7 Reasons the church does not go through the great tribulation

Matthew 24:34​

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

It will take at least to post to make explain how the scripture uses the phrase, "this generation", so bear with me. I think Jonathan Edwards gave the very best definition of the scriptural term of the word generation when teach on 1st Peter 2:9 concerning christians being a chosen generation. Highlighted areas are mine

"True Christians are a distinct race of men. They are of a peculiar descent or pedigree, different from the rest of the world. This is implied in their being called a generation. There are three significations of the word generation in the Scriptures.

Sometimes it means, as is its meaning in the common use, a class of persons among a people, or in the world, that are born together, or so nearly together, that the time of their being in the different stages of the age of man is the same. They shall be young persons, middle aged, and old together. Or they shall be together upon the stage of action. All that are together upon the face of the earth, or the stage of action, are very often accounted as one generation. Thus when God threatened that not one of the Israelites of that generation should see the good land, it is meant, all from twenty years old and upwards.

A second meaning is, those who are born of a common progenitor.

A third meaning of the word in Scripture, is, a certain race of mankind, whose generation and birth agree, not as to time, but as to descent and pedigree, or as to those persons from whom they originally proceeded. So it is to be understood, Mat. 1:1, “This is the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham;” that is, this is the book that gives an account of his pedigree. And this meaning, viz. those who are of the same race and descent, must be given to the word in the text. The righteous are often spoken of in Scripture as being a distinct generation, Psa. 14:5, “There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.” Psa. 24:6, “This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob.” Psa. 73:15, “If I say, I will speak thus: behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children.”

That the godly are a distinct race appears evident, since they are descended from God. They are a heavenly race, and they are derived from above. The heathen were wont to feign that their heroes and great men were descended from the gods, but God’s people are descended from the true and living God, without any fiction, Psa. 22:30, “A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.” That is, a seed, a posterity, shall serve him, and it shall be accounted to the Lord for his posterity or offspring.

Now the people of God may be considered as descending from God, and as being his posterity, either remotely or immediately.

1. They are remotely descended from God. The church is a distinct race that originally came from God. Other men are of the earth, they are of earthly derivation, they are the posterity of men, but the church is the posterity of God. Thus it is said, Gen. 6:2, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” The sons of God were the children of the church, of the posterity of Seth. The daughters of men were those that were born out of the church, and of the posterity of Cain, and those that adhered to him.

It was God that set up the church in the world, and those who were the first founders of the church were of God, and were called specially the sons of God. Seth was the seed that God appointed, Gen. 4:25, “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth. For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” Adam, in Luke’s genealogy of Christ (Luke 3:38, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God,”) is called the son of God, possibly, not only because he was immediately created by God, but also because he was from God, and was begotten by him. As he was a good man, and was the founder of the church of which Christ himself became a son. He was the first in line of the church, and as such he was from God. When the church was almost extinct God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, and afterwards out of Haran. Abraham was one immediately from God, and all God’s people in all succeeding ages are accounted as the children of Abraham. God promised Abraham that his seed should be as the stars of heaven, and as the sand on the seashore, meaning primarily not his posterity according to the flesh. John the Baptist said, God is able of the stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Those are the seed of Abraham, as we are taught in the New Testament, that are of the faith of Abraham. Christians, as well as Jews, are the seed of Abraham, Gal. 3:29, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” So the church is the seed of Jacob, who is called God’s son, Hos. 11:1, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” All God’s people are called Israel, not only his posterity according to the flesh, but proselytes of old, and Gentile Christians now under the gospel. The sincerely godly, and they only, are the true Israel.

So the people of God are descended from God the Father originally, as they are descended from Christ the Son of God. Christians are called the seed of Christ, Gal. 3:29, “And if ye be Christ’s,” etc. They are, as it were, his posterity. Christ calls them his children, Heb. 2:13, “Behold I and the children which thou hast given me.” So that if we trace the pedigree of God’s people up to their original, they will be found to be descended from God: they are of heaven, they are not of this world. Other men are of the earth, and are earthly, but these are heavenly, and are of heaven. The wicked are called the men of this world, Psa. 17:14, “From men which are thy hand, O Lord, from men of the world which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes."

The wicked are called THIS generation over and over again throughout the scriptures almos tevery time when the two words are together, without fail it has reference to the wicked most every time.

What generation of men is David speaking about? The generation of evil and wicked men that this world is increasing in at a rapid rate. David called them This generation, and so did Christ every time he used the word generation!
Jesus alwasy reference the wicked to a generation of vipers. Who killed the prophets Zechariah? The generation of evil and wicked men. The blood of all righteous men and women God will require at the hands of THIS generation. John the Baptist called the Pharisees a generation of vipers!

Matthew 3:7​

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”

Again Jesus said these words:

The only righteous way God could require the blood shed from Abel on ward is to require it at the hands on ONE particular generation of wicked men, who are of the wicked one the devil himself. THIS generation has reference to evil and wicked men, and that's the sense it is used in Mathew 24:36 since Jesus was dealing with the world being flooded with false prophets at the end of this world and our Lord was saying that these men would not pass until all be fulfilled, instead of passing, they actually increase greatly in numbers toward the end of this world.

The word generation in the scriptures for the most part has reference to a kind of person instead of time.
Later......
 
There is only one reason that the church will not go through the tribulation. We wont be here as the pre-tribulation will have already happened.

As we have promises of salvation from God's wrath and the church's absence from key passages in Revelation.
 
There is only one reason that the church will not go through the tribulation. We wont be here as the pre-tribulation will have already happened.

As we have promises of salvation from God's wrath and the church's absence from key passages in Revelation.
Amen
 
that is for sure since it has never been fulfilled- the Jews in Isreal have yet to turn tho their Messiah- that happens at His 2nd Coming when they recognize Him. who they have pierced - is killed 2,000 year ago. hHe returns to rescue them from their enemies- all the nations gathered against them in the final battle known as Armageddon
Why are the later Jews given a second opportunity to be saved (as a nation) when Jesus returns but those who died years ago are not? 2Cor 6:2

Romans and Galatians both say that Jews are Jews inwardly. Looks like that changed the definition. Romans 2:28-28 Gal 3:28, 29

I cant believe that you think just because someone is born Jewish that they get a pass. God is no respecter of persons.Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11

Also--"they which pierced Him" --Who carried out the piercing? the Romans.
John 19:34-37
“But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
… For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, ‘They shall look on Him whom they pierced.’
 
There is only one reason that the church will not go through the tribulation. We wont be here as the pre-tribulation will have already happened.
There's a few problems with this understand. First and a major one is this verse:

Matthew 24:29​

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:”

Let me say a few things concerning this verse.

1) The tribulation mentioned in the scriptures is spiritual in nature as proven by Daniel (7-12), and Jesus in the Olivet discourse. It is not as the premill folks thinks. Matthew 24; Mark 13 and Luke 21 describes in detail, that it will be a time when false prophets, with their false teachings fill the churches of Mystery Babylon during the little season, or shor time of Revelation. It will be a time where strong delusions shall be everywhere, while these false prophets even will come saying that Jesus is the Christ, yet they will deny him with their works and teachings and means they use building up the mega churches of the last days. The true elect will flee these false prophets and their false teachings, and their temples where they sit as God.

2) Christ will come AFTER the tribulation of the last days, not before. Verse 29 is very clear.

Saints are here until the last day, the last trump and the resurrection of all, both the wicked and the righteous. We provided proof of this above. Christ second coming and the resurrection of our bodies is one and the same event on the last day as we know it.

Question: how many trumpets are there in Revelation? Seven, and on the seventh trump all is finished, time shall be no more.

Read carefully 1st Corinthians 15:51,52;

Revelation 16:17​

“And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

3) I asked above: who comes first, Christ and our gathering together unto him, or the man of sin/antichrist/abomination of desolation? The man of sin, yet pre-mill folks say Christ comes for us first!
The pre-trib rapture is a false doctrine. I have much more coming. In the meantime remember what Paul said: "Let no man deceive you by any means."
 
Why are the later Jews given a second opportunity to be saved (as a nation) when Jesus returns but those who died years ago are not? 2Cor 6:2

Romans and Galatians both say that Jews are Jews inwardly. Looks like that changed the definition. Romans 2:28-28 Gal 3:28, 29

I cant believe that you think just because someone is born Jewish that they get a pass. God is no respecter of persons.Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11

Also--"they which pierced Him" --Who carried out the piercing? the Romans.
John 19:34-37
I’m not saying they get any pass , just stating the purpose for His 2nd Coming has to do with Israel not the church
 
There's a few problems with this understand. First and a major one is this verse:

Matthew 24:29​

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:”

Let me say a few things concerning this verse.

1) The tribulation mentioned in the scriptures is spiritual in nature as proven by Daniel (7-12), and Jesus in the Olivet discourse. It is not as the premill folks thinks. Matthew 24; Mark 13 and Luke 21 describes in detail, that it will be a time when false prophets, with their false teachings fill the churches of Mystery Babylon during the little season, or shor time of Revelation. It will be a time where strong delusions shall be everywhere, while these false prophets even will come saying that Jesus is the Christ, yet they will deny him with their works and teachings and means they use building up the mega churches of the last days. The true elect will flee these false prophets and their false teachings, and their temples where they sit as God.

2) Christ will come AFTER the tribulation of the last days, not before. Verse 29 is very clear.

Saints are here until the last day, the last trump and the resurrection of all, both the wicked and the righteous. We provided proof of this above. Christ second coming and the resurrection of our bodies is one and the same event on the last day as we know it.

Question: how many trumpets are there in Revelation? Seven, and on the seventh trump all is finished, time shall be no more.

Read carefully 1st Corinthians 15:51,52;

Revelation 16:17​

“And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.

3) I asked above: who comes first, Christ and our gathering together unto him, or the man of sin/antichrist/abomination of desolation? The man of sin, yet pre-mill folks say Christ comes for us first!

The pre-trib rapture is a false doctrine. I have much more coming. In the meantime remember what Paul said: "Let no man deceive you by any means."
I don't have a problem with the pre-tribulation rapture as it is the true understanding. I have seen
an impressive array of literature in support of the pre-Tribulation view of the Rapture as well as the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy.

We “wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” 1 Thessalonians 1:10

How does He deliver us from the wrath to come? Well by the pre-tribulation rapture. Don't get left behind;)
 
The New Testament speaks of our Lord’s return as imminent, meaning that it could happen at any moment. Other events may occur before an imminent event, but nothing else must take place before it happens. Imminency passages instruct believer to look, watch, and wait for His coming (1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:20; 1 Thes. 1:10; Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:28; 1 Peter1:13; Jude 21).

If either the appearance of the Antichrist, the Abomination of Desolation, or the unfolding of the Tribulation must occur before the Rapture, then a command to watch for Christ's coming would not be relevant. Only pretribulationism teaches a truly imminent Rapture since it is the only view not requiring anything to happen before the Rapture.

As required by the above mentioned passages, the New Testament indicates that the believer’s hope is to look, watch, and wait for a person and that is Jesus. Only pre tribulationism enables a believer to look for Christ and yet at the same time give full meaning to Second Coming passages and the signs that lead up to our Lord’s return to the earth. Imminency is a strong argument for the pre-trib Rapture and provides the believer with a true "blessed hope."

Pre-Trib Research Center

 
The Jesuit Roots of Preterism


Confronting Preterism’s Roots:


A Jesuit Counter-Reformation

Strategy in Modern Protestant Garb
Introduction

Modern Christian eschatology is a landscape of divergent systems, with futurism, historicism, idealism, and preterism each vying for scriptural credibility. Among these, preterism—the belief that most or all biblical prophecies, particularly in Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, were fulfilled in the first century—has gained increasing traction among certain conservative Protestants, especially within the Reformed tradition. Advocates like R.C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, and Gary DeMar have helped popularize a form of “partial preterism” which teaches that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the fulfillment of much of Jesus’ prophetic discourse, and possibly Revelation itself.

However, what is often left unacknowledged is the origin of preterism in the Counter-Reformation, developed not as a neutral theological system, but as an intentional apologetic maneuver by a Jesuit priest— Luis de Alcázar—to shield the Roman Catholic Church from the charge of being the Antichrist. Recognizing this historical context should give modern non-Catholic preterists pause. Can a theological system born as a defense of the Papacy now serve as a reliable lens for interpreting prophecy within Protestantism?

Luis de Alcázar and the Birth of Preterism

Luis de Alcázar (1554–1613), a Spanish Jesuit and theologian, lived and worked during the height of the Catholic Counter-Reformation—the Church’s organized response to the Protestant Reformation. During this period, the Papacy faced relentless accusations from Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Knox, all of whom identified the Pope as the Antichrist and the Roman Church as the Babylon of Revelation. This interpretation was central to the historicist framework adopted by Protestants, which saw prophecy as unfolding throughout church history, with the Roman Catholic Church playing a prominent role in opposition to Christ.


In this context, Alcázar composed his magnum opus, Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi (published posthumously in 1614), a massive commentary on the book of Revelation. His key thesis was that Revelation does not concern the distant future, nor the corruptions of the medieval church, but rather was fulfilled almost entirely in the early centuries of Christianity. He argued that the prophecies referred to:

- The persecution of Christians under pagan Rome,

- The fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70,

- The triumph of the Church over her early enemies.


This radical reinterpretation had a clear purpose: to exonerate the Roman Church from the accusations of the Reformers by recasting Revelation as a closed book, already fulfilled and thus irrelevant to the contemporary church. Alcázar’s preterism was not developed in theological isolation or dispassionate study—it was deeply political, crafted to neutralize Protestant polemics and defend the authority of the Papacy.

The Jesuit Context and Counter-
Reformation Strategy


To understand Alcázar’s motivations, one must understand the role of the Jesuits in the Counter-Reformation. Founded in 1540 by Ignatius of Loyola, the Society of Jesus was tasked with confronting Protestantism intellectually, politically, and spiritually. Jesuits became the vanguard of Rome’s theological offensive, producing scholars who would reinterpret Scripture in ways that advanced Catholic interests.

In this environment, Alcázar’s approach offered a powerful tool: reinterpret the prophecies not as future threats to ecclesiastical power, but as past events that vindicated the Church’s origins and historical mission. This strategy allowed Catholic theologians to answer Protestant charges with academic sophistication while redirecting the focus of Revelation away from Rome’s abuses and onto the Roman Empire of antiquity.

Matthew 16:28 — A Test Case in
Interpretive Divergence


One key verse that reveals the contrast between Alcázar’s approach and traditional or premillennial views is Matthew 16:28, where Jesus declares:

“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.” (KJV)

Alcázar and modern preterists interpret this verse as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, asserting that this event was the “coming of the Son of Man in judgment.” They argue that Christ came spiritually and symbolically to end the old covenant order.

However, early church fathers, such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus, and many modern premillennialists, interpret this as referring to either:

- The Transfiguration (a foretaste of kingdom glory witnessed by Peter, James, and John),

- Or a reference to the Second Coming, with “some” possibly referring to John living long enough to receive the vision of Christ in Revelation.


Premillennialists reject the idea that A.D. 70 fulfilled Christ’s return, since the actual return is bodily, visible, and cosmic, as described in Acts 1:11 and Revelation 19. They hold that the kingdom’s full manifestation is still future, involving Christ’s reign on earth. In this way, Alcázar’s interpretation significantly redefines the nature and timing of Christ’s return, spiritualizing what the early church and historic premillennialists took literally and future.

Modern Protestant Adoption of Preterism

Ironically, the seeds planted by Alcázar have sprouted in modern conservative Protestant circles, particularly among Reformed theologians seeking to make sense of eschatology in a post Enlightenment age. Frustrated by sensationalist dispensationalism and attracted to covenantal themes, many have turned to preterism— especially partial preterism—as a more scholarly and historically grounded alternative.

They argue that:

- Jesus’ prophecies in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 were fulfilled in A.D. 70.

- The tribulation and judgment referred to the end of the Jewish age, not a future global apocalypse.

- Revelation (or most of it) describes first-century events like Nero’s persecution, the fall of Jerusalem, and the vindication of the Church.


While this system may appeal to the Reformed mind due to its textual nuance and historical grounding, it must be acknowledged that it shares a theological DNA with Counter-Reformation Romanism, designed to protect the very institution the Reformers protested.

A Call for Discernment

Modern Protestants who adopt preterism—especially those who claim to be faithful to the Reformation—must wrestle with this uncomfortable reality. Can one claim to be historically aligned with Luther, Calvin, or Knox while employing an interpretive method crafted to refute them? Should a system invented to defend the Papacy now guide the Church in understanding prophecy?

Furthermore, preterism’s implications can be troubling:
  • It diminishes the relevance of Christ’s return as a future, bodily hope.
  • It often blurs the lines between Israel and the Church, leading to replacement theology.
  • It can lead to theological complacency, as prophecy is viewed as “already fulfilled” and no longer an urgent motivator for mission, warning, or vigilance.
Even partial preterists, who still affirm a future Second Coming, must admit that their system depends heavily on Alcázar’s groundwork, even if stripped of its Catholic polemics.

Conclusion

Preterism did not arise from the fertile soil of Protestant exegesis or early Christian consensus—it was born in the crucible of religious warfare, forged by a Jesuit hand to shield the Roman Church from condemnation. While today’s preterists may approach the system with sincere intentions and theological rigor, they cannot escape the historical origins of the method they use.

To remain faithful to the principles of sola Scriptura and the historic Protestant testimony, the Church must examine not only what a system teaches, but also why it was developed and who first wielded it. In the case of preterism, that path leads not to Geneva, Wittenberg, or the early church—but to Seville, to Jesuit scholars, and to the defenders of Rome.
Oh, let's bring in the "big guns". It's Victoria to the rescue. How about trying to defend dispensationalism without interjecting someone elses opinion? It's evident that dispensationalists cannot defend their position themselves, so they post a supposedly scholarly article that "proves" their position. The article had some truth but it also had error. The origin of partial preterism was not Alcazar and Jesuit scholars. As a matter of fact, John Nelson Darby used some of Alcazar's ideas to create his New dispensational system. Sure, Alcazar wanted to defend the Catholic church. So what, that had nothing to do with partial preterism, which was the majority opinion of the church from its beginning.

The origin of dispensationalism was NOT the early church, it was John Nelson Darby in 1830.

Did you notice how Victoria's article was a convenient smokescreen for Civic to avoid answering my challenge? So let's try again:

Civic, please accept my challenge, even as I answered your attack saying that partial preterism is heresy.

Now it's your turn, please show all of us which partial preterist teaching is heresy - just as I have shown everyone what is heretical in dispensationalism. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then your claim that partial preterism is heresy is false.
 
Last edited:
dwight92070, please understand first & foremost why an Ambassador for Christ believes what they believe.
The word "dispensation" is mentioned four times in the Bible (i.e. 1 Co 9:17; Eph 1:10; 3:2; Col 1:25).
Where is the word "preterism" mentioned? I did a word search, & came up w/ nothing.

Attacking Dispensationalism is attacking God b/c He's the One dispensing the revelation of the mystery to the apostle Paul.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/mid-acts-dispensationalism.799/#post-200583
Victoria, you haven't done your homework. You really should do that rather than depending so much on articles that others have authored. Look up the word "dispensation" in the Strong's Concordance. You won't find it, because it's not there. In EACH of your four verses above, the Greek word is translated "stewardship". That's #3622 oikonomia in the Strongs. Another possible meaning is "administration". The KJV does translate it "dispensation", but that's not the meaning of the Greek word.

Also your argument is weak because many words are not mentioned in the Bible, but the concept is nonetheless true. Like Trinity or omniscience or omnipotentence, etc.

The word "dispensation" originally NEVER MEANT a period of time. But the success of C.I. Scofield's Study Bible, in strongly pushing dispensationalism, was so great that the meaning has actually changed in most people's minds to "a period of time".

So I'm still waiting for Civic's answer to my challenge, unless he wishes to withdraw his claim.
 
Last edited:
Okay, let the record show that Civic is either unable or unwilling to show us how the partial - preterist view is heretical and yet I demonstrated clearly that the dispensational view is heresy.

Civic said: Partial is a heresy

He's willing to make that false statement, but he's not willing to back it up with ANY examples of heresy within partial -preterism.
If you can't back it up, then you shouldn't say it.
 
A heresy has to do with denying essential doctrines. Partial preterism denies no essential doctrines.

1. Dispensationalism teaches that the teaching of Jesus is NOT for the church today, but it's for the Jews during the Millennium. That's heresy.

2. They teach that the Jews will build another temple and will return to offering animal sacrifices and that Jesus, sitting on His throne in Jerusalem, will actually endorse these sacrifices, even though His sacrifice of His body and blood is sufficient for all mankind and for all time. That's heresy.

3. They teach that the Jews and the Church will be separated for all eternity - the Jews will be God's eternal earthly people and the Church will be God's eternal heavenly people. That's heresy, since Jesus tore down the dividing wall between believing Jews and believing Gentiles.

4. They also teach that each of the seven dispensations has a different requirement for salvation. That's heresy. Men have always been saved by grace through faith.

Civic or anyone:
Please show us the heresy that you say is in the partial preterist view. Don't give me an online article with someone else's opinions. Show me the heresy from the Bible itself.
 
@dwight92070 @civic @Victoria @FreeInChrist @Jim @Amos @Angelo @Quintus5 @DavidTree
So I'm still waiting for Civic's answer to my challenge, unless he wishes to withdraw his claim.
Please do not hold your breath, he makes many accusations, yet as of yet posted his first post in his own words what he believes and neither has he as of yet disproved any post that I have made.

I'am waiting for the first premillennialists to prove which comes first, Christ, or the man of sin. According to their teachings Christ comes first.

But they do not even know who is the man of sin/antichrist/abomination of desolation. Anyone?
 
@Amos
I don't have a problem with the pre-tribulation rapture as it is the true understanding. I have seen
an impressive array of literature in support of the pre-Tribulation view of the Rapture as well as the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy
Greeting Amos~Please provide for me ONE scripture that teaches a "secret" rapture theory, just one. I'm a Amill Idealist, and we believe that Jesus' coming is imminent, yet based upon certain biblical signs that would let us know that it is imminent. Those signs are mentioned in the NT~the Olivet discourse; 2nd Thessalonians 2; and the Revelation of Jesus Christ, that the Preterist and partial Preterist rubber Stamp FULFILLED 70 A.D.!

Okay, let the record show that Civic is either unable or unwilling to show us how the partial - preterist view is heretical and yet I demonstrated clearly that the dispensational view is heresy.
@dwight92070 you cannot prove that 70.a.d. even a bible doctrine, I say there's not a word in the scriptures supporting this theory, and theory it is. You and I will agree on some truths, and will disagree strongly on our understanding of the Olivet discourse; 2nd Thess 2; and Revelation.

If a child of God was on an island away from the teachings of man and all he had was the word of God, then he would NEVER come up with the 70 A.D. theory, never, since it is not in the scriptures. Any one who thinks it is, then I say prove it, bring it on.
 
Last edited:
The epistle of 1 Thessalonians was to comfort the death of some of this church’s loved ones. Paul had predicted that believers would be raptured, they wondered about loved ones buried in the ground. Evidently they wrote Paul a letter of inquiry, and his answer appears in the book of 1 Thessalonians, written not only for that church but for the saints of all ages.

So that no one can doubt the main subject of the book, the second coming is mentioned in every chapter. The significance of this book for Bible prophecy can hardly be exaggerated, which makes the promise in verse 10 of chapter 1 so important.

After complimenting the Thessalonians on their faith and testimony, he commended them for “how [they] turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

Pre-tribulation Rapture keeps His church from the seven years of Wrath.
 
Back
Top Bottom