Jesus comes immediately AFTER the tribulation, there is no Left Behind Secret Rapture=Stop causing fear.

[Rondonmon]

You seem to think there is only your argument? There is actually quite a good other argument, which is the approach I take.

My view is based on the idea that Jesus was not referring to all the signs he had listed, but rather, only to those signs connected to the fall of the temple in 70 AD. He was in effect saying "all these things [that I've given you as birth pains of the fall of Jerusalem] will take place in this generation." In other words, he is excluding any signs he gave for his 2nd Coming, because he had gone on record as saying this event was not to be timed.

Words mean what they mean in context. Let me give you one example, if I can.

Your problem is you do not put all of the Bible's context into your thinking. The AoD happens in the END TIMES, not in 70 AD, the bible is very very clear. We see ver and over that 790 AD was NOT the end, Jesus even told his disciples that the 70 AD event would NOT be the END, he said that would be by and by or after on. He shows us the end time AoD in Matt. 24:15-17, we see the same fleeing in Rev. 12, tbh, if you can't see when the end times are via the bible something isn't quite right brother, you have been misled

 

[FreeGrace2]

Just so you know, NO ONE in the posttrib camp has ever proven with scripture that the gathering in Matthew 24 is Paul's rapture. And don't say there is no such thing.

When Scripture uses clear and unambiguous words (no parables, no figures of speech), there is nothing to "prove". The words are the proof. Kinda like "the proof is in the pudding". The words are clear enough.

The gathering in Matt 24 occurs when? At the end of the Tribulation. Bingo.

First Thes. 4:17 is "Paul's rapture" because Paul received a revelation on the rapture and wrote of it. NO ONE in the posttrib came has proven that all the righteous will be resurrected at the same time.

I have and your eyes are closed to the clear and unambigous words.

The problem is that pretribbers have placed ALL emphasis on "the rapture". Well, that is just a very small part of the singular resurrection of ALL believers, as Luke 14:14, Acts 24:15 and 1 Cor 15:23 all indicate.

The real emphasis SHOULD BE on resurrection. Yes, there will be a "gathering/rapture" when the singular resurrection occurs.

But consider the numbers. Those resurrected first are all believers from Adam on, who have previously died and accompany Christ from heaven to earth. That number is significantly more than "those who are alive and remain", per 1 Thess 4.

In fact, the number of the living believers who will be "changed in the twinkling of the eye" per 1 Cor 15:52 will only be a very SMALL FRACTION of the number of the previously dead saints.

So there is NO reason to put any emphasis on a "rapture". The only real deal is the resurrection, which includes a rapture.

And again, in all the so-called rapture verses, better called "resurrection" verses, there is NO MENTION of Jesus taking anyone to heaven.

Many have tried, as you have tried, but when posttrib verses are studied and exegeted IN CONTEST, they really don't say what posttribbers believe they say

If that is so, how come you have never even tried to exegete the verses I've given you that prove there is only ONE resurrection, which includes a rapture, in the 4 verses?

and the first on the "first" or chief or primary resurrection is no exception.

Right. There are no exceptions. All believers will receive their resurrection bodies WHEN HE COMES. 1 Cor 15:23.

Can you refute this?

Have. Over and over. Your eyes are closed.

Just three verses after Paul's classic rapture verse, the alive in Christ being caught up, Paul tells us of the Day of the Lord. It is ambiguous because Paul did not say word for word, "the Day of the Lord" will come just after the rapture." But did Paul HAVE to say it word for word for us to understand?

What is your point here? The Day of the Lord should be obvious; it is a period of time from WHEN He comes at the Second Advent throughout all of His Millennial reign. It may even include the new heaven and earth. Not sure about that.

However, every "period of time" begins with a single day. No exceptions. And the Day of the Lord also begins on a single day; the actual literal day that He descends to earth with the armies of heaven (all the dead saints) and be joined in the air with the remaining living believers.

It is the same for God's wrath: Paul did not say word for word, "the rapture will come JUST before God's wrath begins." Again, did Paul HAVE to write it word for word for us to understand it?

What he wrote in 2 Thess 2:1 is crystal clear. When Christ comes He will gather the living believers.

Why would Paul mention the Day of the Lord and the wrath of God (that we have no appointments with) in a rapture passage - UNLESS the rapture would be the trigger for the start of the Day of the Lord and the start of God's wrath?

You are confused. The start of God's wrath is 7 years before the start of the Day of the Lord.

Prove that the Day of the Lord includes the Trib. I don't believe that. In fact, Acts 3:21 says that Jesus remains in heaven until the restoration of all things. You want to believe that the Trib is a time of "restoration"????

Most translations have "heaven must receive Him until the time of the restoration". But the Greek word for "receive" means "to retain, or contain". So the previous edition of the NIV (1978) which says "Jesus must remain in heaven..." is accurate.

In a previous verse in his same epistle, Paul wrote, "which delivered us from the wrath to come." I say there can be no doubt that Paul is telling us—WRATH—God's wrath—will follow hard after the rapture.

God's wrath falls on all who are disobedient. That will include believers and unbelievers. Arminians, who keep looking for evidence that salvation can be lost will point to the "mark of the beast", where all who take it will end up in the lake of fire.

However, they refuse to accept the reality that God will use His wrath to "winnow" out disobedient believers so they won't have the opportunity to even take the mark.

A prewrath writer put it this way: they are back to back events—no time between. I say it this way: Jesus' coming will trigger (start) the resurrection of the dead in Christ. Then those alive in Christ: the catching up. And the catching up will trigger the start of the DAY. (That is, the Day of the Lord, or the Day of His wrath.)

I do not equate the Day of the Lord with the Day of His wrath. Where do you get that from?

Where can we see this on a timeline of end-time events? In Revelation John starts the Day of the Lord or the Day of His wrath at the 6th seal.

Please prove your claims with actual verses. I have no idea what verse or verses you are thinking of. I provide verses for all my claims.

The way Revelation is written, it is IMPOSSIBLE that the 6th seal can be moved anywhere else in Revelation. It is just before the 7th seal 30 minutes of silence as the official start of the 70th week of Daniel or "the trib" as many say. Therefore, since Paul's catching up comes before wrath and before the Trib, we are justified in saying the rapture is PRE-trib.

Are you not aware that the 70th "week" refers to 7 years?

As further proof, John then saw the church IN HEAVEN shortly after that and wrote it in Rev. chapter 7.

Sure. By the time of the Trib, MOST of the "church" will already be IN heaven. There have been over 2,000 years of the deaths of believers. How many? No one knows, but that number will GREATLY OUTNUMBER those who "are alive and remain".

But according to your false theory, that large crowd too large to count should be in chapter 19.

I wish I knew what you are referring to, but you never explain yourself when you throw out your claims.

I've proven that there is ONE singular resurrection, that will include ALL believers from Adam on. If you want to reject the 4 verses I've repeatedly shared, that's your business. But I HAVE prove it.

It is an absolute FACT, clear and unambiguous, that John wrote of the marriage and supper taking place BEFORE Jesus gets onto His white horse to descend to Armageddon. Can you deny this?

Of course I absolutely DENY your false ideas about Rev 19. The very wording regarding the wedding shows what is about to take place, NOT what occurred 7 years previously.

7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready."

Why the words "has come" and "has made herself ready" IF IF IF it ALREADY occurred 7 years before? John would have simply written "came" and "made herself ready".

But that's not all.

9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

What do you think about "are invited"?? That shows clearly what is about to occur, NOT what has already occurred and 7 years previously.

If the wedding took place in heaven, it wouldn't be JUST BEFORE Jesus comes back with His army. It would have occurred WHEN Jesus took all the resurrected/raptured to heaven, which is 7 years prior.

So you can't argue for the wedding in heaven, because in the whole context of ch 19, it shows the "heavenly army" getting ready (v.7) and THEN coming with Christ to earth.

The timing of the wedding cannot be as you are presenting it.

It makes MUCH BETTER SENSE to see that the heavenly army gets ready for the wedding, then comes with Christ, who ends the Trib and sets up His kingdom. THAT is when the wedding supper occurs.

What this is saying, IN CONTEXT, is that posttrib theory is a MYTH. The church is already in heaven when the marriage and supper take place.

Your theory (myth) has ALL the trib converts totally missing out on a resurrection body then. Nonsense.

Oh, not a problem for posttribbers! They just move the marriage to a different time and a different place!

No, I understand it from the wording in ch 19. Very clear.

What you keep rejecting are the 4 verses that PROVE that there is just ONE singular resurrection with rapture event for believers.

That is on you.

 

[walknlight]

Hi!

"""However, since there is ONLY ONE resurrection, which will occur "when He comes", and Rev 20:5 describes the trib martyrs as the FIRST resurrrection, you have no ground to stand on"""

There can not possibly be one resurrection.
Jesus is firstfruits resurrection.
That automatically makes at least 2 more....or even three.

Why would He tell us about the harvest and types of things being harvested?
All those things spoke of are not harvested in the same season....
Wheat, barley and grapes are harvested at different times, in their season....Not all together
Just plain real life fact.....

God Bless!

 

[FreeGrace2]

I will add more scriptures to help prove your point:

Matthew 22:23
The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

Matthew 22:28
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Matthew 22:31
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
In every case, it seems to tell us that there will be only ONE resurrection. Is that your point?

I PROVED that with the 4 verses I've repeatedly shared with you.

Which is better, to form doctrine from a single verse on a subject, or from a passage that has several verses? Or, let me say it this way: Daniel has ONE VERSE on the 70th week: Daniel 9:27. On the other hand, Revelation has from chapter 8 to chapter 16 or 9 chapters on the 70th week. Which then would be the best place to form doctrine on the 70th week? Of course, the answer is, the most complete treatise on a subject is the best place.

Since Daniel DIDN'T even mention a "rapture" or "resurrection" in 9:27, what in the world is your point?

I have PROVED from 4 verses (count them) that there is a singular resurrection of the saved, which PROVES there cannot be any pretrib resurrection or rapture.

We have what we have in the scriptures: it is up to us to understand them.

And I have shared 4 verses that are very clear and unambiguous about there being just ONE singular resurrection with rapture of saved people.

Where you miss it: You pull verses OUT of their OLD TESTAMENT context, apply them to the Gentile church of today, and imagine you have good, straight doctrine.

Then PROVE your own claim that my 4 verses were "pulled out of their OT context". That is sheer nonsense.

Posttribbers in general IGNORE all these things and imagine the church of today fits right in with all the scriptures pointed to the Jews. NO WONDER we disagree on so many point.

Your disagreement is totally unjustified. The 4 verses are very clear. When Paul penned 1 Cor 15:23, he included ALL believers since Adam on in the phrase "those who belong to Him".

But go ahead and try to refute that. EVERY believer in the Messiah "belongs to Him". To try to argue against that is insanity.

I am convinced beyond all doubt that Jesus Christ will come back at the Second Advent, to end the Tribulation, and give resurrecrtion bodies to ALL believers, from Adam on. And you will be proven wrong at the moment Jesus comes pretrib for His church.

Guess what? If I'm wrong, my smile will be as big, or greater, than your smile, all on the way up.

However, if you are wrong, what is that going to do to your faith, since you are so convinced the Bible teaches what you claim?

Sadly, the very many believers who have been taught a pretrib rapture will have to face the fact that THEY were wrong. Do they just admit they misunderstood the Bible, or will they think the Bible was wrong? I have no idea.

You are almost half right: the resurrection of the Old Covenant people, and those before the flood, PLUS the beheaded, PLUS the Two Witnesses, will all take place on the last day - the last 24 hour day of the 70th week that will wrap up and END Jewish time—FINISH Daniel's 70 weeks.

Good grief! So you are going to reject 1 Cor 15:23 then.

Are you really trying to negate all the verses I've shared about the single saved resurrection? Yes, because your theory is myth.

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Did you not notice? WHO is this pointing to? Paul was clear in his rapture verses that it was involving ONLY those "in Christ."

Paul didn't say "those who are 'in Christ'." He said, literally from the Greek, "those of Christ".

So, let me ask you this: are any believers from the OT "of Christ" or NOT of Christ?

If you say they are "not of Christ" then you will have a huge problem. Then whose are they?

This is speaking of those who are born again, with a regenerated human spirit. Here in this verse is says "they that are Christ's." My friend, this is not speaking of Old Testament saints.

You can deceive yourself as much as you want.

But this is what 3 translations have:

English Standard Version
But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

Berean Study Bible
But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him.

New American Standard Bible
But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming

So, you tell me: what does "those who are Christ's at His coming" actually refer to? It clearly refers to EVERY believer in the Messiah from Adam on.

There can be no doubt, we read these scriptures differently so end up with very different theories.

Please keep your theories to yourself. I have clear Scripture. Unlike yourself.

Did you not know, the Pauline Epistles are pointed to the Gentile church of today. The gospels and what is written in them is in general pointed to the Jews. The New covenant did not begin until after Jesus rose from the dead.

Irrelevant to the present discussion.

The 2 witnesses AREN'T resurrected until Christ returns, just as 1 Cor 15:23 says. The truth is, you did not properly exegete verse 23, ignoring some of the words and keeping track of WHO this verse was pointed to. To form doctrine, go to the passage is is the most thorough treatise of the Two Witnesses: Rev. 11. If you really understood that passage, you would know that these two men (Old Testament saints: without much doubt, the two men that did not die a physical death, suddenly show up and begin their testimony just 3.5 days before the man of sin will enter the temple and thus divide the week into two halves. So only 3 1/2 days of their 1260 days will be in the first half of the week. The rest of their testimony will take them to just 3.5 days before the week ends (at the 7th vial). They are then killed and lay dead those 3.5 days, so what John is really showing us is that they will be resurrected with the REST of the Old Testament saints: at the Resurrection Jesus spoke often of and that Mary and Martha believed. The truth then from scripture is that Jesus' resurrection happened first, then the elders of the Old Testament (Matthew 27), then the church, then the Old Testament saints, and with them, the Two witnesses and the beheaded.

Where you miss it: all this is BEFORE Jesus descends to Armageddon.

How did I miss anything. They finally died physically, and God raises their natural bodies to life and brings them back up to heaven. All before Christ comes back. You keep proving nothing.

If you can find a resurrection written in Rev. 19, I will change my mind.

What are you talking about? There isn't a resurrection in ch 19. The FIRST resurrection is in ch 20. You know, the ONLY resurrrection of saved people. Including the Trib martyrs.

However, you and I both know John did not write of a resurrection. How strange! That would be a HUGE event and if it really will happen as Jesus descends, God certainly would have shown John and John would have written it.

What YOU YOURSELF seem to keep missing is that John wrote the LAST epistle of the NT. By that time, ALL the other epistles had been written. Why would John need to repeat what has already been taught?

You seem fascinated with red herrings. You sure bring up a lot of them.

Instead, Jesus gets on the white Horse and descends: NO resurrection mentioned. Why? Because it happened (for the OT saints) at the 7th vial.

Nope. John didn't mention it because there was no need. Already written about in other epistles.

Sorry, but I just cannot find a posttrib resurrection in scripture.

You should be quite sorry. There is only ONE singular resurrection of the saved in Scripture, as I have already PROVEN from 4 verses, which it seems you just keep rejecting. But they are clear enough.

And Rev 20 describes the resurrection of the Trib martyrs as the FIRST resurrection.

If you can't figure that out, you should be sorry.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Indeed, 1 Cor. 15:23, 1 Thes. 4, and 2 Thes 2 ALL refer to Jesus' second coming, which will be PRETRIB

So then, you think Jesus FINAL Advent will be the 3rd????!!!! Nonsense.

Jesus Second Advent is when He comes back as King of kings and Lord of lords.

and just before the start of Wrath. In contrast, His coming to Armageddon will be His THIRD coming.

Nonsense. But, of course, since you have rejected clear Scripture, you must make up stuff.

OF, since some people get bent out of shape hearing "third" coming, He comes the second time ONLY TO THE AIR, and that is not counted as a coming to earth.

Why did you just count it as the SECOND?

So they call His coming to Armageddon as His second coming to touch down. Either way, He will come to the air and call up those in Christ, before the start of God's wrath. In Revelation that is just before the 6th seal start of the DAY of His wrath.

Please share ALL the verses you've collected over the years that show Jesus taking resurrected and raptured believers to heaven.

 

[lamad]

So then, you think Jesus FINAL Advent will be the 3rd????!!!! Nonsense.

Jesus Second Advent is when He comes back as King of kings and Lord of lords.


Nonsense. But, of course, since you have rejected clear Scripture, you must make up stuff.


Why did you just count it as the SECOND?


Please share ALL the verses you've collected over the years that show Jesus taking resurrected and raptured believers to heaven.

You can of course think and say "nonsense," but you cannot get away from what Paul wrote: clear scripture that his gathering - the one he wrote about - will be JUST before the start of God's wrath and the Day of the Lord.

In Revelation the start of God's wrath is before any part of the 70th week. The great crowd seen in heaven is in chapter 7, NOT in chapter 19 where your theory should place it. You have three strikes against your theory.

By the way, NO WHERE in Matthew 24 or in Revelation 19 is His coming to Armageddon titled or counted as the SECOND coming.

WHY do I count His coming pretrib for Paul's rapture the seconding coming? Simple: He already came once so the NEXT time He comes, it will be His second coming. This word is used once: Hebews 9:28

 

[lamad]

I PROVED that with the 4 verses I've repeatedly shared with you.

I have you doubt you have proven things over and over in your own mind. It is a different thing to prove something to someone else. It has to be a very clear and unambiguous verse word for word what you are saying it means. You don't have such a verse.

You cannot take a verse written to and about the Jews and try and prove to a good student of the bible something about the Gentile church of today with such a verse. However, you may well prove it according to how you read scripture.

 

[lamad]

Lamad said,
"Which is better, to form doctrine from a single verse on a subject, or from a passage that has several verses? Or, let me say it this way: Daniel has ONE VERSE on the 70th week: Daniel 9:27. On the other hand, Revelation has from chapter 8 to chapter 16 or 9 chapters on the 70th week. Which then would be the best place to form doctrine on the 70th week? Of course, the answer is, the most complete treatise on a subject is the best place."

Since Daniel DIDN'T even mention a "rapture" or "resurrection" in 9:27, what in the world is your point?

My point is simple, You want to prove a point by pointing to scriptures that are written for a different group of people, and imagine you have proved your point. I have yet another point from Daniel 9: the 70th week is for DANIEL's people, but you seem intent to force the church into that special time. God's plan is to "completely shatter" the power of the JEWS, not the Gentile church of today! What groom in their right mind would choose to beat up their bride they claim to love. Jesus did not say He would cause His bride to be severely beaten and many killed — rather, He said he would go and make homes for her, and would then take us to where he would be. We both agree He will be in heaven for the 7 years. Therefore, so will the church. (Actually the time-frame in question—when He calls up His bride, would be IN THE AIR above the earth. Is that His meaning - that where he was (in the air) that is where His bride would be? No, IN CONTEXT of the homes He went to prepare, He was talking about where he would be NEXT - and for the 7 years. He is going to be in heaven.

I have PROVED from 4 verses (count them) that there is a singular resurrection of the saved, which PROVES there cannot be any pretrib resurrection or rapture.

"of the saved?" That would be people from the NT church. You quote Paul's verses, 1 Thes. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 that are indeed good verses on the rapture, but Paul said nothing to prove your point.

Case in point: you pointed to 1 Cor. 15:23 "23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. "

His letters are to the Gentile churches he started. And they are to anyone who belong's to Christ: who is IN CHRIST and Christ IN THEM. That means born again people. Therefore it is ERROR to assume this also fits the resurrection of the Jews. That is a different subject that Paul is not addressing here. In short, you went to the right place to form a doctrine on Paul's rapture, but you did not understand that these verses are pointed ONLY to the church - to those who are born again.

I could say it this way to make sure you understand what I am saying: Paul was talking only those people who heard the gospel after Jesus rose from the dead, believed that gospel, mixed faith with it, and were then born again. No saint from the OLD testament could be born again because that required the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord.

Acts 24:15 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

All the Jews believed that there would be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. But they had not revelation knowledge that the just would have their resurrection while the unjust would have theirs. And they (the Jews in general) had no knowledge that God had put blindness in part upon them and turned to the Gentiles to take out a people for His name. Since Paul makes in clear that His rapture/resurrection comes before the start of wrath, and the resurrection you speak of that John called the chief or most honorable of resurrections is long after the start of wrath, it is impossible they are speaking of the same moment in time. What you are missing is that John and the Holy Spirit just chose to put a title on the resurrection that would cover all the righteous, and called it the "Protos" resurrection. In no way can we force that word or any other word in that verse to limit this resurrection to one point in time. Indeed, since Jesus' resurrection was far removed in time, that would be impossible. The resurrection of the church must indeed be the secondfruits, and thirdfruits of the SAME resurrection Jesus was a part of.

I have PROVED from 4 verses (count them) that there is a singular resurrection of the saved, which PROVES there cannot be any pretrib resurrection or rapture.

No, you only thought you proved such a thing.

[/QUOTE]

 

[lamad]

Then PROVE your own claim that my 4 verses were "pulled out of their OT context". That is sheer nonsense.
.

you are trying to use verses pointed directly to the church and attempt to make them fit all the righteous for all time. Where you miss it, is there are different groups in the bible, the righteous of the OLD testament, the righteous of those while Jesus was alive, the righteous of the Jews that were born again and became a part of the early church before God sent Paul to the Gentiles (which church died out), the righteous of the Gentiles, and finally the righteous of the 70th week.

You imagine they will all rise at the same time, but scripture proves you are mistaken.

By the way, I was wrong: some of your verses were indeed from the Pauline Epistles and were therefore pointed to the Gentile church of today. Where you miss it there is trying to force the timeing of Paul's rapture with the timing of the Old Testament saints. Their resurrections will be over 7 years apart. But in spite of your theories, but groups will be a part of the first resurrection, because it is NOT fixed in time as you suppose.

By the way, your theory is wrong in another way: You imagine where John write "first resurrection" is the same time as Jesus on the white horse in Rev. 19. You miss it again! EVENTS happen between these two points in John's narrative. They cannot happen at the same time. For one, the marriage and supper take place before Christ descends to Armageddon.

 

[lamad]

Lamad said;
Posttribbers in general IGNORE all these things and imagine the church of today fits right in with all the scriptures pointed to the Jews. NO WONDER we disagree on so many point.

Your disagreement is totally unjustified. The 4 verses are very clear. When Paul penned 1 Cor 15:23, he included ALL believers since Adam on in the phrase "those who belong to Him".

But go ahead and try to refute that. EVERY believer in the Messiah "belongs to Him". To try to argue against that is insanity.

My my. Did you not read?
1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Sorry, but none of the OT saints ever "called on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. He did not exist then. Paul is writing explicitly to New Testament Gentiles in Corinth first, then to any other born again believer who calls on Jesus. So you are simply mistaken.
In 15:23 his is still very specific: "they that are Christ's at his coming." Paul knew that Christ would make a SPECIAL COMING for the church. It is strange you still don't know that. Note that specifically Christ is coming ONLY for those that are His under the New Covenant. That means all born again people.

At the end of time, of course all believers will belong to Him, for His death and resurrection was for all people for all time. However, that said, Paul was not writing to all saints for all time. He was writing to Gentiles about their resurrection. In fact, He ties Christ's resurrection to the resurrection of the dead in Christ, proving it is the very same resurrection each will take a part in.

Is anything that disagrees with you "insanity?" Sorry, but we do not read scriptures the same, so end up with a different conclusion. I am convinced that the Gentile church of today (made up mostly of Gentile believers) was inserted into Jewish time as if a parenthesis. So God will start and finish with the Gentiles before He focuses back on the Jews.

It is OK if you disagree. When we arrive in heaven, we won't care about these things. However, I think it is dangerous to believe your theory because I cannot in any way understand how you can be looking for Jesus' coming while believing in your heart that you will see the Beast first.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You can of course think and say "nonsense," but you cannot get away from what Paul wrote: clear scripture that his gathering

Are you kidding?? I have been using the very clear words of Paul that PROVE there is ONLY ONE resurrection, which is when Jesus comes back at the Second Advent, of which there is ONLY 2.

- the one he wrote about - will be JUST before the start of God's wrath and the Day of the Lord.

You've been making a lot of claims, but where are the verses that support your claims?

By the way, NO WHERE in Matthew 24 or in Revelation 19 is His coming to Armageddon titled or counted as the SECOND coming.

The "math" is very simple. The Bible does not need to give the count. It's OBVIOUS. Jesus comes FIRST as a baby to become the "Suffering Servant". Then He comes a SECOND time as King of kings and Lord of lords.

The fantasy pretrib visit isn't mentioned in Scripture. Either is any mention of Jesus taking resurrected people back to heaven.

WHY do I count His coming pretrib for Paul's rapture the seconding coming?

There is absolutely NO rational reason for doing so.

Simple: He already came once so the NEXT time He comes, it will be His second coming. This word is used once: Hebews 9:28

That SECOND coming is as King of kings and Lord of lords.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
I PROVED that with the 4 verses I've repeatedly shared with you.

I have you doubt you have proven things over and over in your own mind. It is a different thing to prove something to someone else.

In fact, it's totally IMPOSSIBLE to prove something to someone whose eyes and ears are closed to the facts.

It has to be a very clear and unambiguous verse word for word what you are saying it means. You don't have such a verse.

Anyone who has a grip on the English KNOWS the 3 verses are clear and unambiguous. Who are you trying to kid? You are simple in DENIAL. You have an agenda and you don't want the facts.

Another evidence that they DO prove what I believe is that you haven't even tried to exegete them to show what they supposedly really say. Because you know you can't do that. They are too clear and unambiguous.

You cannot take a verse written to and about the Jews and try and prove to a good student of the bible something about the Gentile church of today with such a verse. However, you may well prove it according to how you read scripture.

This is just a very pitiful excuse.

Go exegete the 4 verses to prove your claim that they don't teach a singular resurrection of the saved.

 

[ewq1938]

By the very definition of "resurrection" we could say that Jesus resurrected Lazarus.

Wait a minute. You don't get to refer to definitions because you outright refuse to accept the definition of Apostasia.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My point is simple, You want to prove a point by pointing to scriptures that are written for a different group of people, and imagine you have proved your point

Apparently you don't understand who the Bible is for. Only 2 groups; saved people and unsaved people. There is ONE resurrection for the saved, and one for the unsaved.

You are just kidding yourself.

"of the saved?" That would be people from the NT church.

OK, another weird view. Aren't there any saved people from the OT? Where do you get your material?

You quote Paul's verses, 1 Thes. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 that are indeed good verses on the rapture, but Paul said nothing to prove your point.

He clearly indicated WHEN the resurrection would occur. "When He comes". That's AFTER the Trib.

Case in point: you pointed to 1 Cor. 15:23 "23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. "

His letters are to the Gentile churches he started. And they are to anyone who belong's to Christ: who is IN CHRIST and Christ IN THEM.

The words "that are Christ's" doesn't say IN Christ. You're just making up more stuff.

Why don't you think that those from the OT who DID believe in the Messiah (Christ) aren't His?

[QOUTE]That means born again people. [/QUOTE]
No, it means saved people.

Therefore it is ERROR to assume this also fits the resurrection of the Jews.

where in the world to you get this silliness about a separate resurrection of the Jews and Gentiles?

That is a different subject that Paul is not addressing here. In short, you went to the right place to form a doctrine on Paul's rapture, but you did not understand that these verses are pointed ONLY to the church - to those who are born again.

Only in your own mind.

I could say it this way to make sure you understand what I am saying: Paul was talking only those people who heard the gospel after Jesus rose from the dead, believed that gospel, mixed faith with it, and were then born again. No saint from the OLD testament could be born again because that required the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord.

I don't care how you phrase your weird ideas, but again, there are only 2 groups of people in the world; saved and unsaved.

There are saved Jews and unsaved Jews and saved Gentiles and unsaved Gentiles. And you KNOW I'm right.

Acts 24:15 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

This verse identifies ONLY 2 resurrections; one for the saved and one for the unsaved.

All the Jews believed that there would be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. But they had not revelation knowledge that the just would have their resurrection while the unjust would have theirs.

So what? Irrelevant. We KNOW it. But you seem to reject that fact.

No, you only thought you proved such a thing.

That is just sad. Very sad. The verse speak for themselves. But you just keep trying to force your unbiblical ideas into the texts.

 

[FreeGrace2]

you are trying to use verses pointed directly to the church and attempt to make them fit all the righteous for all time.

I'm really getting tired of this silliness.

There are only 2 groups of people in humanity: the saved and the unsaved. The saved with be with God for eternity, and the unsaved will spend eternity in the SECOND death, the lake of fire.

Your splitting by ethnicity is ridiculous. I'm tire of it.

You imagine they will all rise at the same time, but scripture proves you are mistaken.

When are you ever going to at least quote a direct verse that supports your baseless claims. Oh, right. They are baseless. There are NO such verses.

By the way, I was wrong: some of your verses were indeed from the Pauline Epistles and were therefore pointed to the Gentile church of today. Where you miss it there is trying to force the timeing of Paul's rapture with the timing of the Old Testament saints. Their resurrections will be over 7 years apart. But in spite of your theories, but groups will be a part of the first resurrection, because it is NOT fixed in time as you suppose.

Only saved and unsaved people.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My my. Did you not read?
1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Yep, sure did. Paul wrote to SAVED people, both Jew and Gentile. Again, you have NO point.

Sorry, but none of the OT saints ever "called on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. He did not exist then.

How ignorant of Scripture is that statement!! The Greek Christos (Christ) is Messiah in Hebrew. There is NO difference. Of course our Lord "existed then".

Paul is writing explicitly to New Testament Gentiles in Corinth first, then to any other born again believer who calls on Jesus. So you are simply mistaken.

You couldn't be more goofed up.

In 15:23 his is still very specific: "they that are Christ's at his coming." Paul knew that Christ would make a SPECIAL COMING for the church. It is strange you still don't know that. Note that specifically Christ is coming ONLY for those that are His under the New Covenant. That means all born again people.

It means saved people, from Adam on. You are just twisting the Scripture to fit your presumptions.

At the end of time, of course all believers will belong to Him, for His death and resurrection was for all people for all time.

That's my point. Those who believed in the coming Messiah just as much belong to Christ as any NT believer.

Since He died for everyone, ALL who believe in the Messiah (Christ) are His. But you demonstrate ignorance on that.

 

[ewq1938]

OF, since some people get bent out of shape hearing "third" coming,

It is unscriptural but all of pre-trib is so nothing surprising there.

He comes the second time ONLY TO THE AIR, and that is not counted as a coming to earth.

Where is he? Mars? No, he is at the Earth when in the sky of the Earth.

So they call His coming to Armageddon as His second coming to touch down.

He is still in the air at Armageddon. The second coming or arrival is completed and fulfilled when he is in the clouds. The events after the second coming would be Armageddon etc.

Either way, He will come to the air and call up those in Christ, before the start of God's wrath.

No, he will come to the clouds and rapture people, then he descends with them. They are the army with him at Armageddon.

You admit the 6th seal shows the wrath. That wrath comes after the Great Tribulation is over. Jesus doesn't come in wrath at the start of the Great Tribulation does he? See how discombobulated your doctrine is? It gets almost everything completely wrong yet you claim it is right over and over while ignoring the massive errors it contains.

 

[Absolutely]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. There is not one word in their description that would hint they are martyrs. Neither is their one word in their description that tells us they have resurrection bodies. However, when we take their passage IN CONTEXT, they were seen in heaven shortly after Paul's rapture will take place, which is just before the start of wrath. Next, they are a group too large to number. Nowhere does John tell us the martyrs will be such a large group. Certainly those NOT martyred will be larger than those who are martyred. Therefore, considering all these points, I am convinced this is the church, in heaven, just after the rapture. I believe God is calling life on earth as a sinner, added together that many times (uncountable times) adds up to great tribulation. This is not the days of GT Jesus spoke of, it is all the lives of these uncountable crowd before they were born again. But each one of them JOINED the body of Christ by washing their robes in Jesus' blood: by being born again. Then left a world of tribulation and eternal death to enter eternal life, infinitely better!

The church is raptured before the innumerable number.

Also it says " they washed their robes"
So it is not the 5 wise virgins.( the general rapture/resurrection)

The innumerable number have dirty robes. It is not the rapture.

They are those left behind and are martyred.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The church is raptured before the innumerable number.

Please prove this claim. From clear Scripture.

 

[lamad]

Please prove this claim. From clear Scripture.

Please prove it is wrong by clear scripture. How did they get to heaven? There is not a hint that it was by dying first.

Since we all agree there WILL BE a rapture - and since we find a group too large to number in heaven right after the timing Paul declares for His rapture (Just before wrath)that SOUNDS just like the raptured church, then it makes good sense to BE the raptured church. You have heard the old saying, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like it duck, IT IS A DUCK!