What is the resurrection of bodies for?

[Ahwatukee]

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.

(Part I)
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:



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.[/quote]

Simply, because the "the general wrath that used to rest upon us before we were believers" is referring to any of God's wrath, whether the wrath that is coming upon this earth via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, or the wrath of the great white throne judgment and being thrown into the lake of fire, of which we as believers are no appointed to suffer any of it and that because it is from God.

When we became believers we were credit with the righteousness of Christ and reconciled to God, i.e. brought back into a peaceful relationship. Therefore, believers will not suffer any type of wrath from God.

Let's apply that to the tribulation 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. 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.

No, God will not be angry with those saints during the time period of His wrath. However, because they will not have received Christ prior to the time of the gathering of the church, they will be caught in that time period and will therefore be exposed to all of God's wrath that will be taking place on the earth, as well as the reign of the beast. This is why Jesus tells us to be ready and watching and not living according to the sinful nature, because for those who are willfully living according to that life style, that day will close on them like a trap. In support of the great tribulation saints being exposed to God's wrath, the following is mentioned regarding them:

"Never again will they hunger (3rd seal combined with other plagues)

and never will they thirst; (2nd and 3rd bowl judgments)

nor will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat. (4th bowl judgment)

The above demonstrates that the tribulation saints will be exposed to those plagues of wrath simply because they will be unleashed upon the entire earth.

When Christ returns to the earth to end the age, the great tribulation saints will be resurrected (Rev.20:4-6) because scripture states that they will have kept their testimony of Jesus and the word of God and will not have worshiped the beast, his image nor received his mark, even with all that will be against them. They will not have loved their lives so much as to shrink away from death.

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)

The scripture is not saying that God's wrath is against the prophets, but is the time has come for rewarding them.

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?

That is just how God reveals some things in His word so that we must study and compare all of the related scriptures in order to find out the answers, in this case end-time events. These are the deeper things of God. In one of the scriptures Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit who would remind you of everything that I have told you (in our case what we have read) and that He would reveal things yet to come. And that is what the Spirit does for those who are earnestly seeking out the answers to any Biblical subject. [/quote]

(Continued on part 2)

 

[Ahwatukee]

(Continued - Part 2)

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

The Elect = Israel and the great tribulation saints

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.

As I said, this is why Jesus warns believers to be watching and ready, because He will come at a time when we least expect it. The great tribulation saints will most likely be people who heard the gospel and the warnings about God's wrath, but didn't make a decision for Christ. They will have heard the scriptures regarding the revealing of the antichrist and God's coming wrath, as well as others who will hear the gospel at that time and will realize what has happened with millions of people missing. Because of the fear of God and their situation, they will commit themselves to Christ, knowing what is going to happen to the world, resigning themselves even to death, which most of them will suffer.

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? 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?

Now you are misquoting me. As I have said, God will not be angry with the great tribulation saints, but by not having faith in Christ prior to the gathering of the church (rapture), they will have missed the boat, so-to-speak and will be exposed to the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments. Those GTS who make it alive until Christ returns to end the age, along with the survivors of Israel, will be those who will repopulate the earth during the millennial kingdom.

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.

You ought to read the scripture above over again, for it is supporting what I have been saying. Just before Paul wrote "But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night" is his detailed account of the church being gathered, which takes place before the day of the Lord.

The day of the Lord is another designation for the time of God's wrath. If you will notice Paul refers to the time of God's wrath as destruction when he says, "when they say peace and safety; then sudden destruction will come upon them and they will not escape. Following that Paul says "But you brothers," which would immediately infers the opposite of not escaping i.e. but you brothers will escape. How will they escape? By the means of what Paul just previously wrote which is the detailed account of the Lord descending and calling up the church both dead and living where He will then take us all back to the Father's house to those places that He went to prepare for us in fulfillment of His promise in John 14:1-3.

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 would mean that missionaries cannot get their heads chopped off by angry unbelievers, if 'any wrath' is what it is talking about.

Any wrath from God. If a missionary had his head cut off, it would be because of his/her faith in Christ and would not be considered God's wrath. Your error is not recognize the difference between the common trials and tribulation that Jesus said believers would have vs. God's coming unprecedented wrath, which is the long prophesied "day of the Lord." It is a seven year period of time of God's wrath leading up to the Lord's return to the earth. You are also not recognizing the time period that the GTS will have entered into because they will have not been believers prior to the Lord coming for the church.

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.

They will experience God's wrath it simply because they are on the earthy and will have go
t caught in that time period.

 

[presidente]

Because he says so.

1Co 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

That's just the question. Paul answered it. He doesn't say the actual dead in the ground don't rise. That's not a valid assumption based on the questions of the imagined interlocutor there.

Then later he changes the subject to the living bodies changing:

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Just re-read what you posted there very, very, very carefully.

Some of us will sleep. But whether we sleep or not, we shall all be changed. So the raptured individuals who are alive at the coming of the Lord shall be changed. Those who are asleep in Christ are included in the 'all' that shall be changed also. They shall be changed.

Notice that, changed, not replaced with a replicated body from heaven, but changed.

 

[ewq1938]

That's just the question. Paul answered it. He doesn't say the actual dead in the ground don't rise. That's not a valid assumption based on the questions of the imagined interlocutor there.



Just re-read what you posted there very, very, very carefully.

Some of us will sleep. But whether we sleep or not, we shall all be changed. So the raptured individuals who are alive at the coming of the Lord shall be changed. Those who are asleep in Christ are included in the 'all' that shall be changed also. They shall be changed.

Notice that, changed, not replaced with a replicated body from heaven, but changed.

Except you aren't dealing with the scriptures which do say there is a body in heaven for those that die and await the resurrection. You also havne't addressed everything I pointed out about dead not being raptured like the living are. There's a reason why online living are raptured.

 

[presidente]

Why do you think he has the resurrection in mind, necessarily, as opposed to the rapture/bodies being changed?

Because he says so.

1Co 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?


Then later he changes the subject to the living bodies changing:

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Time out there. Do you realize you just disproved your own point? Verse 51 says we shall ALL be changed. All includes the dead and the transformed who do not sleep (the ones who will be raptured.)

By the way, why do you think we are going to be raptured with those who are resurrected if they are in heaven? 'We' who are alive and remain are caught up together with them. We are all caught up. That's because the dead down here get resurrected down here.

Btw, the question you quote there in verse 35 is the question Paul's imaginary interlocutor asks, 'with what body do they come?' Paul isn't saying the dead bodies do not come to life. He's asking a question about what body the come to life in.

But Paul is clear that the bodies are being changed. Changed. Changed. See verse 51. The dead body is changed, too, just like those who haven't died yet. 'All' includes both groups.

 

[ewq1938]

Time out there. Do you realize you just disproved your own point? Verse 51 says we shall ALL be changed. All includes the dead and the transformed who do not sleep (the ones who will be raptured.)

Fair enough. I tend to use allusso for only living but still, scripture does show a difference in how the dead and living are changed.

By the way, why do you think we are going to be raptured with those who are resurrected if they are in heaven?

I don't I have made it clear only the living are raptured and explained why the dead are not but in your interpretation the resurrected dead must also be raptured and my point is scripture does not support that.

'We' who are alive and remain are caught up together with them. We are all caught up. That's because the dead down here get resurrected down here.

It only says the living are caught up to be together with "them" meaning Jesus and the resurrected saints that scripture does say return with Christ.


1Th_4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

So they are not raptured as you believe but come with Christ....and the living that are raptured are caught up to be together with Christ and this other group of saints.

Btw, the question you quote there in verse 35 is the question Paul's imaginary interlocutor asks, 'with what body do they come?' Paul isn't saying the dead bodies do not come to life.

I disagree.

 

[presidente]

B
Doesn't change symbology.

Some translators take Sheol or Hades to mean the grave and translate it that way, as one of the meanings of the word-- and that may be a debatable translation. That doesn't mean there is a symbolism whereby any reference to a tomb is a reference to a shadowy underworld.

It springs up in heaven. Planted in the Earth, springs up in heaven where Paul says the new body is located.

Paul says he wants to be clothed with a house from the heavens. He doesn't say he is going to die first. Paul may have been waiting for the rapture. The mortal body puts on immortality. The body is redeemed, whether it is a dead body or a physically living body. We groan and wait for the redemption of our bodies. The Spirit as the downpayment or firstfruits of this as we see both in II Corinthians 5 and Romans 8. Paul does not abandon his doctrine of the resurrection that he had in common with the Pharisees f bodily resurrection from the dead in II Corinthians 5. Our bodies are clothed with something from heaven at the resurrection. We will bear the image of the heavenly Man.

I know it is possible, if we have a certain idea in our heads, to interpret the Bible through that rubric. I think you have the 'folk Christian' idea of dying and waking up in heaven affecting your interpretation, rather than the orthodox idea of the resurrection of the body which was actually how the resurrection is clearly presented in the Old Testament. Paul's ideas are consistent with the Old Testament, orthodox understanding. None of the passages you quoted contradict that idea.

Doesn't it make more sense to interpret the words of Paul consistent with the teachings of Daniel and Christ (and the Apostle's Creed if you are into that) rather than posit that he is saying something different? Getting another body when we die in heaven ins't resurrection. It isn't the dead standing back up.

What scripture shows the dead saints at the second coming, arising out of their graves? scripture shows the dead being raptured up with the living or rapture up at all? They don't.

Read I Thessalonians 4:16-17
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Look at verse 16. The dead rise after Jesus descends, first, befor ethe saints who are alive and remain. Look at verse 17. Those who are alive and remain are caught up together with the newly resurrected saints. Together we are all caught up in the clouds.

They were already in heaven, resurrected there and follow Christ to clouds where only the living who changed into immortals are raptured up to meet dead in Christ (now resurrected) and Christ.

Go back and read I Thessalonians 4 again.

Your interpretation has the dead resurrecting on Earth along with living being changed and somehow both groups are raptured but scripture does not present it that way. Only the living are raptured to clouds not the dead in Christ. Remember living cannot "prevent/precede" the dead because simply the dead in Christ resurrected in heaven before leaving to follow Christ.

No, they which are alive and remain do not precede the dead because the dead rise--those dead bodies that were planted in weakness rise up in power, transformed. They rise first, and together we are raptured with them in the clouds. We all together meet the Lord in the air.

17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.
(NKJV)

Comfort refers back to not grieving as them that have no hope. The reason they are not to grieve is because of the resurrection, a future event, and that we will be with the Lord, together with them.

Again, only the living are rapture up and that's simply because the dead already in heaven

That contradicts the verses you quoted.

Again, Paul makes it quite clear it is not the same body that arises.

Paul makes it clear that the body will have been changed. As it says, we shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed.

 

[presidente]

(Part I)
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.

Simply, because the "the general wrath that used to rest upon us before we were believers" is referring to any of God's wrath, whether the wrath that is coming upon this earth via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, or the wrath of the great white throne judgment and being thrown into the lake of fire, of which we as believers are no appointed to suffer any of it and that because it is from God.[/quote]

None of the wrath of God is upon the saints during the tribulation who are at peace with God. If God is not angry with them, then they are not under His wrath.

When we became believers we were credit with the righteousness of Christ and reconciled to God, i.e. brought back into a peaceful relationship. Therefore, believers will not suffer any type of wrath from God.

Saints are alive during pre-trib. Why would God's wrath be against them?

You've got a problem with the pre-trib theory. There is no pre-trib rapture of the church in the book of Revelation. Saying John being told 'Come up hither' is the rapture is about as weak of an argument for it as one can find. The saints are on the earth during the tribulation. Then the first resurrection occurs after the second coming passage.

No, God will not be angry with those saints during the time period of His wrath.

Then they are not appointd unto His wrath.

"Never again will they hunger (3rd seal combined with other plagues)

and never will they thirst; (2nd and 3rd bowl judgments)

God can multiply food, turn water into wine, turn water into blood, turn blood back into water, etc.

The above demonstrates that the tribulation saints will be exposed to those plagues of wrath simply because they will be unleashed upon the entire earth.

Only certain things are related to 'wrath' according to what we see in Revelation.

 

[presidente]

Fair enough. I tend to use allusso for only living but still, scripture does show a difference in how the dead and living are changed.

Let's consider changed. Those who are alive and remained will be instantly transformed. Their bodies are changed. They are now clothed with something from heaven-- the image of the heavenly man. They have put on immortality. The body that was once weak is now powerful.

The dead shall be changed, too. Their bodies were dead, sown in weakness, but now they will be changed, raised in power. Changed-- not replaced-- changed.

I don't I have made it clear only the living are raptured and explained why the dead are not but in your interpretation the resurrected dead must also be raptured and my point is scripture does not support that.

I would ask that you carefully study verses 16 and especially 17 in this interlinear <https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_thessalonians/4.htm>.

Here is a transcription of the English from the interlinear from verse 17

"Then we the living remaining together with them will be caught away in [the] clouds for [the] meeting of the Lord in [the] air."

Caught away is harpagēsometha or ἁρπαγησόμεθα, the word sometimes translated 'rapture.' The dead rise first, then we, with them, are caught up to meet the Lord in the clouds. We are raptured together. And that is how the Lord will bring us, since together we are raptured and meet Him first.

The dead in Christ rise first, at the coming of the Lord. So the resurrection of the dead has not happened yet. It doesn't happen instantly when someone dies. Paul wrote to Timothy about two false teachers were delivered to Satan for teaching that the resurrection had already occurred. So it is a future event.

It only says the living are caught up to be together with "them" meaning Jesus and the resurrected saints that scripture does say return with Christ.

Please read the verse in the interlinear. Together with the dead in Christ who rise first, they who are alive and remain will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. That is how Jesus can bring them.

1Th_4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Jesus brings the resurrected saints after He resurrections them and raptures them together with them that are alive and remain and meet in the clouds. Then He brings us all. Paul elaborates on how verse 14 happens in the verses that follow.


Ephesians 1:18
I pray that your hearts will be flooded with light so that you can understand the confident hope he has given to those he called--his holy people who are his rich and glorious inheritance. (NLT)

 

[presidente]

(Continued - Part 2)
The Elect = Israel and the great tribulation saints

I am very well aware that pre-tribbers have an ability to weave an interpretation throughout texts of scripture that involve redefining terms. But why? Why interpret 'elect' that way? Paul calls the Collosian church and Thessalonian church 'elect'. Shouldn't we stick with the understanding of the term that exists in other passages instead of trying to rework the passage around the pre-trib theory?

Matthew 24 has a gathering at the return of Christ. II Thessalonians 2:1 writes of the coming of Christ and our gathering unto him. Why make a separate parousia/coming of the Lord and a separate gathering? Why assume an extra one when there is no evidence for it other than allegoricalizing 'come up hither' and possibly redefining apostasia? Why not just go with what the Bible says without reinterpreting the terms?

Where is the big passage that actually teaches pre-trib to serve as the justification for reading it into all these other passages.

As I said, this is why Jesus warns believers to be watching and ready, because He will come at a time when we least expect it. The great tribulation saints will most likely be people who heard the gospel and the warnings about God's wrath, but didn't make a decision for Christ. They will have heard the scriptures regarding the revealing of the antichrist and God's coming wrath, as well as others who will hear the gospel at that time and will realize what has happened with millions of people missing. Because of the fear of God and their situation, they will commit themselves to Christ, knowing what is going to happen to the world, resigning themselves even to death, which most of them will suffer.

Again, I know pre-tribbers have to come up with these scenarios to explain why the saints will be there in the tribulation, an explanation to make those saints who go through those tough times not them, not the pre-tribbers. Revelation is easier for some people to read that way.

II Thessalonians 2 says the day of Christ will not occur until rebellion and the man of sin is revealed. If we are going to be here at the day of the Lord, how is that consistent with pretrib?

You should also notice that a similar passage in Matthew 24 talks about a theif coming.
43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. (NKJV)

This is after we read about the coming of the Son of Man which happens after the tribulation. So why would you apply the theif in the night verse to before the tribulation.

This verse from the rapture passage in I Thessalonians 4:15 tells us that the rapture occurs at the parousia, the coming of the Lord. It doesn't say it happens 7 years before it.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

So apparently, the rapture happens when Jesus comes back at the second coming, and not seven years before it.

Now you are misquoting me. As I have said, God will not be angry with the great tribulation saints

If God is not wroth with them, then they are not under His wrath, right?

You ought to read the scripture above over again, for it is supporting what I have been saying. Just before Paul wrote "But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night" is his detailed account of the church being gathered, which takes place before the day of the Lord.

So you think the rapture happens before the day of the Lord. Let's look at I Thessalonians 5 to see the verses:
2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. 3 For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief.
(NKJV)

Apparently, Paul expects believers to be here until the day of the Lord, hence the comment that it will not overtake the brethren as a theif.

The day of the Lord is another designation for the time of God's wrath.

In II Thessalonians 1, Jesus returns on that 'day' to give the church rest, to execute vengence on them that know not God, and to be glorified in the saints. The saints know God.

Any wrath from God. If a missionary had his head cut off, it would be because of his/her faith in Christ and would not be considered God's wrath. Your error is not recognize the difference between the common trials and tribulation that Jesus said believers would have vs. God's coming unprecedented wrath, which is the long prophesied "day of the Lord." It is a seven year period of time of God's wrath leading up to the Lord's return to the earth. You are also not recognizing the time period that the GTS will have entered into because they will have not been believers prior to the Lord coming for the church.

The reason I do not recognize it is because the Bible doesn't teach it. Jesus spends much of Matthew 24 warning the disciples of the coming difficulties. During the tribulation, He tells His disciples not to go forth if someone says 'Here is Christ, or there.' Why say that if they aren't here. There is no reason to think the tribulational saints are a different set of saints. If a believer is in right standing with God, God is not angry at Him. That applies to us, and it applies to whatever generation is here during the tribulation. None of us are 'appointed unto wrath' if we are right with God, even if bowls of wrath are poured out on the earth.

They will experience God's wrath it simply because they are on the earthy and will have go
t caught in that time period.

What do you mean by experiencing God's wrath? If you see the results of God being angry at someone are you 'experiencing God's wrath' or do you mean being on the receiving end of God's anger?

Again, Paul writes, "God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ "(NKJV), and that's the context. It's about salvation.

On some level, you have to realize that arguing from John being told to 'Come up hither' and trying to stretch out of the comment 'not appointed unto wrath' that the saints who live during the tribulation must not be use are very weak arguments for a pre-trib rapture. You don't have a clear passage showing the church being raptured. Paul writes about the parousia, the coming of Christ, as if it is one event. He writes of the rapture and resurrection occuring at the parousia. He also writes about the Lord destroying the man of sin at the brightness of His parousia. At His coming, the dead in Christ are made alive. Where is there any justification for two parousia-- two second comings of Christ? The whole pre-trib theory rests on taking passages that make perfect sense with Jesus coming back once, and reinterpreting the verses to weave them into the pre-trib grid. Why isn't there a narrative or didactive passage that actually teaches pre-trib if it's the truth? Why do you have to rely on abstract arguments like the one you make with 'not appointed unto wrath.'

 

[Absolutely]

I am very well aware that pre-tribbers have an ability to weave an interpretation throughout texts of scripture that involve redefining terms. But why? Why interpret 'elect' that way? Paul calls the Collosian church and Thessalonian church 'elect'. Shouldn't we stick with the understanding of the term that exists in other passages instead of trying to rework the passage around the pre-trib theory?

Matthew 24 has a gathering at the return of Christ. II Thessalonians 2:1 writes of the coming of Christ and our gathering unto him. Why make a separate parousia/coming of the Lord and a separate gathering? Why assume an extra one when there is no evidence for it other than allegoricalizing 'come up hither' and possibly redefining apostasia? Why not just go with what the Bible says without reinterpreting the terms?

Where is the big passage that actually teaches pre-trib to serve as the justification for reading it into all these other passages.



Again, I know pre-tribbers have to come up with these scenarios to explain why the saints will be there in the tribulation, an explanation to make those saints who go through those tough times not them, not the pre-tribbers. Revelation is easier for some people to read that way.

II Thessalonians 2 says the day of Christ will not occur until rebellion and the man of sin is revealed. If we are going to be here at the day of the Lord, how is that consistent with pretrib?

You should also notice that a similar passage in Matthew 24 talks about a theif coming.
43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. (NKJV)

This is after we read about the coming of the Son of Man which happens after the tribulation. So why would you apply the theif in the night verse to before the tribulation.

This verse from the rapture passage in I Thessalonians 4:15 tells us that the rapture occurs at the parousia, the coming of the Lord. It doesn't say it happens 7 years before it.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

So apparently, the rapture happens when Jesus comes back at the second coming, and not seven years before it.



If God is not wroth with them, then they are not under His wrath, right?



So you think the rapture happens before the day of the Lord. Let's look at I Thessalonians 5 to see the verses:
2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. 3 For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief.
(NKJV)

Apparently, Paul expects believers to be here until the day of the Lord, hence the comment that it will not overtake the brethren as a theif.



In II Thessalonians 1, Jesus returns on that 'day' to give the church rest, to execute vengence on them that know not God, and to be glorified in the saints. The saints know God.



The reason I do not recognize it is because the Bible doesn't teach it. Jesus spends much of Matthew 24 warning the disciples of the coming difficulties. During the tribulation, He tells His disciples not to go forth if someone says 'Here is Christ, or there.' Why say that if they aren't here. There is no reason to think the tribulational saints are a different set of saints. If a believer is in right standing with God, God is not angry at Him. That applies to us, and it applies to whatever generation is here during the tribulation. None of us are 'appointed unto wrath' if we are right with God, even if bowls of wrath are poured out on the earth.


What do you mean by experiencing God's wrath? If you see the results of God being angry at someone are you 'experiencing God's wrath' or do you mean being on the receiving end of God's anger?

Again, Paul writes, "God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ "(NKJV), and that's the context. It's about salvation.

On some level, you have to realize that arguing from John being told to 'Come up hither' and trying to stretch out of the comment 'not appointed unto wrath' that the saints who live during the tribulation must not be use are very weak arguments for a pre-trib rapture. You don't have a clear passage showing the church being raptured. Paul writes about the parousia, the coming of Christ, as if it is one event. He writes of the rapture and resurrection occuring at the parousia. He also writes about the Lord destroying the man of sin at the brightness of His parousia. At His coming, the dead in Christ are made alive. Where is there any justification for two parousia-- two second comings of Christ? The whole pre-trib theory rests on taking passages that make perfect sense with Jesus coming back once, and reinterpreting the verses to weave them into the pre-trib grid. Why isn't there a narrative or didactive passage that actually teaches pre-trib if it's the truth? Why do you have to rely on abstract arguments like the one you make with 'not appointed unto wrath.'

So,you accuse the other side of "explaining away,alagorizing verses" to fit doctrine?
Why does your camp refuse to include mat 25 and rev 14 in the mix?
Why does your camp not have any verses pointing to a postrib ,(impossible) rapture?
We have the exegesis,and the verses. Your camp has zero.

 

[presidente]

So,you accuse the other side of "explaining away,alagorizing verses" to fit doctrine?
Why does your camp refuse to include mat 25 and rev 14 in the mix?
Why does your camp not have any verses pointing to a postrib ,(impossible) rapture?
We have the exegesis,and the verses. Your camp has zero.

Why do you think the beliefs of those who believe that Jesus comes back at the parousia (II Thessalonians 4:15) contradict those passages?

Without redefining the apostasia, can you show an actual passage that actually teaches pre-trib? Can you show one passage that shows the pre-trib rapture occuring in the sequence of events laid out?

I mean actual evidence for pretrib, not one the requries assumptions and several steps of reasoning or allegorical interpretation. The verse about not being appointed unto wrath is about obtaining salvation through Jesus Christ. The tribulational saints, whoever they are, receive salvation through Jesus Christ.

I also notice in Revelation 14, that the wrath is poured out on those who worship the beast, rather thant eh tribualtional saints, which takes an argument away from pretrib.

Rev. 14
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

 

[Ahwatukee]

Why do you think the beliefs of those who believe that Jesus comes back at the parousia (II Thessalonians 4:15) contradict those passages?

Without redefining the apostasia, can you show an actual passage that actually teaches pre-trib? Can you show one passage that shows the pre-trib rapture occuring in the sequence of events laid out?

I mean actual evidence for pretrib, not one the requries assumptions and several steps of reasoning or allegorical interpretation. The verse about not being appointed unto wrath is about obtaining salvation through Jesus Christ. The tribulational saints, whoever they are, receive salvation through Jesus Christ.

It is a moot point to attempt to get you to understand, because your mind set is already to not understand. What you call assumptions, several steps of reasoning, etc., is really a matter of cross-referencing and comparing scripture, which you are not understanding.

The wrath that is spoken of that believers are not to suffer, refers to any and all wrath. If you understood the meaning of being credited with righteousness and being reconciled to God and the fact that Jesus already suffered God's wrath on behalf of every believer, then you would understand the principle as to why believers cannot and will not be on the earth to experience God's coming, unprecedented wrath. The Lord's promise to go and prepare places for all believers at the Father's house will take place prior to God's coming wrath, not after. Believers within the church are the bride and the bridegroom/Jesus is not going to send His bride through His wrath before coming to gather her. It also means that you don't understand the nature of God in that, He does not punish the righteous with the wicked. Go back and read Abraham's conversation with the Lord regarding Lot living in Sodom.

In addition, because of your belief, you have no concept of the severity and magnitude of God's coming wrath, which will decimate the majority of the population of the earth and dismantle all human government.

I also notice in Revelation 14, that the wrath is poured out on those who worship the beast, rather thant eh tribualtional saints, which takes an argument away from pretrib.

Rev. 14
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

That is correct, God's wrath is going to be poured out upon those who worship the beast, his image and receive his mark. However, you are not considering the following scripture regarding the great tribulation saints during that same time period, as posted below:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The beast was given a mouth to speak arrogant and blasphemous words, and authority to act for 42 months. And the beast opened its mouth to blaspheme against God and slander His name and His tabernacle—those who dwell in heaven.

Then the beast was permitted to wage war against the saints (great tribulation saints) and to conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. And all who dwell on the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Those 42 months mentioned in verse 5 is referring to the last 3 1/2 years of that seven year period. According to the scripture, the beast/antichrist will be allowed to wage war against the saints and to conquer them during that last 3 1/2 year period. The warning that mentioned above, is what God is going to do those who have rejected Christ and who will worship the beast, his image and receive his mark.

 

[presidente]

It is a moot point to attempt to get you to understand, because your mind set is already to not understand. What you call assumptions, several steps of reasoning, etc., is really a matter of cross-referencing and comparing scripture, which you are not understanding.

What I am doing is taking clear, straightforward scriptures and reading them in a clear straightforward way. What pre-tribbers do is string together weak, untenable arguments to fit a pre-concieved notion.

I used to be pre-trib. But as I studied more, I realized that there was no pre-trib rapture in the end-times passages. Matthew 24 does not put a rapture before the tribulation. Revelation does not either.

I realize pre-tribbers will try to make John being told 'come up hither' into some kind of allegory for the rapture. But that's about as bizaar of an interpretation as Augustine saying the in-keeper in the good Samaritan is talking about the apostle Paul. Pretribbers will say they insist on literal interpretation, but then some of them will argue for that, just to put pre-trib into the Bible.

The wrath that is spoken of that believers are not to suffer, refers to any and all wrath.

There are...at least... two big problems with that.

1. In Revelation, the wrath is poured out on those that get the mark. It does not say wrath is poured out on the saints.
2. What are those saints in Revelation, chopped liver? Is God angry at them? It sure doesn't seem like it if you read it. They overcome. It doesn't say in there that they are second-rate Christians that didn't have enough oil in their lamps for the first round draft pick. The 'not appointed unto wrath' verse says that ye are not appointed unto wrath but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. We need to understand that in context. And we should all agree that these overcoming end-times saints also obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, we should not consider them to be appointed unto wrath.

Again. this 'appointed unto wrath' argument by pre-tribbers is very weak, and the fact that it is one of the arguments pre-tribbers rely on shows the weakness of the theory.



Why should I accept such a strained argument when there isn't any real evidence for pre-trib? The only textual evidence for it comes from redefining the apostasia to refer to the rapture.


But we can see in Paul's writings, right in the rapture passage that the rapture occurs right after the 'parousia'-- the coming of Christ (I Thes. 1:15.) We can also see that the man of sin is destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's 'pariousia' (coming.) That does not fit the pre-trib scenario at all, which does not even have the man of sin being revealed until the rapture.

Why should I give up a clear teaching of scripture like that for a strained argument about 'appointed unto wrath.' Where does the Bible say God pours wrath on the tribulational saints?

Also, look at Matthew 24. Jesus addresses the discourse to His disciples, and gives instructions on how not to behave after the tribulation starts. Why would He say that if His follower are raptured up first?

Jesus speaks of a gathering of the elect after the coming of the Son of Man, which occurs after the tribulation in Matthew 24. The word is a verb form of the noun used in II Thess. 2:1, where he speaks of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering unto him.

And why would Paul say the parousia of Jesus Christ and our gathering unto Him.... why word it like that if the parousia occurs seven years after our gathering unto Him?

There is also II Thessalonians 1, which has the church here when Jesus gets back-- contrary to pre-trib. He comes back and at the same time is glorified in the saints and executes vengence on them that believe not.

Pre-trib has to either manufactuer a third coming of Christ or making the coming of Christ into some kind of long event. Why should I believe something like that if there is no passage that lays out a sequence with a pre-trib rapture and the whole doctrine is based on assuming pre-trib and reading the idea into passages that do not actually teach it?

Jesus already suffered God's wrath on behalf of every believer, then you would understand the principle as to why believers cannot and will not be on the earth to experience God's coming, unprecedented wrath.

To me, this implies that you would have to believe that Jesus did not suffer God's wrath for the tribulational saints who overcome Satan by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony. I don't think you believe that, but your beliefs do not seem to be internally consistent.

The Lord's promise to go and prepare places for all believers at the Father's house will take place prior to God's coming wrath, not after.

The preparing started long ago, presumably. In Revelation, the city descends out of heaven after the thousand years. There is no need to invent some extra rapture to try to fulfill some verse earlier.

Believers within the church are the bride and the bridegroom/Jesus is not going to send His bride through His wrath before coming to gather her. It also means that you don't understand the nature of God in that, He does not punish the righteous with the wicked. Go back and read Abraham's conversation with the Lord regarding Lot living in Sodom.

Who says God will punish the tribulational saints? How do you get that out of the book of Revelation? Look at how God delivered Israel. He did not remove them from Egypt when He poured out the plagues. He protected Israel and took her out later, after the judgments were poured out.

That is correct, God's wrath is going to be poured out upon those who worship the beast, his image and receive his mark. However, you are not considering the following scripture regarding the great tribulation saints during that same time period, as posted below:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The beast was given a mouth to speak arrogant and blasphemous words, and authority to act for 42 months. And the beast opened its mouth to blaspheme against God and slander His name and His tabernacle—those who dwell in heaven.

Then the beast was permitted to wage war against the saints (great tribulation saints) and to conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. And all who dwell on the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Those 42 months mentioned in verse 5 is referring to the last 3 1/2 years of that seven year period. According to the scripture, the beast/antichrist will be allowed to wage war against the saints and to conquer them during that last 3 1/2 year period. The warning that mentioned above, is what God is going to do those who have rejected Christ and who will worship the beast, his image and receive his mark.

Read the verse. There are saints mentioned there. The beast wages war on the saints in this passage. If you don't believe God allow saints to suffer persecution, reread the Gospels carefully and learn a little about history, and the current situation for believers in many countries today. Peter even wrote about those who suffered according to the will of God.

 

[glf1]

We were made in the Lord's image and after his likeness; and that likeness can be seen in our having a body, a soul, and a spirit. Each component is required for us to be complete, allowing each of us to fully express ourselves to the Lord and to our fellow citizens in eternity.