are balking is that there is
no such plain teaching that supports pre-trib! And so your subjedctive types is all you have.
Well, that 'aint much!

Quote:

When you quote Isaiah 14, it is almost as if you hope Satan will succeed and exalt
his throne above God, so that your theology will be correct. Hence, we see the true
colors of your post trib position being revealed.

You deny the Resurrection of Jesus, or exempt it, when you try to interpret Rev 20.
Then, you exalt Satan in the trib to say the Day of the Lord is not present.

Heresies both, which reveal the true nature of your theology for all who have eyes
to see it.

Cheap shots, Jason. I have used some strong language to question the validity of your claims,
and the quality of your work. But, I have never impugned your motives, questioned your
sincerity, or cast doubt on your commitment to the Lord. It is a shame that you have to resort
to such slander just because you do not agree with my rapture views. I only pray that the Lord
is more merciful to you for the errors you promote on the internet than you have been to your
fellow believers who hold a different rapture view than you.

I have known the Lord for many years, Jason. I love Him with all of my heart. I seek to exalt His
Word, not myself, and certainly not Satan. You will answer to the Lord Jesus Christ for your
slander that I and other post-tribbers have an agenda to exalt Satan.

I am going to bow out of this conversation now, because it is not honoring to Christ. I have
made my points, and you have not successfully refuted them. The readers here can judge for
themselves. If you want to list me and my website on your list of "heretics" page, then I will
wear that as a badge of honor. Great men of the Reformation wore the same "H" brand because
they stood for the truth, and held the literal teachings of the Bible above reputation, and even
their very lives. I consider it an honor to be among such fellow "heretics."

In Christ, Tim

Seven times, in your original reply to my first "rebuttal" of your argument, you indirectly called
me a liar outright or hinted at it, using various words like "fabricated" or "made up". And finally,
you slyly accused me of teaching that Jesus is a rapist. And the tone of your letter was
obviously very hostile, with multiple exclamation points and question marks. All of which I
patiently endured so that I could carefully answer your many questions, scripturally and soundly.

And now, you are saying that I have somehow dishonored your theology by confirming that you
teach how it is NECESSARY that Satan is actually exalted in the tribulation in order to prove that
the Day of the Lord has not come yet at that time?

Unreal. You sure do feel free to dish out your rebukes, but are completely unable to take them. I
can only assume it must mean that your house is not firmly established upon the rock of our Lord
Jesus Christ.

I, and I am sure many others, will simply look at you as just another hypocrite. And that you
simply GAVE UP when presented with a mountain of scriptural evidence that the Day of the Lord
starts at the beginning of the tribulation.

Jason,

I never called you a liar, or implied that you lied. Your alleged wedding customs are indeed
"fabricated." You have yet to show a single biblical referrence or historical referrence that
indicates the wedding feast follows the bridal week in Jewish customs. I am not saying that you
intentionally lied or meant to deceive. I am simply saying that you are reading your wedding
custom INTO Rev. 19 because of your pre-conceived belief that the rapture is pre-trib. Rather
than interpreting Rev. 19 with an established standard (which would produce objective results),
you are adjusting your wedding customs to accomidate Rev. 19 without the slightest evidence
from Scripture or history (and you ignore the clear contrary evidence). I am not saying that is
dishonest. It is typical for someone who is deceived themselves, and it is just bad Biblical
hermeneutics, and bad logic. The difference between being deceived and being a deceiver is
one's intent of the heart. I have never questioned yours. That's between you and the Lord.

I gave proof that the Day of the Lord begins after the tribulation, both by the cosmic signs and
Isaiah 2. You have not and cannot refute those passages. And Paul places the Day of the Lord
AFTER the Antichrist is revealed as well in 2 Thess. 2, as others have shown in this thread. I
doubt that you can even find another pre-tribber on this board to agree with you that the
Millennium begins at the beginning of the tribulation, or when Jesus said; "immediately after the
tribulation of those days" that He was referring to a pre-trib rapture as you claim. You twist the
Scriptures to such a degree that nothing means what it says anymore. In your vocabulary,
"After the tribulation" means BEFORE the tribulation. And "first resurrection" means second or
third resurrection. There is no point continuing with this discussion, Jason, because you and I
have opposite methods of interpreting Scripture, which can never be reconciled. I insist on plain
literal statements and teaching. You deny these in favor of "types" and "allegories." If the literal
words of Scripture do not mean what they plainly say, then we have no basis for discussion at
all. I don't have time to discuss subjective "types" and allegories because they prove absolutely
nothing! I have wasted much time doing just this with a-millennialists. It gets you nowhere.

Regarding "rape," you are the one who says "harpazo" (caught up - rapture) is "rape," and you
use two passages from the OT that speak of the penalty for rape as your proof of a pre-trib
rapture! I am amazed at the lengths to which you will twist the Scripture to produce your
results.

Bottom line is, I don't question your sincerity or motives. But, I do question your skill in handling
the Scriptures. And someone as inept as you appear to be with Scripture has no business being
arrogant, and deciding who is a heretic.

I hope you will include these last two exchanges on your website along with the earlier one, so
people who view your list of "heretics" can see my replies. If you want to call me a quitter, fine.
The Bible gives the criterion for just this kind of "quitting." I'll be praying for you, brother, that
God will give you skill in handling His Word, and wisdom in applying what you learn.

In Christ, Tim
1-24-01

Click Here to go Back to the Home Page:
Online Bible Prophecy Studies;
Please feel free to email me, Jason, at
bibleprophesy@yahoo.com
if you have any questions or comments on this article,
or on the subject of the pretribulation rapture,
or if you wish to share any scriptures with me.