Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?


RSS Robot

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Zechariah 14:2 (KJV) 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Zechariah 14:3 (KJV) 3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zechariah 14:4 (KJV) 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Sorry Covenanter, but the Bible proves your Preterism to be wrong.

All nations did not gather in battle against Jerusalem in AD 70,... only General Titus and his Army.

You are covenanted with a false doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Zechariah 14:2 (KJV) 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Zechariah 14:3 (KJV) 3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zechariah 14:4 (KJV) 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Sorry Covenanter, but the Bible proves your Preterism to be wrong.

All nations did not gather in battle against Jerusalem in AD 70,... only General Titus and his Army.

You are covenanted with a false doctrine.

 

 

That does not sound like the same war.  

 

Mt 16:28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


That does not sound like the same war.

Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.


How exactly does that relate to the siege of Jerusalem?

Matt 16
 27  For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
 28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

:beatdeadhorse:


Steve, I know.... but it displays again why I don't often bother.

With their sort of responses (JW style) there is no point - they sidestep, sidetrack, misrepresent, and confuse.
Or at least they try to.

Pointless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why not just start a new thread about Matthew 24 &25 and any other chapters you think support your positions.

 

This thread is already beaten to death and so far off from the main topic that its only causing discord.

 

A thread like I've just mentioned prOBably has been done before, but some fresh ideas might come out of it.

 

 

Dr. ROBerson 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Why not just start a new thread about Matthew 24 &25 and any other chapters you think support your positions.

 

This thread is already beaten to death and so far off from the main topic that its only causing discord.

 

A thread like I've just mentioned prOBably has been done before, but some fresh ideas might come out of it.

 

 

Dr. ROBerson 

 

If it is important to Cloud to find the earliest non-inspired ref to the PreTR, then it is presumably because Scripture evidence is unclear. The only point seems to be to refute those who claim Darby as the inventor of the doctrine, but Invicta goes back to an RC source around 1600, & I've never expressed an opinion about the origin, except to say that the distribution of the Scofield Bible in the colleges popularised it.  I have studied the Ephraem document & don't consider that it teaches PreTR. 

 

I agree it is time to lock the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If it is important to Cloud to find the earliest non-inspired ref to the PreTR, then it is presumably because Scripture evidence is unclear. The only point seems to be to refute those who claim Darby as the inventor of the doctrine, but Invicta goes back to an RC source around 1600, & I've never expressed an opinion about the origin, except to say that the distribution of the Scofield Bible in the colleges popularised it.  I have studied the Ephraem document & don't consider that it teaches PreTR. 

 

I agree it is time to lock the thread.

The Scriptural evidence is clear and abundant....you simply refuse to hear it!  

The point of the article was to show that the Pre-Trib rapture was in fact taught long before Darby popularized it.  

 

:bang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Scriptural evidence is clear and abundant....you simply refuse to hear it!  

The point of the article was to show that the Pre-Trib rapture was in fact taught long before Darby popularized it.  

 

:bang:

 

If it is clear and abundant, please show where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Again?

Why don't you do a search on previous discussions and actually read them?

 

No, I want you to quote the scriptures here.  You rarely do bot often quote men.

 

I have never seen a clear (as was said) view of scriptures, to support your theory..

 

Some time ago you gave a list of ministers of the past who you said were dispensationists, although you said you hadn't read them.  One was Isaac Watts and we know he wasn't.  It is possible that they mentione dispensations but that doesn't mean that they were dispensationist as we know them.  I will give you two other names who mentioned dispensations.

 

1.  Henry Grattan Guinness, died 1910, a prolific writer on prophecy from a historic point of view, that is he believed the book of Revelation to be the history of the Church.

 

2.  E.B. Elliott,another historicist writer who in 1844 mentioned the two dispensations, presumably the two testaments.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I rarely quote men.

I checked at least one statement from each of the men I listed - so you are lying when say I didn't read them.
I prOBably said I know little of them aside from that.
In some cases the statements were against dispensations - but the fact they talk against it means it was known before Darby - your bugbear name.

And I have consistently said that the historical record is actually of little relevance - the biblical nature or otherwise is neither proven nor disproven by historical supporters.

What is proven by historical supporters - or detractors - is that your constant proposition that Darby is responsible for dispensations is not only incorrect, but since you continue to spout it after such evidence - which you now admit you read - it means you are knowingly repeating false information.

As to the scriptural support - it has been posted many times.

I do not actually count myself as a dispensationalists in the way that some here do. Some are incredibly nuts about dispensational division.
You will have to find someone else to quote it for you, for I will not be doing so for something that I care little for.

What I do care about is people knowingly posting false information so that they may support false doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I'm going to interject here now...

 

Scripture has been abundantly shown - on both "sides" actually.  The prOBlem is that neither "side" accepts the "truth" presented by the other.  And so argument ensues (which is common for just about any topic on here, actually  :nuts: ).

 

The OP is an article that points to the fact  that pre-trib was mentioned way back...and if it was mentioned, even if someone were arguing against it, it was being taught, somewhere.  And so...the argument that it began with Darby is proven to be wrong.  Comment can be made that this or that is from the Catholic "fathers" or this person or that person.  It does not really matter. 

 

Darby did not originate pre-trib rapture thought.  So let's dispense with that idea from henceforth.  

 

Clear and abundant scripture has been shown.  Re-reading this thread and others like it will show that.  So, since the subject has been beaten to death, I'm going to close this thread. Never fear, I'm sure the subject will raise its head again (and there is a Matt 24 thread going on).  

 

:threadlockedbc5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...