The Falling Away - pre-trib rapture or ???

[FreeGrace2]

My ability to go into their power points, take on their beliefs, and see the error gives me a huge advantage over them.
Why?
Because in all these years of debating them, i have NEVER SEEN THEM DO THE SAME THING.
( BTW, i can actually present their doctrine better than they can.

Your arrogance has blinded you to your own error.

Pretrib rapture theory has no evidence in Scripture. There aren't any verses showing Jesus taking raptured believers to heaven, which is the foundation of that theory.

That is how i know they have no verses.

Everyone knows that you don't have any verses.

I have swam in their pool as many hours as they have..
They do not have a single verse.

You do not have a single verse.

For you to make this claim, you have to reject the verses that DO show there is just one resurrection for believers, and ALL believers will be resurrected at the same time and it is called the FIRST resurrection. And both 2 Thess 2:1 and Rev 20:5 place that single resurrection at the end of the Trib when Jesus Christ returns.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Yes. v.4-6 mentions the first resurrection in each verse.

Yes

We do embrace it fully

Huh? Yesterday you vociferously denied any mention of a resurrection in Rev 20. Have you repented of your error?

 

[DavidTree]

If you look at it step by step, it tells a story
Martyrs
Killed by ac
Refused mark
Resurrected
Sitting on thrones
Honored
Rewarded
Not in heaven
But could have been earlier.

Now the confusion;
Niv says " they came to life and reigned"

If you examine the greek, it does not say " came to life" , which would place their resurrection way after the ac defeated and satan chained.
Look at the circulation of the niv.

How many have been misled????

This is a huge deal, because the " one coming, no saints ever go to heaven" erroneous teachings take that misplaced " ch 20 resurrection" and try desperately to fit it in.

It is comical and tragic.

So my point in debating them is actually playing their deal out.
I actually put on their post trib hat and boots and anihalate their claims.

IMO, remember, my opinion, those on thrones are being described and who they are, where they came from and the 1 st resurrection declaration is over them and the dead in christ at the rapture. It is saying they were resurrected....but NOT WHEN.
It does not matter actually. Because we must speculate.

It also includes the firstfruits.
Christ and the patriarchs when Jesus came down to paradise, preached the gospel, and emptied it.

But here is the pivot point.( my point)

Postribs claim one rapture (harvest). One " coming" and 0ne " 1st resurrection"

So with my postrib hat on , i destroy their own doctrine


Oh the irony!!!!

So some of my " reasoning" to pretribs is not going to make sense cause i am taking their deal and mopping the floor with their own poorly thought out doctrine.

But having tons of fun...lol

Run away from error Brother - run towards Truth - His Word is Truth - Do not add or take away = serious consquences

they came to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

They came to life because they were beheaded - put to death - for their witness.

Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
"But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.
This is the first resurrection.

This could not be any more CLEAR and to argue against this Revelation of Christ is only done so in willful unbelief.

 

[Absolutely]

Run away from error Brother - run towards Truth - His Word is Truth - Do not add or take away = serious consquences

they came to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

They came to life because they were beheaded - put to death - for their witness.

Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
"But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.
This is the first resurrection.

This could not be any more CLEAR and to argue against this Revelation of Christ is only done so in willful unbelief.

Rev 20 is a setting the day after the second coming

I have pointed that out to you more than once .....so you basically have a first resurrection that is not at all a first resurrection.
you are trying to depict a resurrection a day after Jesus comes on white horses with resurrected Saints and of course according to your workbook a rapture to the sky and some notion that they mount riderless horses in the clouds.

All erroneous and added mess.
None of it true.

 

[Absolutely]

Run away from error Brother - run towards Truth - His Word is Truth - Do not add or take away = serious consquences

they came to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

They came to life because they were beheaded - put to death - for their witness.

Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
"But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.
This is the first resurrection.

This could not be any more CLEAR and to argue against this Revelation of Christ is only done so in willful unbelief.

ok lets test fit

You are portraying a first resurrection after the ac and satan defeated. Basically a day AFTER the second coming.
And you are adamant that no other resurrection ccan happened UNTIL AFTER THE SECOND COMING

Now carefully explain how in the world to plan to defend this obvious impossibility.

The elephant in the room is what, exactly????

 

[DavidTree]

Rev 20 is a setting the day after the second coming

I have pointed that out to you more than once .....so you basically have a first resurrection that is not at all a first resurrection.
you are trying to depict a resurrection a day after Jesus comes on white horses with resurrected Saints and of course according to your workbook a rapture to the sky and some notion that they mount riderless horses in the clouds.

All erroneous and added mess.
None of it true.

NOPE

 

[DavidTree]

ok lets test fit

You are portraying a first resurrection after the ac and satan defeated. Basically a day AFTER the second coming.
And you are adamant that no other resurrection ccan happened UNTIL AFTER THE SECOND COMING

Now carefully explain how in the world to plan to defend this obvious impossibility.

The elephant in the room is what, exactly????

NOPE - at HIS COMING - The Resurrection at HIS COMING

Believe the LORD who says:
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”
So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

How is that i know and the Apostle John knows but you don't ???

 

[FreeGrace2]

Rev 20 is a setting the day after the second coming

Please prove this claim. There is no reason to make such an assumption.

I have pointed that out to you more than once .....so you basically have a first resurrection that is not at all a first resurrection.

Since the very text CALLS it "the first resurrrection" you are just ignoring or dismissing the FACTS.

you are trying to depict a resurrection a day after Jesus comes on white horses with resurrected Saints and of course according to your workbook a rapture to the sky and some notion that they mount riderless horses in the clouds.

There is NOTHING about this so-called "day after" in the text.

So where did you go to get this notion?

All erroneous and added mess.
None of it true.

Right. None of what you say is true. It's all erroneous and a real mess.

We have actual verses that say what we believe. Unlike yourself. You haven't shown anything yet about Jesus taking raptured believers to heaven, even though you mention "rapture verses" all the time.

So, where are you hiding them?

 

[Absolutely]

Please prove this claim. There is no reason to make such an assumption.


Since the very text CALLS it "the first resurrrection" you are just ignoring or dismissing the FACTS.


There is NOTHING about this so-called "day after" in the text.

So where did you go to get this notion?


Right. None of what you say is true. It's all erroneous and a real mess.

We have actual verses that say what we believe. Unlike yourself. You haven't shown anything yet about Jesus taking raptured believers to heaven, even though you mention "rapture verses" all the time.

So, where are you hiding them?

Very telling sir. After all the times that I've posted them and you never took notice. That proves a point because if you would have taking them one at a time and defended your Doctrine against those verses you would know the verses that I refer to. They don't disappear by ignoring them.

""Since the very text CALLS it "the first resurrrection" you are just ignoring or dismissing the FACTS""
Yes it does say that. You are trying to add when that first resurrection happens
You say it is after satan defeated and the anti christ. Correct?

So the resurrection in the air to meet Jesus is wrong?

 

[Absolutely]

Please prove this claim. There is no reason to make such an assumption.


Since the very text CALLS it "the first resurrrection" you are just ignoring or dismissing the FACTS.


There is NOTHING about this so-called "day after" in the text.

So where did you go to get this notion?


Right. None of what you say is true. It's all erroneous and a real mess.

We have actual verses that say what we believe. Unlike yourself. You haven't shown anything yet about Jesus taking raptured believers to heaven, even though you mention "rapture verses" all the time.

So, where are you hiding them?

Acts one
" like manner"

Defend your beliefs against that verse

Rev 14
A Gathering by Jesus sitting on a cloud with a sickle in his hand during the Great Tribulation harvesting a group from the Earth. But that can't be because there's only one coming correct? So in Revelation 14, something's wrong with those verses correct?

Defend your doctrine against it.

 

[Absolutely]

We can call rev 20 the post triB Resurrection debacle. Then we can label the actual Resurrection to the air meeting Jesus in the sky as the pre first resurrection. That's about the only way we could have two first resurrections.

SMH

 

[Absolutely]

""There is NOTHING about this so-called "day after" in the text.""

CORRECT
It does not. We just know it is after because Satan has already been defeated and so has the AC. So are you trying to say that Jesus goes back up into the air and meets the first resurrection in the air? Oh wait that won't work either because they are sitting on Thrones and that's going to be hard for you to cram all that into the same setting. In other words I can say these resurrected ones have been sitting on the Thrones for over a year. That's what happens when you don't think things through and you try to label something as a first resurrection in a setting that's different from the first resurrection. We know the first resurrection is the dead in Christ that rise up to meet Jesus in the air. That is the first resurrection.
Interesting that that setting in rev 20 is not the first resurrection nor can it POSSIBLY BE.... but you need it to be.

HMMMM.

Can we say busted?

 

[Absolutely]

Another little speed bump that would prevent the setting of Revelation 20 to be the first resurrection ,would be that that those in that group are only those that have been beheaded. So now in all that Zeal to make Revelation 20 a setting for a first resurrection ,all the other people that died in Christ are not part of the first resurrection because only those beheaded and on thrones are referred to in that group.

Hmmmmm

Gets worse. All the time.

 

[Absolutely]

Uh
No first resurrection after Jesus returns and the AC is defeated. I think we have thoroughly debunked such a notion

 

[FreeGrace2]

Very telling sir. After all the times that I've posted them and you never took notice.

Did you type all this with a straight face? You know perfectly well that you NEVER posted any verse showing Jesus taking raptured believers to heaven.

That proves a point because if you would have taking them one at a time and defended your Doctrine against those verses you would know the verses that I refer to. They don't disappear by ignoring them.

No, the verses didn't disappear. They NEVER existed.

""Since the very text CALLS it "the first resurrrection" you are just ignoring or dismissing the FACTS""
Yes it does say that. You are trying to add when that first resurrection happens

It happens when the Bible says it happens. 2 Thess 2:1 shows it with the Second Advent.

Rec20:4-6 shows the same thing.

You say it is after satan defeated and the anti christ. Correct?

Follow the text it's clear enough.

So the resurrection in the air to meet Jesus is wrong?

Why would you ask me this? Of course the resurrection is in the air.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Acts one
" like manner"

I see nothing to defend here. You just like to try to make mountains out of molehills.

Defend your beliefs against that verse

How about defending your beliefs against 2 Thess 2:1-3 and Rev 20:4-6.

Rev 14
A Gathering by Jesus sitting on a cloud with a sickle in his hand during the Great Tribulation harvesting a group from the Earth. But that can't be because there's only one coming correct? So in Revelation 14, something's wrong with those verses correct?

Defend your doctrine against it.

ch 14 is a summary of what is coming. It's not chronological.

Prove the opposite if you disagree.

 

[FreeGrace2]

We can call rev 20 the post triB Resurrection debacle. Then we can label the actual Resurrection to the air meeting Jesus in the sky as the pre first resurrection. That's about the only way we could have two first resurrections.

SMH

Why are you working so hard to try to prove 2 resurrections? The Bible states there is only 1.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Interesting that that setting in rev 20 is not the first resurrection nor can it POSSIBLY BE.... but you need it to be.

So John was in error to call it the first resurrection then?

Can we say busted?

I'd say you sure are.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Another little speed bump that would prevent the setting of Revelation 20 to be the first resurrection ,would be that that those in that group are only those that have been beheaded. So now in all that Zeal to make Revelation 20 a setting for a first resurrection ,all the other people that died in Christ are not part of the first resurrection because only those beheaded and on thrones are referred to in that group.

Hmmmmm

Gets worse. All the time.

your attempt to discredit the very words of John is just stunning.

John calls the resurrection of the martyrs the first resurrection and you you are trying to make it something else.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Uh
No first resurrection after Jesus returns and the AC is defeated. I think we have thoroughly debunked such a notion

I know what the Bible says. You are only trying to discredit what John wrote.

Your posts are bizarre.