What is the resurrection of bodies for?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,435
2,006
113
That hasn't been proven, only claimed so far.
Okay, but I didn't have that at my fingertips at the moment (remember, I was getting myself a sammich! lol)

It's even quite POSSIBLE that it COULD BE at the link in the source you just provided, I don't know! ;)

Funny but youare using the same argument above when referring to non-biblical uses. Plutarch is a person BTW.
I know Plutarch is a person.

And I have NO CLUE what you are referring to, because *I am not the one stating that "definitions of words" from sources outside the Bible (though at the same time / era it was written) are illegitimate proofs of "definitions of words"... someone ELSE said that (in this thread), not me.
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,929
1,258
113
And I have NO CLUE what you are referring to, because *I am not the one stating that "definitions of words" from sources outside the Bible (though at the same time / era it was written) are illegitimate proofs of "definitions of words"... someone ELSE said that (in this thread), not me.

Well, used it as evidence so can't cite "Plutarch" as being outside the bible and claim it should be rejected.

Let's be clear here. The Word apostasia means a departing from the truth or faith. All sources confirm this. It does not mean to be "caught up" ever.

Look at it in context:

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


Revealed here means to be exposed like revealing truth about who he actually is not his grand appearance. His lie about being will be exposed. This is the falling away from Christ to the false christ, and then the time when will be revealed/exposed as a false god


2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


This is the lie that will be exposed.

2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:


Again, this "revealing" is tied to the second coming not the start of trib.

2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

And this refers back to the Apostasy...the ones who believed the lie. The fell away from Christ to another Christ but this was a false instead.

The rapture is not mentioned here at all.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,435
2,006
113
I already stated earlier in this thread, that 2Thess2 is covering ALL SEVEN YEARS of the man of sin and ALL HE WILL DO:

--his BEGINNING [2Th2:9a "whose COMING/ADVENT/ARRIVAL/PRESENCE/parousia" and 2Th2:[BE REVEALED]--stated 3x in 3 ways in this text/context of chpt 2]

--his MIDDLE [2Th2:4]

--his END [2Th2:8]



...JUST AS Daniel 9:27[26] has his "BEGINNING," his "MIDDLE," and his "END"


[the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" is the START of MANY MORE "birth PANGS [PLURAL]" that follow on from that FIRST one, per Jesus' words in His Olivet Discourse, which I also referenced in my previous posts... (and that the SEALS of Rev6 equal "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" at the START of the DOTL time period [FUTURE])]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,435
2,006
113
Well, used it as evidence so can't cite "Plutarch" as being outside the bible and claim it should be rejected.
I never suggested such a thing (at least what it is I think you are saying, here). Perhaps you could rephrase, coz it sounds as though you are saying I said something I didn't say nor suggest. ;) (but I can't really understand what you are saying in the sentence above)



*I* have given examples myself of "outside sources" supplying the definition and usage of that word. I have no problem with that.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,435
2,006
113
^ when one examines the THREE TIMES[/WAYS] that "BE REVEALED" is used in this context (and the SEQUENCE it discloses), one can begin to see that it is indeed at the START of the DOTL time period, at the ARRIVAL ["whose COMING/advent/arrival/presence/parousia"] of the man of sin, i.e. SEAL #1 / "G5100 - tis - 'a certain one'" Matt24:4 / Mk13:5 (the FIRST "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" of MANY MORE "birth PANGS [PLURAL]" to follow on from this INITIAL one...) / Daniel 9:27a[26] "for ONE WEEK [7-yrs]"

(this is not to say this person does not exist on the earth prior to that moment)


….
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,929
1,258
113
The revealing is not about his first appearance but to his being uncovered, exposed and revealed as being the man of sin because before that he claimed to be God. Naturally his first appearance came before the Apostasy because he causes it. He is revealed/uncovered by Christ when he returns and proves the other was a false God.


2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

The "revealing" is tied directly to the return of Christ.

G601
apokalupto¯
Thayer Definition:
1) to uncover, lay open what has been veiled or covered up
1a) disclose, make bare
2) to make known, make manifest, disclose what before was unknown
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G575 and G2572
Citing in TDNT: 3:563, 405

The man of sin is the Antichrist and will claim to be God as Paul writes. That is a lie and it is a veil which he covers himself with like a mask. To reveal him as the fraud he is is to unveil, and uncover and "disclose what before was unknown"

And that is specifically that he was not God but a fake, the man of sin merely lying about being God. Only the return of Christ makes that clear.



Matthew Henry

II. A revelation of that man of sin, that is (2Th_2:3), antichrist would take his rise from this general apostasy. The apostle afterwards speaks of the revelation of that wicked one (2Th_2:8), intimating the discovery which should be made of his wickedness, in order to his ruin
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,435
2,006
113
Well, Matthew Henry was "Amillennialist" (from what I recall), so naturally I'm going to disagree with his assessment, seeing as I believe "Amill-teaching" wholly disregards CHRONOLOGY issues (as it pertains to the subject of eschatology... not to mention its inaccurate/made up definition of "the DOTL" to be meaning a singular 24-hr day).

Also, the "whose coming" (2Th2:9a) matches the Dan9:27a/26 "the prince THAT SHALL COME" (i.e. at the START of the "ONE WEEK/7-YEARS")... and then the verse goes on to IDENTIFY ..."whom the Lord SHALL CONSUME [FUTURE]…" and "SHALL DESTROY [FUTURE, at Jesus' Return]"... it is not stating that the REVEALING of the man of sin is at the same moment of Jesus' CONSUMING/DESTROYING of him (at His Second Coming to the earth, Rev19).

The revealing is not about his first appearance but to his being uncovered, exposed and revealed as being the man of sin because before that he claimed to be God.
This is a very common take on it, but I wholly disagree based on the CHRONOLGY of the text, and its parallels (already supplied)
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,929
1,258
113
Well, Matthew Henry was "Amillennialist" (from what I recall), so naturally I'm going to disagree with his assessment, seeing as I believe "Amill-teaching" wholly disregards CHRONOLOGY issues (as it pertains to the subject of eschatology... not to mention its inaccurate/made up definition of "the DOTL" to be meaning a singular 24-hr day).

Also, the "whose coming" (2Th2:9a) matches the Dan9:27a/26 "the prince THAT SHALL COME" (i.e. at the START of the "ONE WEEK/7-YEARS")... and then the verse goes on to IDENTIFY ..."whom the Lord SHALL CONSUME [FUTURE]…" and "SHALL DESTROY [FUTURE, at Jesus' Return]"... it is not stating that the REVEALING of the man of sin is at the same moment of Jesus' CONSUMING/DESTROYING of him (at His Second Coming to the earth, Rev19).

The point is the "revealing" is not a first public introduction but the unmasking or exposing the truth about who this liar truly is and that does happen when Christ returns. Obviously if someone claims to be the Messiah himself and people Apostatize to him from Christ, and then the real Christ returns....that is a true exposing or revaling. It's like when the wizard of Oz has curtain pulled back revealing who the wizard actually was...a fraud. That is what Paul is talking about. Again, nothing here is about rapture and the very fact that you are saying the Apostasy is a good thing for Christians to strive for is frankly very disturbing.
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,612
2,632
113
^ presidente, consider the following (briefly):

--1Th5:9-10 is to, for, and about "the Church which is His body" (of whom the Rapture ['IN THE AIR'] SOLELY pertains)

--[contrastly] Lk21:36[27-28 for context] is trib saints (awaiting His Second Coming to the earth); see also Daniel 7:20-21/Rev13:7 (where Dan7:21 states "[the saints...] and shall prevail against them" and Rev13:7 states "to make war with the saints and to overcome [same word used in Rev6:2 (2x)] them"--and recall what Jesus had said regarding "My Church" in Mt16:18 "shall NOT"--which happens to also pertain to those in the trib who will come to trust Christ [etc (who do not take the mark...)]--this doesn't mean trib saints aren't present during the trib [that's when they come to faith!!--recall 2Th1:10b "IN THAT DAY" in contrast to those who WON'T, 2Th2:10-12, in the SAME TIME PERIOD], but they were not raptured because they were not saved until AFTER the Rapture has occurred, i.e. IN the DOTL time period / IN THAT DAY [the same time period that the "STRONG DELUSION" occurs, i.e. not presently / not in "this present age"])


[both 2Th1:10b and 2Th2:10-12 are contrasting "beliefs" people will have "IN THAT DAY / the Day of the Lord [TIME PERIOD, which STARTS at the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" and there are MANY MORE to FOLLOW on from that INITIAL one...]
Do you guys know what this means?

Jesus says: I will (future tense) build my church and gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But Daniel and Revelation say he (antichrist,beast) was given POWER to overcome the saints.

That proves the SAINTS in revelation are NOT part of the church.

BUT HOW can it be? Shouldnt all who believe in Jesus be part of the CHURCH? This is what I have been arguing on here about with pre-tribbers for about a month now. HOW CAN SOMEONE BELIEVE IN JESUS AND NOT BE PART OF THE CHURCH?


I also admit that i was WRONG guys. Im sorry! I didnt do it intentionally. I apologize
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,435
2,006
113
The point is the "revealing" is not a first public introduction but the unmasking or exposing the truth about who this liar truly is and that does happen when Christ returns.
It's apparent you are not reading my posts in view of trying to UNDERSTAND my points (showing the parallels and chronology and so forth), even if you continue to disagree based on arguments you present ADDRESSING THOSE POINTS.


Again, nothing here is about rapture and the very fact that you are saying the Apostasy is a good thing for Christians to strive for is frankly very disturbing.
"apostasia" simply means "departure" (we are not to INJECT "from the faith" to that basic denition)
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,435
2,006
113
Do you guys know what this means?

Jesus says: I will (future tense) build my church and gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But Daniel and Revelation say he (antichrist,beast) was given POWER to overcome the saints.

That proves the SAINTS in revelation are NOT part of the church.

BUT HOW can it be? Shouldnt all who believe in Jesus be part of the CHURCH? This is what I have been arguing on here about with pre-tribbers for about a month now. HOW CAN SOMEONE BELIEVE IN JESUS AND NOT BE PART OF THE CHURCH?

I also admit that i was WRONG guys. Im sorry! I didnt do it intentionally. I apologize
"the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" is who the "Rapture" pertains to SOLELY (not to all other saints of all OTHER time periods... not to OT saints, not to Trib saints, not to MK saints--you might agree with that LAST ONE, b/c at the time of the MK, the RAPTURE is PAST [well-past!])


I also admit that i was WRONG guys. Im sorry! I didnt do it intentionally. I apologize
I am unclear about what you are apologizing over, do you mind clarifying?
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,929
1,258
113
Do you guys know what this means?

Jesus says: I will (future tense) build my church and gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But Daniel and Revelation say he (antichrist,beast) was given POWER to overcome the saints.

That proves the SAINTS in revelation are NOT part of the church.

BUT HOW can it be? Shouldnt all who believe in Jesus be part of the CHURCH? This is what I have been arguing on here about with pre-tribbers for about a month now. HOW CAN SOMEONE BELIEVE IN JESUS AND NOT BE PART OF THE CHURCH?

I also admit that i was WRONG guys. Im sorry! I didnt do it intentionally. I apologize

Well there is this:

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


But as far as the overcome saints in Rev:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


This proves the saints who are killed by the beast were true Christians.
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,929
1,258
113
"apostasia" simply means "departure" (we are not to INJECT "from the faith" to that basic denition)

No, that is part of what it means. It does not simply mean "departure". Even the definitions you have posted show that it is not anything related to being "caught up".

It is a departure from true Christ. That is the context given by Paul...those who believed lie which is that the man of sin, that Wicked is not Jesus but a false christ. Those Christians that believed the lie worshipped him and fell away from Christ in Apostasy even believing Apostasy was a good thing!
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,435
2,006
113
This proves the saints who are killed by the beast were true Christians.
Nobody is arguing that saints who come to faith WITHIN the tribulation period AREN'T INDEED "saints / believers / saved persons"!! THEY ARE!

And as to your next point / post , you are not reading 2Th2 very carefully. ;) You are injecting ideas (and wrong definitions of words, etc) and disregarding the SEQUENCE, and the reason Paul was writing this corrective (and how long it would have taken him to hear of their v.2 prob and send off his letter to them), etc...


"purporting that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT" (NOT a 24-hr day, point in time)
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,612
2,632
113
I am unclear about what you are apologizing over, do you mind clarifying?
I have been saying that everyone who repents and puts their faith in Christ is part of the church. Yesterday today and during the tribulation (book of revelation).

But turns out, i was wrong. In the book of revelation the "saints" arent part of the church it seems. SOMEHOW.
I was arguing based on logic, not plain scripture. I learned my lesson there
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,929
1,258
113
But turns out, i was wrong. In the book of revelation the "saints" arent part of the church it seems. SOMEHOW.
I was arguing based on logic, not plain scripture. I learned my lesson there
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.
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,929
1,258
113
Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Rev 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Shameful to teach these martyrs are not part of church. Study more and teach less (or stop altogether).
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,435
2,006
113
I have been saying that everyone who repents and puts their faith in Christ is part of the church. Yesterday today and during the tribulation (book of revelation).

But turns out, i was wrong. In the book of revelation the "saints" arent part of the church it seems. SOMEHOW.
I was arguing based on logic, not plain scripture. I learned my lesson there
Okay, thanks. :)

I think it's good to study out (as one author put it): "the real position of the Church--its calling, its standing, its hopes, its privileges!"



["the Church which is His body" Eph1:20-23, and note when; plus that it only exists on the earth UNTIL the Rapture, but ppl come to faith AFTER that point, and thus are indeed also "saints"--but they are never referred to as "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" ;) ]
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,373
113
Ahwatukee,

(Part 1)

I realize after reading your posts, the only reason you gave me to believe in pre-trib is that supposedly, as a pre-tribber, you have some kind of discernment to somehow see pre-trib in verses that us non-pre-tribbers cannot, for example this verse. And so from this passage, the ones with spiritual discernment are supposed to see that there is a pre-tribulation rapture?
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.

Revelation 4:1-2
1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
(NKJV)

I'm not buying it./quote]

It's not that you're not buying it, but that it hasn't been revealed to you! Jesus gave us a promise that He was going to the Father's house to prepare places for us and that he would descend and the dead in Christ would rise first and then those believers who are still alive would be changed and caught up with them. Yet, instead of believing that believers are credited with righteousness and have been reconciled to God (brought back into a right relationship), you and others believe that the Lord is going to put His bride/church through His wrath with the rest of the unbelieving world and fulfill His promise after His wrath.

John, in a supernatural visionary experience was told to 'Come up hither.' That doesn't say the church is raptured before the tribulation. I could also tell you that 'Come up hither' means don't each too much chocolate in the winter time, and that if you are truly spiritually discerning, you will see it in that verse. I could tell you it says to vote for me for president too, if you are truly discerning. Sorry, the claim to mystic perception of what verses mean, but do not say, is not working on me.
As I said, it refers to John being caught up and it is also a prophetic allusion to when the church will be caught up in the chronological order of Revelation. The "voice that sounds like a trumpet saying 'come up here' " is synonymous with "the trumpet of God" in I Thes.4:16. As I continue to say, it is also the reason why you don't see the church mentioned any more. After Rev.4:1-2 and beginning in 5:8, only the word "hagios" translated as "saints" is used, which is in reference to the great tribulation saints introduced in Rev.7:9-17. In the previous chapters John was told to write letters to the seven churches. And then in Rev.7:13-14 the elder asks John, "these in white robes, who are they and where did they come from?" The very fact the elder even asks John who they are demonstrates that they are not the church, but another group. Otherwise, why would the elder ask John who they are if they were the church that he had just written to? John didn't know who they were.

I am not willing to read into Paul's references to the 'parousia' the idea that it means more than one event, based on your assertions about this verse.
I'm not reading into it either, as I have given you many of the related scriptures which supports this.

Other than reinterpreting the apostasia as the rapture, is there any verse at all that actually shows, demonstrates, or teaches a pre-trib rapture in the whole Bible?
There are direct scriptures which I've already given to you, one being the fact that Rev.19:6-8 reveals the bride/church being in heaven during the time of God's wrath at the wedding of the Lamb, who then follow the Lord out of heaven riding on white horses as He is returning to the earth to end the age. That's about as clear and direct as scripture gets. In addition and as I have already posted, Jesus said that He would "keep us out of that time of trial," not through that time, or during it, but keep us out of it "ek" out of.

(Continued on Part 2)
 

Ahwatukee

Senior Member
Mar 12, 2015
11,159
2,373
113
(Continued - part 2)

Not Appointed Unto Wrath
You also seem to treat 'wrath' as a time period. Wrath has to do with anger, not a time period. If we look in I Thessalonians 5, can't we agree that the wrath here is the wrath of God, not the wrath of Satan or the enemies of the church?
That's because, the coming wrath of God is indeed a time period, which is paramount to correctly understanding end-time events. Daniel's prophecy of that last seven years will be in fulfillment of the seventy sevens that were decreed upon Israel and Jerusalem (Dan.9:24) and is that time when God will be pouring out His wrath on a Christ rejecting world. It will be the fulfillment of the long prophesied "day of the Lord" which will be carried out via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments. All of this will take place leading up to the Lord's return to the earth to end the age at the end of that seven years, after the 7th bowl has been poured out.

We also know that God's wrath will indeed be a specific time period, because Jesus said that it would be:

"For at that time there will be great tribulation, unmatched from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again. If those days had not been cut short, nobody would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened."

The seven year period is divided into two 3 1/2 year periods, with the setting up of the abomination marking the middle of the seven. It is from the setting of the abomination until Christ's return 3 1/2 years later that will be the worst of that seven years and that because, that will be when the beast who comes up out of the Abyss will empower the antichrist and will stand in the temple proclaiming himself to be God. During the last 3 1/2 years is also when the beast will be given authority over the great tribulation saints to make war and to conquer them.

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

Notice the contrast in the verse. There are those appointed unto wrath, and those who have salvation.
The contrast is irrelevant! Believers are not appointed to suffer any of God's wrath at any time. There is a big difference between the trials and tribulations that Jesus said believers would, opposed to God's coming wrath. You seem to have a very low opinion of what Christ accomplished for us. It is the same premise as paying the penalty for our sins and meeting the righteous requirements of the law on our behalf. Once they have been paid, God does not expect another payment. In the same way, since Jesus already suffered God's wrath on our behalf, then God is no longer angry with us because His wrath against us has been satisfied completely through the wrath that Christ experienced. Understand this! Believers in the church are not appointed to suffer any wrath and therefore, we must be removed prior to the first seal being opened, which initiates that time of wrath.
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.[/quote]

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. 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.

Because of your lack of understanding regarding that time of wrath, or as Isaiah put it, "the day of vengeance of our God. I would suggest doing a hard study of the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments. These along with the plagues that the two prophets bring upon the earth is what will be taking place during that time of wrath.

Paul uses similar language here:

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.

"whoever has the Son has life, but whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life and the wrath of God rests upon him.



When they were sinners before they were forgiven, they were children of wrath. This is a salvation thing.
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. Therefore, the reference to God's wrath, is that those who are here when the Lord gathers the church, will be trapped in that last seven years and will be exposed to God's wrath. Those who are unbelievers and die before that time, their spirits will depart from their bodies and will go down into Sheol/Hades and like the rich man mentioned in Luke, will be in torment in flame until the great white throne judgment. Therefore, the unbeliever dies before that time of wrath will end up in Hades in torment. For those who remain alive when the wrath of God begins, they will suffer wrath on the earth directly from God. 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.

Why would you think God is angry at the saints in the tribulation? That really does not make sense. They aren't appointed unto wrath, either. They are going to 'obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ' (again notice the contrast in the 'appointed unto wrath' verse.)
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. 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. 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.”

I noticed you read a lot of ideas into verses that were not in the passages. I intend to point some of those out in another post.
That's only according to you. I come to my conclusions by cross-referencing and comparing scripture, not reading into them. 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. 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.