What is the resurrection of bodies for?

[Hevosmies]

Time to learn another lesson because the saints killed in the trib are part of church and loyal to Christ which is why they were killed.

Have you followed this conversation?

Could you tell me if you believe in a literal physical resurrection or not? I am having doubts based on your post here: https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...tion-of-bodies-for.179857/page-6#post-3739357

If you dont, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[SpoonJuly]

Does the word of God not say the following:

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

People seem to forget that the Holy Spirit reveals the deeper things of God. Regarding this, I have told you that Rev.4:1-2 is a prophetic allusion to the gathering of the church and that in further support of this, the church is never mentioned again during the narrative of God's wrath.

.

The Holy Spirit did not reveal to you that Rev. 4:1-2 is a prophetic allusion to the gathering of the church.
That is nothing more than your opinion and private interpretation to support your belief.

 

[ewq1938]

Have you followed this conversation?

Could you tell me if you believe in a literal physical resurrection or not? I am having doubts based on your post here: https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...tion-of-bodies-for.179857/page-6#post-3739357

If you dont, there is nothing to discuss.

There is a literal resurrection but scripture never says the dead bodies of saints are raised...the bible says they have new bodies that are kept in heaven so no going back to their old bodies. Only the damned go back to their old bodies.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Thanks for putting in the effort to write all this. You spent a lot of time on it. I do not agree with your position, but I appreciate your study time.

(part I)
Thank you for saying so. I have studied end-time events for over 40 years, which is why I am adamant about what I know and that because I have gone over everything with a fine tooth comb and have dealt with all of the apologetics.

I know there are variants of pre-trib, but I was taught that there would be a peace treaty-- peace peace when there is no peace-- and that there would be some kind of peace for a while with a middle east peace treat early in the 7 years, and the unpleasant stuff heats up more and more toward the end

According to Daniel 9:27, the antichrist will establish a seven year treaty or covenant with many. We know that Israel is at least aparto of that many, because of the reference to the sacrifices and offerings being stopped by the beast and the abomination being set up on the holy place within the temple. The covenant will obviously allow Israel to build her temple so that she can begin to worship once again with sacrifices. In the middle the beast/antichrist puts an end to them and sets up that abomination, which is what causes the woman/Israel to flee out into the desert to that place prepared for her by God. It is during this time that the great tribulation saints, who will are Gentiles, will be persecuted.

Look at the verse up there in II Thessalonians 1:8. In this verse, Jesus is actually returning to be glorified in his saints. Pre-tribe has Jesus come half way down, get the saints, and go up again. So that's different. Pre-trib-- the version I was taught, gives the people on the earth some kind of mixed peace of some sort or the other.

Regarding your reference to Jesus "coming half way down to get the church and go back up again, consider the following scripture:

"In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and welcome you into My presence, so that you also may be where I am."

In the scripture above, Jesus went to prepare places for every believer in the Father's house (heaven) and that He would come back to get us and take us back to those places that He prepared for us. Compare that with I Thes.4:13-17 and they demonstrate that the entire church, dead and living, will be gathered together in the clouds where we will meet Jesus who will then take us back to the Father's house in fulfillment of His promise. He's coming back to get us to remove us and take us back to the Father's house.

If we use the same reasoning that you did, then the dead in Christ would be resurrected up into the clouds and the living would then be changed and caught up with them, only for the entire group to come right back down to the earth. Which sounds more plausible, the Lord descending from heaven to meet believers in the air and take them back to the Father's house, which is according to His promise, or the Lord descending and the dead and living being gathered in the air, only to make a U-Turn and come right back down to the earth. The latter does not support Rev.19:6-8 & 14 which reveals the church already being in heaven and then following the Lord out of heaven. Only one scenario can be true. We can't be following the Lord out of heaven riding on white horses and also be on the earth and caught up when He returns to end the age.

There is no way to get two comings of Jesus out of II Thessalonians. That sort of thing has to be 'read into' the passage, just as it does with Revelation.

It is not representing two comings. I Thess.4:13-17, 2 Thes.2:1 along with I Cor.15:51-53 are speaking about the gathering of the church and not the Lord's return to the earth to end the age. Where Matt.24:29-31, Rev.1:7 & 19:11-21 are referring to the second coming when Jesus returns to the earth to end the age.

Let me remind you that, after the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments have been fulfilled, by my guestimation, there will be only about 10% or so of the earths population left. That is why I said that you ought to do a hard study on the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments. This is exactly why Jesus said that if those days had not be shortened, that no one would be left alive, which demonstrates how terrible the time of God's wrath is going to be.

By the time that Jesus returns, the majority of the population will have been decimated

The cities of the nations will have collapsed from the greatest earthquake to every hit the earth

The oceans and fresh water will be turned into literal blood

The bodies of the dead will be everywhere on the entire planet

The air will be completely polluted

People will have been scorched by the sun and seared with intense heat

The inhabitants will have been tormented by demonic beings released from the Abyss

One third of the inhabitants will have been killed by demonic beings via fire, smoke and sulfur

Many people will have died because of a third of the fresh water being contaiminated

And that's just a summary.

As far as I can tell in my readings, and especially of Revelation, John never refers to all the saints throughout the whole world as 'the church.' Paul does-- or eventually starts to call the 'church' that in his writings. In early writings, it refers to literal assemblies or the saints who regularly assemble. So in John's writing, a church is a church in an assembly. Revelation does not call all those seven churches 'the church.' An individual congregation is called 'church' in Revelation. All believers everywhere are called 'saints.'

The word "church" and "saints" are both used interchangeably throughout the new testament. However, when it comes to Revelation there is a distinction being made. In chapters 1 thru 3 only the word "ekklesia" translated as "church" is used. Within those same chapters, we do not find the word "hagios" translated as "saints." Likewise, from chapter 4 onward, only the word hagios/saints is used and the word ekklesia/church is never used again. If the word "church" and "saints" were used interchangeably throughout the entire book of Revelation it would not be an issue, because both would be used to refer to the same group, but they are not, but are separated in use.

But II Thessalonians 1 does tell us that the 'church' will be here when Jesus gets back, which disproves this pre-trib argument.

Where does II Thessalonians tell us that the church will be here when Jesus gets back?

Also the 'first resurrection' occurs AFTER the second coming passage in Revelation at the end of the book. In I Thess. 5 the resurrection of the dead in Christ occurs immediately BEFORE the rapture. So the timing of pre-trib is all off.

The reference to the "first resurrection" is not referring to the church, but is referring to the resurrection of the great tribulation saints who will have died because of their testimony for Jesus and the word of God and because they will have not worshiped the beast, his image nor received his mark. The term "first resurrection" has confused many expositors into thinking that "first resurrection" means "only resurrection." The first resurrection has phases to it and could better be understood as, those who take part in any of the phases of the resurrection which takes place prior to the resurrection of the unrighteous dead at the end of the thousand years, where the second death has power over them. Those taking part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power over them. Below is a list of the phases of the first resurrection:

* Christ the first fruits (I Cor.15:20)

* The church, dead and living (I Thess.4:13-17, I Cor.15:51-53)

* The Male Child which is a collective name for the 144,0000 who are caught up (Rev.12:5)

* The two witnesses (Rev.11:11)

* The great tribulation saints (Rev.20:4-6)

The above all belong to the first resurrection, where the resurrection below which takes place at the end of the thousand years, is the resurrection of the unrighteous dead from the beginning of history.

* The unrighteous dead are resurrected (Rev.20:13)

I Corinthians 15 tells us that dead who are Christ's will be made alive 'at His coming', not seven years before His coming.

As I said in the earlier post, by not differentiating between the gathering of the church vs. the second coming, then one's conclusion regarding end-time events will always be in error.

The gathering of the church = The Lord's descent from heaven with the dead being raised and the living being changed and caught up

Second Coming = Christ's physical and visual return to the earth to end the age and establish His millennial kingdom

Both of these events have two different purposes. Once one understands that these are two separate events, then it will lead them to a right conclusion.

(Continued on part 2)

 

[Ahwatukee]

There is no Biblical justification for making 'the parousia' into two events. So why go to the trouble of trying to explain Revelation or Thessalonians in a way to fit to pre-trib? There is no reason to want to do so? The only real reason is if someone has already been taught pre-trib, believes it, and wants it to be in the Bible. Who wants to go through a time of persecution and suffering?

Continued from part 1

I see that instead of looking at the contexts, you are hung up on the word "Parousia." It's like pigeonholing the phrase "birth pains" to prove a point. Pay attention to the context of what is being said in every scripture regarding these two events.

The tribulation is not God's wrath. Wrath means anger or indignation, not a difficult time.

The tribulation, is God's tribulation, not man's or Satan's. The word "tribulation" is just another word for the time of His wrath, just as the "hour of trial" and the "day of the Lord." They are all referring to the same time period.

The gathering of the elect occurs at or just after the coming of the Son of Man 'after the tribulation of those days in Matthew 24. I Thessalonians 2:1, using almost the same word for 'gathering' as Matthew 24, except that it's a noun not a verb speakings of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering unto Him.

We are just going around and around on this issue. Your error is not recognizing that when Jesus appears to gather the church, He is not coming to the earth, but only calling us up and meeting us in the air in order to take us back to the Father's house. The second coming is where Jesus returns to the earth to end the age and establish His millennial kingdom and we return with him, as I have pointed out to you in Rev.17:14, 19:6-8, 14. The church is that army and also the called, chosen and faithful followers who are with the Lord as He descends. Forgive me, but I just don't think that you have enough study in every facet of this topic which is why you fail to understand.

Where is a pre-trib rapture in all this? Again, if you make the apostasy into the rapture, you can try to make an argument for it.

The apostasia/apostasy, is not something that is going to happen all at one time. In fact the apostasy has already been taking place, which is obvious from the many false teachings in the world on every Biblical topic. The apostasy has been well under way and will continue leading up to the gathering of the church.

And I Thes. 4:15 and II Thes. 2:2 show us two things that happen at Jesus' coming: 1. the resurrection/rapture event. 2. the destruction of the man of sin.

Not in close succession to each other! The resurrection will take place, then that man of lawlessness will be revealed and will establish that seven year covenant, during at which time God's wrath will be in operation. He will set up the abomination in the middle of the seven and then will be thrown into the lake of fire at the second coming.

What is the justification for making this into two events? Why try to spin all these verses into pre-trib when there is no real reason to believe it in the first place, and one second coming makes a lot more sense?

I've explained all of this to you. The wrath of God must take place prior to the Lord's return to the earth to end the age. Believers within the church are not appointed to suffer God's wrath (any wrath) and therefore must be removed prior to the beginning of God's wrath, which begins at the opening of the fist seal. That is the answer. You have the wrath of God standing in between right now and when the Lord returns, ergo, believers must be remove prior to said wrath. I have also given you the principle of this in that, Jesus already suffered God's wrath on our behalf and we therefore will not be exposed to His coming wrath or any wrath.

You really need to read Revelation, because you are not even aware of God's unprecedented wrath that is coming upon the earth, which Revelation gives a detailed account of, yet you don't acknowledge it. It demonstrates that you do not have all of the information in order to effectively debate this subject.

{quote]
Those who claim that the church is gathered when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age have an enormous problem! Said problem being that, Revelation 19:11-21 is a detailed account of the Lord's return to the earth to end the age. In verse 6-8 the bride/church is revealed to be in heaven receiving her fine linen, white and clean at the wedding of the Lamb. [/quote]

Woah, woah, wait just one minute. Let us actually look at the passage.

Revelation 19
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
(NKJV)

So, look, there is no seen of the saints here getting their linen in heaven.[/quote]

Excuse me! This is just another weak apologetic that I mentioned to you earlier in an attempt to circumvent this scripture. You can take your blind fold off now! What do you think verses 7 & 8 are saying? Now pay attention! Let's look at the scripture:

"Hallelujah!

For our Lord God Almighty reigns.

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.

Fine linen, bright and clean,

was given her to wear.”

For the wedding of the Lamb has come and is taking place in heaven. Why is that so difficult for you to understand. Then, we have the following in verse 14:

"The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean."

Notice that the armies who are following the Lord out of heaven, are wearing the same fine linen that the bride was given at the wedding of the Lamb mentioned in verse 8. In addition to that, we have 17:14 stating that the "called, chosen and faithful followers" will be with Christ when he returns and fights against the beast, the kings and their armies:

"They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”

You would do well to stop contending for the false teachings and consider the truth.

The Lord is not going to put His bride through His wrath and gather her afterwards! And that is the bottom line and what you and others are believing. If that was the case, we certainly could not comfort each other with those words, nor would that event be a blessed hope. Unless you think going through the worst time in the history of the world as being blessed?

We know from Paul's writings that at the parousia, the church is caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

And where does the Lord take the church after she gathered to meet Him in the air?

So, obviously you believe that the Lord will descend and the church will be caught up and then immediately come back down to the earth. And you thought my scenario was strange? My view has the Lord descending to the atmosphere and calling up the church in order to fulfill His promise of getting us and taking us back to the father's house. Where your view has the dead and living rising and doing a U-Turn coming right back down to the earth. Think about that one. With that scenario, what time would the bride/church have to receive her fine linen at the wedding of the Lamb in heaven and her white horses in order to follow the Lord out of heaven? And since it shows that the bride/church is following the Lord out of heaven to the earth, then she must necessarily already be in heaven in order to follow the Lord.

You have no idea of what is coming upon this earth via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments. If you did, you would not believe as you do. It also tells me that you have no concept of the Jewish wedding process where the bridegroom pays a dowry, then goes to his father's house to prepare a place for the bride. During this time the bride must be ready for when the bridegroom appears. Then their is the announcement that the bridegroom has come and he takes his bride back to his father's house to the place that he prepared for her. Jesus is the bridegroom and the dowry He paid was His blood. According to John 14:1-3, He went back to the Father's house to prepare a place for His bride and is coming back to get us, so that where His is we may be also.

The bride does not first suffer the wrath of the Father and then is gathered after His wrath.

 

[presidente]

Let's suppose a missionary is over in the middle east. He preaches about Jesus, and some ISIS fanatics are full of wrath, and chop his head off....in wrath. Does that mean the man was 'appointed unto wrath'? Maybe he was appointed to man's wrath or Satan's wrath, but not the kind of wrath described in the verse I just quoted.

The wrath that we are speaking about is God's coming, unprecedented wrath. It is a specific time that will take place leading up to the Lord's return. Your example doesn't fit. If a missionary had his head cut of, it would not be because of God's wrath, but because of his faith in Christ. Big difference. [/quote]

I think we would agree that this hypothetical missionary, or the tribulational saints could experience the wrath of man or the wrath of Satan without experiencing the type of 'appointed unto wrath' wrath that Paul wrote about.

Let's consider a verse I quoted and your comment:

Ephesians 2
3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

(NKJV)
The above is an inaccurate comparison, because the scripture above is speaking about the general wrath that used to rest upon us before we were believers which leads to the ultimate wrath of being separated from God, opposed to the time period of God's wrath where the majority of the earths population will be decimated and all human government dismantled, which is quickly approaching. But first, the church has to be gathered.

Hold on a second here. Remember where the 'not appointed unto wrath' idea comes from. it comes from this verse in I Thes. 5.

I Thessalonians 5
9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, "

Why wouldn't that be a verse about 'the general wrath that used to rest upon us before we were believers"? Look at the contrast. Appointed unto wrath, versus obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let's apply that to the tribulational saints in the book of Revelation. Why would they be 'appointed unto wrath'? Is God angry at them? Are they appointed unto wrath, or are they going to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ? If they are appointed unto wrath and are not going to obtain salvation, then why would they rule with Christ at the end of the book of Revelation? This not appointed unto wrath verse is about salvation.

Realize how heavy this whole 'not appointed unto wrath' thing is in the pre-trib teaching. It's the excuse for coming up with a second Second Coming and many other things.

And it also leaves this big problem. Why would the tribulational saints who are overcomers, who reign with Christ be 'appointed unto wrath'? That doesn't make any sense at all.

When you read this, do you get the impression that the prophets are under God's wrath?
Revelation 11:18
The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small— and for destroying those who destroy the earth.
(NIV)

If the church is going to be raptured before all this, why doesn't the book come out and say so? Why doesn't the Bible come out and say so? Why would believing in pre-trib rest on our believing that people who say that 'Come up hither' contains a secret coded message of the rapture are getting prophetic revelation?

What is soon coming upon this earth, will be the deliberate wrath of God on a Christ rejecting world. As Jesus said, "if those days were allowed to go on any longer than the prescribed time, no one would be left alive.

But for the elect's sake, they will be shortened. Uh-oh, the elect are here during that time.

And unbelievers still are children of wrath. And there is also a time of unprecedented wrath that will be coming directly from God in the form of the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, which is what the majority of Revelation is all about, God's wrath.

Paul writes that God's wrath comes upon the children of disobedience. It does not come upon the saints. So you really have no argument here for pre-trib.

And if they still don't repent and receive Christ, not only will they suffer the wrath upon the earth, but the wrath after death as well.

And you think that God well be angry at the saints that do believe in Jesus and are holy, who overcome the Devil, and later rain with Christ? What do you think God will be angry at them about? If they are 'appointed unto wrath' then that would mean God is angry at them right?

If by saying "the saints of the tribulation" you mean the great tribulation saints, God is not mad at them, but because they will not have believed prior to the church being gathered, they will be caught in that time period and will be exposed to God's wrath.

Do you believe God has wrath toward them or not? Is He angry at them or not? If He's not angry at them, they do not need to be worried about His being angry at them?

Wrath is anger.

That is why Jesus tells us in His word to "always be on the watch" because we don't know at what time the Lord will appear.

Paul writes something similar about the 'day of the Lord' in I Thessalonians 5.
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Don't pre-tribbers think we will be gone on that day? But Paul indicates taht believers will be around, but the day will not overtake them as a theif.

Regarding this, He gave His disciples and especially believers who would be living right before the churches gathering, the following warning:

"Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap. For it will come on all those who live on the face of the whole earth. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

See, that's all the more reason not to try to argue 'not appointed unto wrath' as a reason for pre-trib rapture. Saints will be able to escape what is about the happen. God was able to prevent the plagues from hurting the Israelites in Egypte, too.

That's only according to you. I come to my conclusions by cross-referencing and comparing scripture, not reading into them.

If you read all these things and you do not have the pre-trib grid to interpret them to, you aren't going to come up with pre-trib conclusions.

Does it really make sense to read multiple verses about what happens at the parousia, and to conclude that there is more than one parousia/coming of Christ? Why would Paul write about it as if it were one event if that were the case? Why doesn't he, or John, or anyone, say that Jesus will come back twice? Why is it that John being told 'Come up hither' is the 'evidence' for the pre-trib rapture in Revelation? Doesn't such an important event and doctrine deserve a really clear mention in scripture if it is true?

If it's not true, that explains why the Bible doesn't mention it.

I don't see how you can even comment on end-time events, because you're not even aware of God's coming wrath. Like so many people, you adopt a believe and then you defend it tooth and nail, instead of considering all of the related scriptures.

I am aware that 'wrath' is mentioned in several passages in Revelation. Prophets are mentioned in one of the verses, and I do not believe God's wrath is against His prophets. It is aimed at the children of disobedience, not the children of light. The burden of proof is on you to prove that God has to remove people from the earth in order to not be angry at them.

What I see is you have this preconcieved pre-trib rapture theory that forces you to postulate two second comings and interpret passages that do not teach pre-trib around the theory.

And before say that "you do" I would refer you back to the fact that you ignore the fact that scriptures states that we cannot go through the wrath of God, but instead you provide apologetics by getting rid of or reinterpreting/distorting God's wrath. When you read that we are not appointed to suffer God's wrath, that Jesus rescues us from the coming wrath and that Jesus said that he would keep us out of that time of wrath, it means any wrath, whether the specific wrath that is coming upon the earth or the wrath after dying and suffering in Hades, as well as in the lake of fire. We are not appointed to suffer any wrath and that ag
ain because Jesus already experienced it on our behalf.

That would mean that missionaries cannot get their heads chopped off by angry unbelievers, if 'any wrath' is what it is talking about. Saints in the tribulation may experience Satan's wrath, but God is not angry at them. That idea is inconsistent with the book. The 'not appointed unto wrath' comment in the verse that mentions it is related to obtaining salvation through Jesus Christ. God demonstrated His ability to pour plagues on a rebellious nation opposed to Him without getting them on His own people in Exodus.

 

[presidente]

Does the word of God not say the following:

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

People seem to forget that the Holy Spirit reveals the deeper things of God. Regarding this, I have told you that Rev.4:1-2 is a prophetic allusion to the gathering of the church and that in further support of this, the church is never mentioned again during the narrative of God's wrath.

I've have also told you that scripture makes it clear that believers cannot go through the wrath of God because Jesus already experienced it on every believers behalf and you did not believe that.

I certainly believe the Holy Spirit can open truths of scripture. He can give prophetic revelations, words of knowledge, etc. I've witnessed plenty of these wonderful things and I've received words of knowledge myself. I don't have a problem with that idea.

But it is problematic if we start talking about Biblical doctrine and someone claims to have prophetic insight into what a verse does NOT say, and claims some kind of revelation that overturns a rather straightforward teaching that runs throughout many other scriptures.

John being told 'Come up hither' does not say that the church is being raptured. This reminds me of the preacher who read the verse about Cain being born and said that he got the idea the serpent seed doctrine that Eve conceived Cain with the serpent through 'divine revelation.' He may be using the Bible in a way, but the Bible doesn't teach what he says. Really, its like claiming a prophecy.

So I am asking you, are you actually prophesying this, that John being told 'Come up hither' means the church is going to be raptureed pre-trib. Are you willing to say 'Thus saith the Lord'-- and that if you are wrong, you will stand before God for prophesying in His name and bearing false witness of God, and that if this is not true, that the Lord did not send you?

 

[presidente]

One other thing about the word "apostasia"... this Greek word does not require the definite article ("the") and you can see that it is not present in the Acts 21:21 usage. So the usage of the definite article with it, here, in 2Th2:3, in and of itself gives us further clues: it is a SPECIFIC "departure," and one the Thessalonians were already acquainted with [Paul refers to our Rapture SEVERAL TIMES and in VARIOUS WAYS in his previous 1Th epistle (not to mention VERSE 1!)], something already mentioned in the present context, and that is completely DISTINCT from "the man of sin be revealed" (since ONE THING, and ONE THING ONLY, is stated to occur "FIRST")… more on that later, as I am outta gas and need some zzzzz's

I don't think the definite article helps. The Greek word for 'God' also shows up sometimes with the definite article, sometimes without. But if 'the departure' makes it a specific thing they would know about, that doesn't help the pre-trib cause. We know from other scripture that there was a specific teaching of Paul's about men departing from the faith in the last days.

If I recall correction, the references to 'departing' referring to departing from one place and going to another are uses of the verb. The noun shows up in reference to Jews thinking Paul had departed or defection from Jewish teaching. It also gets translated as 'the rebellion.'

The problem with pre-trib is there is no other scripture that actually teaches it. Revelation doesn't show a rapture of the church taking place near the beginning of the book. John is told, 'Come up hither' and some pre-tribbers try to read an allegorical interpretation that this refers to the church into that verse, but that is uber weak.

Then you look at Matthew 24. Verse 21 identifies the time as the great tribulation. Look at this verse, set in the tribulation.

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

Jesus is talking to His own disciples here, telling them, during the tribulation, not to believe it if someone says 'Here is Christ.' If no man knew the day or hour, but the Father only, then it may make some sense that Jesus' direction to the disciples applies to their heirs who will be alive when these things occur.

But it does not make much sense that Jesus is telling the already raptured Christians about the problems they will face during the tribulation. Pre-trib breaks down here.

Then there are these verses about Jesus' coming after the tribulation.

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:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

If you just believe in one more coming of Jesus that does not take 7 years or so, then this is pretty straightforward. It happens after the great tribulation. The Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. The I Thes. 4 rapture passage mentions meeting the Lord in the clouds. I Thes. 4 mentions the sound of a trumpet and the voice of an archangel. Here, we have angels and the sound of a trumpet.

The elect are gathered together, which fits well with the idea of the rapture. I think we'd agree that the gathering to our Lord Jesus Christ in II Thes. 2:1 is about the rapture. It uses the noun form closely related to the word translated 'gather' in verse 30 of Matthew 24, above. With a post-trib view, this fits right in.

Pre-tribbers have to have Jesus having more than one parousia, or a really long parousia. This passage in Matthew 24 has to be interpreted to refer to something other than the rapture.

I see you post a lot of posts on how to make passages fit with pre-trib rapture? There are verses that speak of the parousia as if it is one thing, none that mention multiple parousia. Where does the Bible actually teach pre-trib to make people want to make the other passages fit into the pre-trib mold?

I was raised being taught pre-trib, but I just couldn't find the scripture that actually teaches it. It was always a case of preachers trying to interpret passages around the pre-trib theories that they already believe.

 

[ewq1938]

It only takes two verses to prove that pre-trib is a false doctrine.


1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: (the second coming) and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (the resurrection of the dead in Christ)
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (the rapture)

Since the resurrection only happens at the second coming and that we have the rapture happening AFTER the resurrection and second coming means these two verses decisively prove the pre-trib rapture to be false.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ presidente, "salvation" in the Thessalonians epistles is an eschatological salvation ("the One delivering us out-from the wrath coming" and that is IN RELATION TO "the Day of the Lord [time period]," which "the Church which is His body" will not be present on the earth for/during, as that time period unfolds upon the earth over the course of some time [this context referring to the 7-yrs aspect of its entirety], STARTING with the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" of MANY MORE "birth PANGS [PLURAL; Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8, and the contexts thereafter]" which follow on from that INITIAL one...)

 

[presidente]

^ presidente, "salvation" in the Thessalonians epistles is an eschatological salvation ("the One delivering us out-from the wrath coming" and that is IN RELATION TO "the Day of the Lord [time period]")

Eteral life includes 'eschatological salvation.'

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Eteral life includes 'eschatological salvation.'

… but you seem to be completely disregarding the CHRONOLOGY supplied in Scripture (which I have provided several times in several posts).



The following ALL refer to the same STARTING point:

--"the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8, of which there is an INITIAL ONE [Matt24:4 / Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'a certain one'"]

--this is the equivalent of the SEALS, and the INITIAL ONE is SEAL #1 (the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" of MANY MORE!)

--this is 1Th5:2-3, the ARRIVAL of the DOTL TIME PERIOD (with its "man of sin" and ALL he will thereafter DO); it won't "BE PRESENT" if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*… AND THE MAN OF SIN "BE REVEALED" (SEAL #1)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

"G726 - harpagēsometha"

"catch, seize, take by force.
From a derivative of haireomai [G138]; to seize (in various applications) -- catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force)"

"G138 haireó [^] : to take, choose" used in 2Th2:13 [the other end of this passage] (and which it says may be related to G142 - airo)


The "eschatological salvation" I refer to is "out from the wrath coming" (DOTL time period, the time period they thought "IS PRESENT" partly because of their PRESENT, ONGOING NEGATIVE circumstances made it seem REASONABLE to believe this, 2Th1:4 ["the day of the Lord is DARKNESS" Amos 5:18, etc]).

 

[Hevosmies]

There is a literal resurrection but scripture never says the dead bodies of saints are raised...the bible says they have new bodies that are kept in heaven so no going back to their old bodies. Only the damned go back to their old bodies.

Oy vey. This is a much worse issue to be wrong in than the timing of the rapture.

The RESURRECTION literally means that this same body that im writing in right now, will "stand up again".
Granted its going to be a glorified resurrection body, but still nonetheless.

 

[trofimus]

Oy vey. This is a much worse issue to be wrong in than the timing of the rapture.

The RESURRECTION literally means that this same body that im writing in right now, will "stand up again".
Granted its going to be a glorified resurrection body, but still nonetheless.

A problem is that your body you are in right now will decompose and be a part of many other bodies.

So, it will have to be created as a new one, anyway.

 

[Hevosmies]

A problem is that your body you are in right now will decompose and be a part of many other bodies.

So, it will have to be created as a new one, anyway.

?????????????????????????

Nothing is impossible to God.

 

[trofimus]

?????????????????????????

Nothing is impossible to God.

If your body is shared with 10 other people, then God will have to create new material to resurrect all 11.

BTW, whole your body is renewed in 10 years or so. The only thing that makes it to look still similar is your DNA code.

 

[presidente]

… but you seem to be completely disregarding the CHRONOLOGY supplied in Scripture (which I have provided several times in several posts).



The following ALL refer to the same STARTING point:

--"the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8, of which there is an INITIAL ONE [Matt24:4 / Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'a certain one'"]

--this is the equivalent of the SEALS, and the INITIAL ONE is SEAL #1 (the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" of MANY MORE!)

--this is 1Th5:2-3, the ARRIVAL of the DOTL TIME PERIOD (with its "man of sin" and ALL he will thereafter DO); it won't "BE PRESENT" if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*… AND THE MAN OF SIN "BE REVEALED" (SEAL #1)

Wht should I accept ypu assertions about chronology. Pretrib rapture is based on lot of assertions about texts of scripture. Just reading Paul's writings, the parousia/second coming is written of like one event not two second comings.

And there is no reference to a pretrib rapture in passages that out the sequence. Pretribbers who want to read pretrib into John being told 'Come up hither'.

Matthew 24 has a gathering at the second coming and no pretrib rapture.

Pretrib relies on asserting this matches up with that, and there is a pretrib rapture in this sequence of events here byt it is not mentioned in this passage.

In Matthew 24, Jesus spoke to His disciples regarding what not to do during the ptetrib rapture. It makes more sense to elieve their grpup will still be around.

I do not accept the innovative reinterpretation of appstasia to refer to the rapture, either. I take that to refer to the rebellion or departure from the truth. Jesus said the love of many would wax cold in Matthew 24, which fits the sequence.

I inally let o f pretrib ehen I could not find those raptures in the Bible nd stopped trying to interpret those passages through the preyrib lens. You should do this prayerfully, considering what each passage woukd mean if Jesus only returns one time befpre the thousand years.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Wht should I accept ypu assertions about chronology.

I'm not really asking you to ACCEPT them as much as I'm asking you to EXAMINE them.


And I've stated, the reason the disciples asked Jesus what they did in Matt24:3 (re: "the end [singular] of the age [singular]") is because Jesus had ALREADY spoken with them about it in Matthew 13:30,39,40,49-50 [when the angels will REAP] (He had not yet spoken with them about anything regarding a "Rapture" at all--they would not have known to ask Him about such, and He was not addressing such, in His response to their Q's [the rest of the Olivet Discourse]). And so Matthew 24:29-31 parallels Isaiah 27:12-13, note WHO, and WHERE, and HOW...

Everything in the Olivet Discourse (except 12 or so verses in Lk21:12-24a about the events of 70ad [24b follows on from there]) is about the future specific time period leading UP TO their promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom (which they were promised) which will commence upon His "RETURN" to the earth [Lk12:26-37,38,40,42-44 ("when he will RETURN FROM the wedding..." THEN the meal) and Lk19:12,15,17,19 (when He will deal out responsibilities like "have thou authority over 10 cities" and "[likewise] be thou over 5 [cities]") and ALL of the parallels to these...]. That time period STARTS with "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" as Jesus stated in Matthew 24:4-8 / Mark 13:5-8 (and gave a very specific INITIAL "birth PANG" in Matt24:4 / Mk13:5 "A CERTAIN ONE [G5100]"--that is, A CERTAIN PERSON)

More later, as I gotta run...

Thanks for the convo. Enjoying it.

 

[presidente]

The disciples are like the servants at home when the master returns from the wedding part.