Less well-known Rapture verses. The case for the Rapture is compelling.

The glorified body isnt a human body, but a tangible spiritual body

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Irenaeus taught the Church would see the Antichrist on earth, and go through the tribulation, as did all the early church fathers

The pre-tribers do nothing more than take the second coming of Jesus Christ, and claim it's a pre-trib rapture

As Auguste Luneau' explains, the "elders" had spoken of the millennium, and Barnabas of six thousand years as the duration of the world. Irenaeus achieved a synthesisby inserting the millennium into a history of seven thousand years altogether, to be followed by the eternal kingdom I(L'histoire due salut ches les peres de f£glise [Paris, 1964], p. 103; cf. pp. 95, 96).

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians...
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

It is a body, but the body is spiritual.

Paul says that there is one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. Men are human. Therefore Jesus is Human. If we are made like Him the resurrection, we will also be human.


1 Corinthians 15:42-47KJV
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

I did a quick search on this and came up with this footnote in this document https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1969-1_030.pdf:



If this is the case, the Ireneaus held to the early church view of a literal millennium, which you treat as anti-Biblical doctrine.

Justin Martyr lived in the early second century, and he also held to this early Christian view as seen here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxx.html

I did a quick search on this and came up with this footnote in this document https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1969-1_030.pdf:



If this is the case, the Ireneaus held to the early church view of a literal millennium, which you treat as anti-Biblical doctrine.

Justin Martyr lived in the early second century, and he also held to this early Christian view as seen here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxx.html

I did a quick search on this and came up with this footnote in this document https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1969-1_030.pdf:



If this is the case, the Ireneaus held to the early church view of a literal millennium, which you treat as anti-Biblical doctrine.

Justin Martyr lived in the early second century, and he also held to this early Christian view as seen here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxx.html

Addressing the OP, haven't read all the post, Not saying that you're RIGHT, or WRONG, and maybe someone has already posted this, but do not all are here on planet earth when the Lord Jesus RETRURNS? the reason why I say this is this parable,

Matthew 13:24 "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:"
Matthew 13:25 "But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way."
Matthew 13:26 "But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also."
Matthew 13:27 "So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?"
Matthew 13:28 "He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?"
Matthew 13:29 "But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them."
Matthew 13:30 "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

so my question is, why do the Lord Jesus, (the One who is returning), make a statement in a parable, which signify a real event, say that the GOOD and the BAD will be here when he returns..

and on top of that, the Bad/the Tars will be harvested FIRST at his RETURN.

PICJAG,
101G.

Iranaeus saw the (Final Judgement) Lake Of Fire and the Eternal Kingdom (For The Righteous)

No False Millennial Kingdom On This Earth, With Mortal Humans Prior To The Final Judgement A (False Teaching)

Ireaneus Against Heresies 30.4

But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Matthew 8:11

Justin Martyr saw the 1,000 years expressed as being fulfilled in the Eternal kingdom in the New Heaven And Earth, After The Final Judgement

CHAPTER LXXXI -- HE ENDEAVOURS TO PROVE THIS OPINION FROM ISAIAH AND THE APOCALYPSE.

"For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My I people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying.

Your claim Jesus Christ is presently a human man is false

He maintains a glorified spiritual body, that has no boundaries in this earthly world, and appeared in a room with doors being shut, vanished away in a moment

A glorified spiritual body of flesh and bone, the first fruit of the resurrection

We will disagree, last response

John 20:19KJV
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Luke 24:30-31KJV
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

Do you have a quote that actually proves your point? I referred to a secondary source that says that Ireneaus believed in a 1000 year period. I do not have the primary source. You quoted something that does not prove your point.

That is not convincing in arguing that he did not believe in a literal 1000 years.

Your obtuseness is verging into the heretical with such statements. You just have a weird definition of human. Men are human. Men in glorified resurrected bodies will be human also. Your argument is nonsense.


Yes, of the MAN Christ Jesus. The historical orthodox description is 'fully God and fully Man.' Which means he is Man, a human being.

I'll be back either later tonight, or tomorrow... I've got some things I need to tend to atm...
... for now, I'm just going to leave here something I had planned to post many pages back, when it was being discussed, about Irenaeus... I've noticed something for years about how post-tribbers (etc) are reading this quote, but which (b/c of what else he says elsewhere) I do not believe they are interpreting correctly what he is saying, here:

[quoting Irenaeus]

"And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.'(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”

--Irenaeus



--post-tribbers (etc) see him EQUATING the green and the blue [he isn't ]


--pre-tribbers (not that he was necessarily "pre-trib / pre-70th-Wk") are pointing out that he is MAKING A DISTINCTION (JUST AS WE "pre-tribbers" are!) BETWEEN "the Church [which is His body]" (all those saved "in this present age") and "the righteous" (who are the ones coming to faith FOLLOWING "our Rapture"--that is, IN / DURING / WITHIN the trib years--i.e. "the righteous" in Matt13:43 / Matt25:[31-34]46)





It's like a mental block... when they read the words "the righteous" they automatically think "the Church [which is His body]" and declare, "SEE! Irenaeus said WE WILL BE HERE THEN"... No, he isn't saying that.

At least not here in THIS quote (and several others I've read, of his writings... where he seems to believe there are three levels of "destination" for believers [as in, levels of reward, type of thing]: Heaven, paradise [I think he said], and earth... )



I've seen people do this, for years, when reading this quote. = )




[same thing took place in one of my posts while back, in this very thread... I was talking about "the righteous"/the "BLESSED"/those who come to faith FOLLOWING "our Rapture," IN the TRIB years, but this was seemingly not recognized that I was saying this, by the poster/commenter... as far as I could tell, anyway)]

I have never seen someone so backwards in their eschatology, friend. Irenaeus, like all other church fathers, fully expected the Antichrist to arise BEFORE the coming of Jesus, and directly following the collapse of the Roman Empire, which the Papacy fulfilled when it arose among the ashes of it, and went on to proclaim itself to "take the place of Christ" on Earth - the very definition of the Greek "Anti-Christos".

https://nicklasarthur.wordpress.com...-fathers-were-historicist-h-grattan-guinness/

Perhaps because you lack reason?

No. No one has shown me a Biblical on ramp to the highway of pretrib circular reasoning.

Pretribbers say the passage should be interpreted in a certain way. Why? Because they assume pretrib and read it into the passage.

But there is no scripture to justify pretrib in the first place. If Revelation or Matthew 24 or equivalent passages set the rapture before the tribulation, I could understand being a bit flexible with other passages.

But there is no such 'onramp' to justify reading pretrib onto tge passage.

So why would I accept the idea about a passage, like @TheDivineWatermark 's on II Thessalonians 2, regarding Christ being revealed from heaven as a 7 year period. Why reinterpret the coming, parousia of Christ as a seven year event? That is so lose it remind of preterists saying the destruction of Jerusalem around 70 AD is the coming of Christ.

There are plenty of passages that pretribbers can argue a 'fit' for, but where are the scriptures that teach it in the first place? Reading pretrib into passages and them using those passages to argue for pretrib is circular reasoning. There is no 'on ramp scripture to justify interpreting those scriptures as pretrib. No onramp to the circular highway of pretrib reasoning.

Then the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 and the gathering together of the elect ___after___ the tribulation has to mean something different from the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto Him in II Thessalonians 2 and they that are Christ's being made alive at his coming in I Corinthians 15. Or else one takes a preterist-esqu approach and defines the coming of tge Lord in a less literal, theologically convenient way.

Please tell us then, what in verse 3a is "taken out of the way" so that the man of sin got revealed?

No. No one has shown me a Biblical on ramp to the highway of pretrib circular reasoning.

Pretribbers say the passage should be interpreted in a certain way. Why? Because they assume pretrib and read it into the passage.

But there is no scripture to justify pretrib in the first place. If Revelation or Matthew 24 or equivalent passages set the rapture before the tribulation, I could understand being a bit flexible with other passages.

But there is no such 'onramp' to justify reading pretrib onto tge passage.

So why would I accept the idea about a passage, like @TheDivineWatermark 's on II Thessalonians 2, regarding Christ being revealed from heaven as a 7 year period. Why reinterpret the coming, parousia of Christ as a seven year event? That is so lose it remind of preterists saying the destruction of Jerusalem around 70 AD is the coming of Christ.

There are plenty of passages that pretribbers can argue a 'fit' for, but where are the scriptures that teach it in the first place? Reading pretrib into passages and them using those passages to argue for pretrib is circular reasoning. There is no 'on ramp scripture to justify interpreting those scriptures as pretrib. No onramp to the circular highway of pretrib reasoning.

Then the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 and the gathering together of the elect ___after___ the tribulation has to mean something different from the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto Him in II Thessalonians 2 and they that are Christ's being made alive at his coming in I Corinthians 15. Or else one takes a preterist-esqu approach and defines the coming of tge Lord in a less literal, theologically convenient way.