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

[lamad]

121 pages later these verses still just won't go away:

Matthew 24:29-32
29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

There is ample proof this is NOT Paul's rapture. But preconceived theories are indeed to strong to waver!

You will not change until Jesus comes FOR His church and you are left behind wondering, banging your head against a wall. Jesus PROMISED an escape. Are you praying to be worthy?

 

[Runningman]

This is MYTH! The 7th trumpet in revelation is MIDPOINT. Are you now changing to a midtrib rapture?

Did you not understand that the 5 mentions of the 3 1/2 year period of time are COUNTDOWNS from the midpoint to the end:
42 months of trampling chapter 11
1260 days of testifying Chapter 11
1260 days of fleeing Chapter 12
3.5 years of protection chapter 12
42 months of authority chapter 13.

These things PROVE these three chapters are MIDPOINT CHAPTERs.

Are you going to allow this to go right over your head? You could learn something!

The 7th trumpet teaches that Christ returns, the dead are judged, His saints are rewarded, and the wicked are punished. That's exactly what happens with the other trumpet verses.

 

[lamad]

You are mistaken. The last refuge is "ignore". I have been patient but it's time to bid you farewell.
You would do well to read every single solitary posts made by TDW. Educate yourself instead of preaching what you do not understand.

No, wrong. He makes too many mistakes.

 

[Runningman]

There is ample proof this is NOT Paul's rapture. But preconceived theories are indeed to strong to waver!

You will not change until Jesus comes FOR His church and you are left behind wondering, banging your head against a wall. Jesus PROMISED an escape. Are you praying to be worthy?

So you have proof contradicts himself then? Paul teaches post-trib in 2 Thessalonians 2. There's no way he changes position on that later or it would contradict Jesus.

 

[lamad]

Hey, Ab, will you "go there" to Acts 24:15? "and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."
What is clear here is a SINGLE resurrection for the "righteous" and a single resurrection for the "wicked".

Now, with this in mind, we have 1 Cor 15:23 - But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Obviously Jesus Christ is the FIRST to be resurrected, then "those who belong to Him", again the wording indicates a SINGLE resurrection.

Then we have Rev 20:5 - (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.

The context here refers to the tribulational martyrs who have been resurrected and will reign with Christ for 1,000 years. And their resurrection is described as the FIRST resurrection.

So, we have 2 resurrections noted in Acts 24:15; one for the saved and one for the unsaved.
Then we have a single resurrection for "those who belong to Him", that being all saved people.
Finally, we have tribulational martyrs resurrected AFTER the tribulation and THAT resurrection is described as the FIRST.

So, can you explain how there can be a pre-trib resurrection, then a post-trib resurrection and all of that can be described as one single resurrection?

You can ignore me, but the question stands. So ignoring my question will clearly reflect whether you can defend your position or refute mine.

Oh no! NOT AGAIN! CHIEF! It is not first in time, it is CHIEF of resurrections. Your argument falls flat due to poor exegesis.

 

[lamad]

^ Again...

Consider the following:

Young's Literal Translation -

"and each [a word meaning, 'OF MORE THAN TWO'] in his proper order [/RANK],

[1] a first-fruit Christ, [<--note: NO definite article here]

[2] afterwards those [plural] who are the Christ's, in his presence,"


[3] THEN the end... (i.e. GWTj re: "THE DEAD [/unsaved]" of all times)



Smith's Literal Translation -

And each [a word meaning, 'OF MORE THAN TWO'] in his own order [/RANK]:

[1] the [<--NO definite article here] first fruit Christ;

[2] then they [plural] of Christ in his arrival."


[3] THEN the end... (i.e. GWTj re: "THE DEAD [/unsaved]" of all times)



...because of the "WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-with / IDENTIFIED-with] Him" thing, we / "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (ALL those saved "in this present age [singular]") fall into RANK #1 (as "a KIND [a CERTAIN] of firstfruit" James 1:18 [i.e. meaning there is more than ONE "kind"]; God "has chosen [G138 - *heilato/haireo] you firstfruit" 2Th2:13)

[*- 'Probably akin to airo [G142]; to take for oneself, i.e. To prefer' - 'I raise, lift up, take away, remove'... and related also to the word "arren/arsena [G730]" (Rev12:13 - "[which HAD BROUGHT FORTH] the male [G730]");
See also 1Cor12:12 - "For even as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also the Christ," (see also Eph1:20-23 WHEN [as to its existence], re: "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY")]




Colossians 3:1-4 -

"1 If then you have been raised with [one word; G4862+G1453] Christ, seek the things above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on the things above, not the things on the earth. 3 For you have died, and your life has been hidden [PERFECT indicative] with [G4862 - UNIONed-with] Christ in God. 4 When Christ your life may be revealed, then you also will appear with [G4862 - UNIONed-with] Him in glory."








[again, "the 144,000" are "firstfruit" of the "WHEAT" harvest, Rev14:4 / Lev23:17 [2nd mention of "firstfruit" in Lev23) "TWO loaves" and "baken WITH LEAVEN" (<--that ain't US... See 1Cor10:17 "...we being many ARE ONE BREAD, and ONE BODY" and 1Cor5:7 "...ye are UNleavened")]

"Firstfruits" conveys the idea of more fruit coming. The resurrection of the church will be
SECONDfruit
THIRDfruit
FOURTHfruit
Etc.

All a part of the SAME chief of resurrections.

 

[Runningman]

Oh no! NOT AGAIN! CHIEF! It is not first in time, it is CHIEF of resurrections. Your argument falls flat due to poor exegesis.

It's beyond disputable that the first resurrection includes saints from the great tribulation. Since the rapture and first resurrection occurs at the return of Christ there's no possible way to make the first resurrection and rapture pre-trib.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You are thinking of "first" as in counting or sequence. John was thinking of first as in honor.

Ha. As if you interviewed him or something. The lexicon meaning you have latched onto is SECOND in sequence because it is LESS COMMON of a meaning. Unless you actually did interview John, please don't tell me or anyone else what John was thinking. He wrote what he wrote. The most common meaning is first in sequence. And since Acts 24:15 specifically notes A resurrection for the righteous and A resurrection for the wicked, that adds up to TWO exactly. And we know that believers will be in the FIRST (as in sequence) resurrection from Rev 20:5.

Another verse translates this same Greek work as "Chief." It is the CHIEF of resurrections, being for the righteous.

So what? Why didn't any of the translators use "chief" in the verse in question?

Christ was the VERY FIRST resurrection into a glorified body. But His was 2000 years or so before the next! "first" cannot mean before any other.

Actually, the Bible calls His resurrection the "firstfruits", and "then those who belong to Him". So you still have no point or refutation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why is it you demand things over and over, and when they are presented you just blow them off? Do you ever really read these posts?

Phony charge. I ask over and over the questions that are being "blown off" by those I keep asking. Yes, I DO read the posts.

Which of the two resurrections shown in Rev. 20 - since there are ONLY TWO - would Jesus own resurrection fit in?

Are you kidding? Would you even consider that Jesus would be in the second one? Absurd.

Please refer to 1 Cor 15:23. The resurrection of Jesus is described as the "first fruits". And "then those who belong to Him".

That is only your sloppy exegesis and wild human reasoning. When will you learn that GREEK came before English?

Really? No kidding! Please support your own wild opinions and show me where my exegesis is sloppy.

Sadly every English translation just copied the first.

Maybe they knew more than you.

Every Spanish bible uses the word Primera, from the Latin prīmārius. What is it's meaning
One of the first, or first rank, chief, principal, excellent, remarkable.

Not really much different than the Greek. "one of the FIRST" refers to sequence. So there you go.

And since anyone who can read English and reads Rev 20, knows that post tribulation martyrs are resurrected BEFORE the wicked will be for the GWT judgment at then END of Rev 20.

So John really did mean FIRST in sequence. Believers are going to be resurrected before the wicked.

Every French translation uses the word première (from the same Latin word Primarius.
the head of the cabinet in France or Italy or certain other countries; first minister; prime minister.
a chief officer.

I don't really care what the French do. No offense.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Oh no! NOT AGAIN! CHIEF! It is not first in time, it is CHIEF of resurrections. Your argument falls flat due to poor exegesis.

Oh, stop it! In Rev 20 there are TWO resurrections mentioned. The second one is AFTER the Millennium at the GWT judgment, and is for the wicked, or unbelievers.

So where does that leave the FIRST resurrection? BEFORE the second one.

The Bible does NOT refer to Christ's resurrection as being the FIRST one. It is described as "firstfruits", which is then followed by "those who belong to Him", per 1 Cor 15:23.

You can't get around the clear facts. Jesus is resurrected, followed by the church age, and Tribulation, and THEN "those who belong to Him", at the end of the Tribulation, just as Rev 20:5 says. And then the second resurrection for the unbelievers at the GWT judgment at the end of Rev 20.

But you need to address Acts 24:15. Paul very clearly stated this:

"and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."

From this verse, how many resurrections do you count? I count just TWO.
A resurrection of the righteous (believers)
A resurrection of the wicked (unbelievers)

Now, from Rev 20, are you able to figure out the SEQUENCE of when each one occurs from Rev 20?

 

[FreeGrace2]

"Firstfruits" conveys the idea of more fruit coming. The resurrection of the church will be
SECONDfruit
THIRDfruit
FOURTHfruit
Etc.

All a part of the SAME chief of resurrections.

You're really desperate here, huh.

The Bible does NOT refer to any of the two human resurrections as "fruits". And going to fourth/etc is beyond absurd.

There is ONE "firstfruits" and that is Jesus Christ. Obviously His resurrection is the CHIEF one.

Following His resurrection, "those who belong to Him" is the FIRST resurrection of human beings, and following that is the SECOND resurrection of all the unbelievers for the GWT judgment.

 

[lamad]

You're really desperate here, huh.

The Bible does NOT refer to any of the two human resurrections as "fruits". And going to fourth/etc is beyond absurd.

There is ONE "firstfruits" and that is Jesus Christ. Obviously His resurrection is the CHIEF one.

Following His resurrection, "those who belong to Him" is the FIRST resurrection of human beings, and following that is the SECOND resurrection of all the unbelievers for the GWT judgment.

After all this time of you posting here and you don't know the difference between understanding scripture and being desperate to force a theory up scripture as posttribbers do.

It is NOT absurd! It is implied by FIRST-fruits. "First" hints strongly of MORE.

You have missed some. How did the 144,000 get to heaven around the midpoint of the week? When do the Two witnesses resurrect? When do the beheaded resurrect? When Do the Old Testament saints resurrect? (Hint: look for the world's worst earthquake.) They are all a part of the chief of resurrections but they come at different times according to scripture.

 

[lamad]

Oh, stop it! In Rev 20 there are TWO resurrections mentioned. The second one is AFTER the Millennium at the GWT judgment, and is for the wicked, or unbelievers.

So where does that leave the FIRST resurrection? BEFORE the second one.

The Bible does NOT refer to Christ's resurrection as being the FIRST one. It is described as "firstfruits", which is then followed by "those who belong to Him", per 1 Cor 15:23.

You can't get around the clear facts. Jesus is resurrected, followed by the church age, and Tribulation, and THEN "those who belong to Him", at the end of the Tribulation, just as Rev 20:5 says. And then the second resurrection for the unbelievers at the GWT judgment at the end of Rev 20.

But you need to address Acts 24:15. Paul very clearly stated this:

"and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."

From this verse, how many resurrections do you count? I count just TWO.
A resurrection of the righteous (believers)
A resurrection of the wicked (unbelievers)

Now, from Rev 20, are you able to figure out the SEQUENCE of when each one occurs from Rev 20?

So where does that leave the FIRST resurrection? BEFORE the second one. [/quote]

Oh, stop it! In Rev 20 there are TWO resurrections mentioned. The second one is AFTER the Millennium at the GWT judgment, and is for the wicked, or unbelievers.

First, these are TITLES not individual resurrections. Yes, the Chief resurrection will be before the second as shown by the intervening 1000 year reign of Christ. But which of these two will you place JESUS' resurrection? Since there are only two, His resurrection must fit in one or the other.

AH! I get it! Jesus does not fit in ANY of them! What a tricky way to sidestep a real problem with your theory!
Your logic fails. There are only two, for ever and ever. Therefore Jesus' resurrection MUST fit one or the other. It does not matter what His resurrection is called or titled. It was a resurrection.

Why not just believe that ALL the righteous in their scriptural order, fit in the Chief of resurrections. The the next one is for the damned. Most of the church believes this. You are hung up on a Greek translation into English.

 

[lamad]

Phony charge. I ask over and over the questions that are being "blown off" by those I keep asking. Yes, I DO read the posts.


Are you kidding? Would you even consider that Jesus would be in the second one? Absurd.

Please refer to 1 Cor 15:23. The resurrection of Jesus is described as the "first fruits". And "then those who belong to Him".


Really? No kidding! Please support your own wild opinions and show me where my exegesis is sloppy.


Maybe they knew more than you.


Not really much different than the Greek. "one of the FIRST" refers to sequence. So there you go.

And since anyone who can read English and reads Rev 20, knows that post tribulation martyrs are resurrected BEFORE the wicked will be for the GWT judgment at then END of Rev 20.

So John really did mean FIRST in sequence. Believers are going to be resurrected before the wicked.


I don't really care what the French do. No offense.

I am only pointing out that there are different English words translated from the Greek. "first" is one such word. "Chief" is another such word.

Mat 20:27
And whosoever will be chief G4413 among you, let him be your servant:

Mar 6:21
And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief G4413 estates of Galilee;

Mar 10:44
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, G4413 shall be servant of all.

Luk 19:47
And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief G4413 of the people sought to destroy him,

WOW! So you are sort of admitting that Jesus own resurrection fits in the FIRST or CHIEF of resurrections. I think this is a milestone for you.

"Firstfruits" is only a title showing His was first. You can't prove anything by that except His was the very first resurrection. His MUST fit on one of the two because as you insist, there are only two.

I am not denying that the Greek "protos" can mean first in sequence. I am only saying that other translations fit the text better. You get around this by saying Jesus' resurrection didn't fit either of the two because of a title! Yet you insist there are only two. Where is your logic?

 

[lamad]

Ha. As if you interviewed him or something. The lexicon meaning you have latched onto is SECOND in sequence because it is LESS COMMON of a meaning. Unless you actually did interview John, please don't tell me or anyone else what John was thinking. He wrote what he wrote. The most common meaning is first in sequence. And since Acts 24:15 specifically notes A resurrection for the righteous and A resurrection for the wicked, that adds up to TWO exactly. And we know that believers will be in the FIRST (as in sequence) resurrection from Rev 20:5.


So what? Why didn't any of the translators use "chief" in the verse in question?


Actually, the Bible calls His resurrection the "firstfruits", and "then those who belong to Him". So you still have no point or refutation.

It does not matter what Jesus' resurrection was called. He went from horizontal to vertical and with a resurrection body. His resurrection fits with all the rest. The SAME EXACT THING will happen with the dead in Christ. Your argument fails.

Just the CONTEXT makes your theory impossible. For example, what are you going to do with the Two witnesses and the 144,000? WHEN is their resurrection?

 

[Runningman]

So where does that leave the FIRST resurrection? BEFORE the second one.

First, these are TITLES not individual resurrections. Yes, the Chief resurrection will be before the second as shown by the intervening 1000 year reign of Christ. But which of these two will you place JESUS' resurrection? Since there are only two, His resurrection must fit in one or the other.

AH! I get it! Jesus does not fit in ANY of them! What a tricky way to sidestep a real problem with your theory!
Your logic fails. There are only two, for ever and ever. Therefore Jesus' resurrection MUST fit one or the other. It does not matter what His resurrection is called or titled. It was a resurrection.

Why not just believe that ALL the righteous in their scriptural order, fit in the Chief of resurrections. The the next one is for the damned. Most of the church believes this. You are hung up on a Greek translation into English.

1 Corinthians 15:23-24
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

-They that are Christ's at His coming...
-He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God...

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

-The Lord descends from heaven with a shout and trump of God...
-The dead in Christ shall rise first...
-We which are alive and remain shall be caught up...

 

[Phoneman-777]

Oh, stop it! In Rev 20 there are TWO resurrections mentioned. The second one is AFTER the Millennium at the GWT judgment, and is for the wicked, or unbelievers.

So where does that leave the FIRST resurrection? BEFORE the second one.

The Bible does NOT refer to Christ's resurrection as being the FIRST one. It is described as "firstfruits", which is then followed by "those who belong to Him", per 1 Cor 15:23.

You can't get around the clear facts. Jesus is resurrected, followed by the church age, and Tribulation, and THEN "those who belong to Him", at the end of the Tribulation, just as Rev 20:5 says. And then the second resurrection for the unbelievers at the GWT judgment at the end of Rev 20.

But you need to address Acts 24:15. Paul very clearly stated this:

"and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."

From this verse, how many resurrections do you count? I count just TWO.
A resurrection of the righteous (believers)
A resurrection of the wicked (unbelievers)

Now, from Rev 20, are you able to figure out the SEQUENCE of when each one occurs from Rev 20?

"...they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation."

Only two.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TheDivineWatermark said:
That is what I am saying.
Indeed it INCLUDES the "7 yrs" (70th Week / "For ONE WEEK"<--this is when it *ARRIVES* at the START of THAT); as well as including the entire MK age / 1000 yrs (ALL "earthly-located").
[each related passage speaks of a particular "person" at its STARTING point: Matt24:4/Mk13:5 and Rev6:2 and 2Th2:7b-8a and Dan9:27a/26b]

Hallelujah! We agree on ONE POINT!
Why do you keep doing this: picking out one verse and trying to form a doctrine there: That is wrong!
Why not just read the next verse and see that your theory is OFF?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

I've pointed out that verse 4 is connected to verse 5 by the word "FOR"...so, this is saying,

"Take heed, lest A CERTAIN ONE [G5100] *deceive* you, FOR *MANY* shall come in My name saying..."; and I've pointed out that the "ye / you / your" is a CONSISTENT "ye / you / your" and a "proleptic 'ye / you / your'," meaning (basically), "all those in the future OF THE SAME CATEGORY"; and in THIS *CONTEXT* the "ye / you / your" is "those TO WHOM the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom WAS PROMISED" (and *that* was not promised to US / the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY").

Now, you are free to believe that Jesus shifts gears mid-context, and changes the "ye" who He is speaking to/for/about, but I believe my *consistent* interpretation *FITS* better, especially because of the "TIMING" and "CHRONOLOGY" issues I've pointed out repeatedly:

--Luke 21:12 (per context) states that the 70ad events (vv.12-24a) must takes place "BEFORE ALL THESE" beginning of birth pangs that vv.8-11 JUST FINISHED DESCRIBING (parallel Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8 AND the SEALS which are EQUIVALENT to those); and

--Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 (7:3) is saying that the future aspects of the Book (i.e. FROM 4:1 onward [to Rev19's Second Coming point in time]) "must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (i.e. the SAME 7-yr TRIB years that the other "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" phrases apply to, found in Lk18:8 ('AVENGE in quickness [noun]'<--this is NOT *NOW*; see also 2Th1:7-8 'INFLICTING VENGEANCE ON') and Rom16:20 ('shall CRUSH Satan UNDER YOUR FEET in quickness [noun]'<--this is NOT *NOW* but will require *our* CHANGE OF LOCATION! ; see also 'WE shall JUDGE ANGELS' 1Cor6:3[14]);





ANY "chronology" that goes against these clear statements of Scripture (and others I've presented in past posts, elsewhere), I reject.

Believe as you wish.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

"Firstfruits" conveys the idea of more fruit coming. The resurrection of the church will be
SECONDfruit
THIRDfruit
FOURTHfruit [...]

The 144,000 are said to be "firstfruit" (however, WE / "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" are not the "main harvest" OF THAT).

There is more than ONE "harvest" in both Scripture and in nature.


James 1:18 says "a KIND of firstfruit" (meaning, again, there is more than ONE "firstfruit"... and indeed this is what we see in Lev23, where TWO DISTINCT "firstfruit" are referred to).





The "WHEAT" is harvested by means of a "tribulum" (harvesting implement);

whereas the EARLIER harvest, by means of "tossing UP INTO THE AIR" (and BLOWING away the chaff).


[each having its OWN "firstfruit" ]


*WE* are not the "WHEAT" harvest.




One thing that messes many folks up is the phrase: "the kingdom OF THE heavenS" (which does NOT mean "UP IN Heaven"... but is EARTHLY-LOCATED, and relates to "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom" age).

 

[lamad]

1 Corinthians 15:23-24
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

-They that are Christ's at His coming...
-He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God...

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

-The Lord descends from heaven with a shout and trump of God...
-The dead in Christ shall rise first...
-We which are alive and remain shall be caught up...

You put a lot of faith in that word "then." Perhaps from other scriptures we could find "stuff" between "His coming" for the saints, pretrib, and "then comes the end."

But then, define "end." Perhaps the "end" is the Day of the Lord or the 70th week that winds up "the end." If we define the END as the great, white throne judgment, the bible shows us many things between the rapture and the white throne.

He will not have put down all power until after the millennial reign.