Pre Trib or Post trib rapture?

[Psalm1]

Someone was asking about why the church is not mentioned after ch3 ? Well first of all you need to understand that all believers are members of the church , their bodies are the temple of God . Are there any believers after chapter 3 in revelation? Yes many of them .

Of those left behind the AC KILLS all without the mark.
It says he is given power to overcome the saints.
It says they overcame him, by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death.
Hello...they all died.
There is your church dynamic during the first part of the trib.
Take the mark or die.

Postrib rapture, to anyone with a bible is 100% proven false and impossible.

All postribbers are REQUIRED to go against God's word.

 

[Psalm1]

What is the bride continuing with the groom have to do with the parable the virgins in Matthew 25. Again the talk with the Yada yada Yada and all that stuff is disrespectful. Can you not act so smarmy in the discussion?

The reason I'm not pretrii I don't see where a separate rapture and separate second coming are taught in scripture. Free tribbers will read that idea into different passages or weave an interpretation of a passage around that idea without any scriptural evidence in the 1st place as a starting point to show any evidence 42 2nd comings. And that includes reading analogies for trib into paramboles and other passages. Answer my questions about second tethelonians 1 and 2.

Lol
You are so focused on any little flyspeck it attempts to deflect from any depth of debate.

The postrib position, as you ACTUALLY INVOKED , says the raptured church NEVER enters heaven, and turns BACK TO EARTH.
IOW... The truth ( that you are forced to admit), is,The bride( the church), continues to heaven, ( the fathers house), in DIRECT CONFLICT, with postribbers uturn back to earth.

IOW your doctrine, as you have demonstrated, is false and impossible.
100% impossible.

 

[Psalm1]

Any postribs want to show us where the bible is wrong?

 

[Psalm1]

Romans 11:13-16 is talking about Jews who will be saved, i.e. through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It sounds like you agree there will be Jewish first fruits, but you disagree about whether they are OT Jews, or early church Jews, or 144,000 future Jews. I am tying into Romans 11 just to explain how 144,000 are first fruits. You said it was very hard for posttrib to explain.

Who is the firstfruits of the church?

 

[presidente]

You changed the word "church" to the word "believers" in the original question. The question is, "Why isn't the church mentioned again afte rRevelation chapter 3?"

I've read the only writer who uses 'church' to refer to the church militant...alll believers on earth today... is Paul. One author, Robert Banks' said he was referring to the church throughout time and space.

In that case of one did not accept Paul as the author of Hebrews one might say Paul and Hebrews.

And Paul begins to use this in later epistles.

In Revelation,'churches' are used for local congregations (or believers in a city no matter how they handled congregating) and not for all believers throught tge world. It uses 'saints' for that.

I am pretty su

 

[Amargosa]

I've read the only writer who uses 'church' to refer to the church militant...alll believers on earth today... is Paul. One author, Robert Banks' said he was referring to the church throughout time and space.

In that case of one did not accept Paul as the author of Hebrews one might say Paul and Hebrews.

And Paul begins to use this in later epistles.

In Revelation,'churches' are used for local congregations (or believers in a city no matter how they handled congregating) and not for all believers throught tge world. It uses 'saints' for that.

I am pretty su

Why isn't the church mentioned again after Revelation chapter 3?

 

[Psalm1]

I've read the only writer who uses 'church' to refer to the church militant...alll believers on earth today... is Paul. One author, Robert Banks' said he was referring to the church throughout time and space.

In that case of one did not accept Paul as the author of Hebrews one might say Paul and Hebrews.

And Paul begins to use this in later epistles.

In Revelation,'churches' are used for local congregations (or believers in a city no matter how they handled congregating) and not for all believers throught tge world. It uses 'saints' for that.

I am pretty su

The letters, whether in Rev, or by apostles, are specifically addressed.

Hyper Pauline's use your "method of condensing intent"? and over discrimination to what suits them. conveniently allowing rejection of any doctrinal challenge.

....as if the bible is never for the READER.

That is a perfect recipe for error.
Now I can use that back door to escape, (pardon the pun), what is not convenient.

Now the bible can "make sense".

By bible is written to me.
Written to me by God himself.

When Jesus said ,"let he that has an ear, Listen to what the Spirit of God is saying to the churches."
( about 5 or 7 times)
He is framing that, to what you call the militant church worldwide.

That will be any reader that is born again.

 

[NightTwister]

Israel's best friend is America and is certainly not present when the antichrist appears'

If you have studied time from creation you would know we are nearing end time events

The end has always been near. And yet far.

 

[presidente]

@Psalm1 you wrote

Lol.
You are READING INTO it " one coming?"

This is reasonable. The burden of proof is on those who say that are two second comings. In Matthew 24, Jesus lets us know that the coming of the Son of Man is after the tribulation, and then describes certain things and says 'so shall the coming of the Son of man be.' It is not reasonable to assert that the coming of the Son of man refers to a separate event from the coming of the Son of man earlier in the passage.

Also, in I Thessalonians 2:1 a reference to the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto Him. Then in verse 8, the lawless one is destroyed at the brightness of his coming. It is reasonable to assume these refer to the same event unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. I mean, why would 'coming' refer to a separate coming without the passage telling us. And not just the passage... the whole rest of the Bible. Where is there any evidence at all of Christ coming back an additional time before the second coming?

Really think about this. Why do you actually believe in it? You know, this wasn't church doctrine that was widely taught or believed before about 1827 with John Darby, don't you? There were references to 'the rapture' in English, but not as a separate event years before the second coming, like in John Gill's writings.

I know pretribbers try to fit interpretations of passages into the pretrib system, but where is the scripture that justifies the assumption of two comings in the first place? It's not like there is a passage in Revelation that clearly lays out a rapture at the end of chapter 3. Pretribbers have to rely on loose allegorical interpretations, trying to make Jewish wedding customs (information some of these may actually come from late pre-trib speculations) into evidence for pretrib. There are arguments like 'not appointed unto wrath' as if that is supposed to prove pre-trib, but I don't get why pretribbers would think God would be angry at the tribulational saints who overcame the Devil by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, whose clothes are washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Mat 24.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

"My coming is as Noah was before the flood, in the setting of, before the flood,"

You; " Jesus was wrong"

In your zeal do not lie. Do not lie about me. I say,

"Jesus is right. You are wrong."

Like I pointed out before, the similarity to the flood of Noah is right there in the passage. People eat and drink, marry and marry until the day it happens. It does not say that there will be an actual global flood. You try to stretch it beyond the actual analogy that is clearly spelled out. if I disagree with your speculation, that is not the same as me saying Jesus is wrong. Don't go to the extreme of sinning and being a liar to argue your point.

And your analogy, stretching it, that the flood took people to the heavens-- up above the mounts.... if there is some hidden meaning in mentioning the flood, I think a lot of different eschatologies would be fine with the idea that the meeting in the air could conceivable as high as the ark went. That doesn't fit the pretrib theory better than posttrib or some of the amil views.

ACTS 1, Jesus is prophesied to return AS IN THE SAME DYNAMIC AND SETTING , AHEM....Pretrib with the audience of his betrothed bride.
No sickle, no trib, no avenger, no judgement, no warrior..

There is no reference to a trumpet in Acts 1, either, or the voice of an archangel. We get further revelation to fill in the details, e.g. the white horse. We are also looking at apocaylptic literature in which there are pictures that are described that can be highly symbolic. Do you think there will be a multi-headed beast, in a physical sense, that looks like something vaguely similar to a monster from a 50's Japanese movie in the end times, or is that symbolic?

But we also don't read in Acts 1 that Jesus ascended part-way, then came back for seven years and came back again.

3 DISTINCT COMINGS that you claim are in error.
What you have done is jettison the bible, abd become tribulation, and one liner CENTERED,

I think you are getting a little confused. I did not write this. If you did, and you think your view was in error, that's good. I didn't argue for it.

Postribbers , as a rule , never center on Jesus.
They are obsessed with making a "false one coming" position.
The "One coming" is actually damage control.
A "uh oh" moment where they FAILED to see the 3 VIVID and clear comings.
Really impossible to miss

Can you show some Biblical justification for the idea of Jesus coming back an additional time before the Second Coming, which would serve as a justification for wrapping these interpretations of various passages around that assumption. Could you do that?

Also, deal with the passages that contradict the viewpoint or are difficult for it. Can you show me some evidence within the passage, that the parousia, the coming of the Lord in II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8 are different events? How can that passage word in such a way?

Lets look at these verses in II Thessalonians 2
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
(NKJV)

Why do pretribbers have Jesus coming to be glorified in the saints (presumably) seven years before?

You went on to attribute ideas to me that I did not discuss with you.

I will ask you why pretribbers seem to think God will be angry at the tribulational saints? Do you agree with the idea that God's wrath will be against them?

 

[presidente]

Why isn't the church mentioned again after Revelation chapter 3?

Please read the post to which you just replied for an answer. It's the way the terms are used in the Book of Revelation. Saints is used to refer to saints throughout the earth, and 'church' is used in reference to local congregations.

II Thessalonians 2 does refer to a church receiving rest from tribulation at Christ's appearing. We need to look at the whole Bible.

 

[presidente]

Lol
You are so focused on any little flyspeck it attempts to deflect from any depth of debate.

The postrib position, as you ACTUALLY INVOKED , says the raptured church NEVER enters heaven, and turns BACK TO EARTH.
IOW... The truth ( that you are forced to admit), is,The bride( the church), continues to heaven, ( the fathers house), in DIRECT CONFLICT, with postribbers uturn back to earth.

I would say that you take analogies and parables far beyond the intended purpose, as seem to be the case with the reference to the flood.

Also, what is being kept in heaven is to be brought down to us.
Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

As a premillinealist, I think you agree, but you put a 7-year gap in there.

And we await this:
Revelation 21:2 (KJV)2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Answer my questions about II Thessalonians. I notice you keep dodging them.

 

[Psalm1]

I would say that you take analogies and parables far beyond the intended purpose, as seem to be the case with the reference to the flood.

Also, what is being kept in heaven is to be brought down to us.
Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

As a premillinealist, I think you agree, but you put a 7-year gap in there.

And we await this:
Revelation 21:2 (KJV)2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Answer my questions about II Thessalonians. I notice you keep dodging them.

Oh no.
All parables have components.

That is your challenge and what I bring to the table.
The COMPONENTS are there for a REASON.

Cite an example of my reframing any parable.
It is you that can not bring into play the factual components.

I will wait for your many many examples where I misplaced the components you omit.

 

[Psalm1]

@Psalm1 you wrote



This is reasonable. The burden of proof is on those who say that are two second comings. In Matthew 24, Jesus lets us know that the coming of the Son of Man is after the tribulation, and then describes certain things and says 'so shall the coming of the Son of man be.' It is not reasonable to assert that the coming of the Son of man refers to a separate event from the coming of the Son of man earlier in the passage.

Also, in I Thessalonians 2:1 a reference to the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto Him. Then in verse 8, the lawless one is destroyed at the brightness of his coming. It is reasonable to assume these refer to the same event unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. I mean, why would 'coming' refer to a separate coming without the passage telling us. And not just the passage... the whole rest of the Bible. Where is there any evidence at all of Christ coming back an additional time before the second coming?

Really think about this. Why do you actually believe in it? You know, this wasn't church doctrine that was widely taught or believed before about 1827 with John Darby, don't you? There were references to 'the rapture' in English, but not as a separate event years before the second coming, like in John Gill's writings.

I know pretribbers try to fit interpretations of passages into the pretrib system, but where is the scripture that justifies the assumption of two comings in the first place? It's not like there is a passage in Revelation that clearly lays out a rapture at the end of chapter 3. Pretribbers have to rely on loose allegorical interpretations, trying to make Jewish wedding customs (information some of these may actually come from late pre-trib speculations) into evidence for pretrib. There are arguments like 'not appointed unto wrath' as if that is supposed to prove pre-trib, but I don't get why pretribbers would think God would be angry at the tribulational saints who overcame the Devil by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, whose clothes are washed in the blood of the Lamb.



In your zeal do not lie. Do not lie about me. I say,

"Jesus is right. You are wrong."

Like I pointed out before, the similarity to the flood of Noah is right there in the passage. People eat and drink, marry and marry until the day it happens. It does not say that there will be an actual global flood. You try to stretch it beyond the actual analogy that is clearly spelled out. if I disagree with your speculation, that is not the same as me saying Jesus is wrong. Don't go to the extreme of sinning and being a liar to argue your point.

And your analogy, stretching it, that the flood took people to the heavens-- up above the mounts.... if there is some hidden meaning in mentioning the flood, I think a lot of different eschatologies would be fine with the idea that the meeting in the air could conceivable as high as the ark went. That doesn't fit the pretrib theory better than posttrib or some of the amil views.




There is no reference to a trumpet in Acts 1, either, or the voice of an archangel. We get further revelation to fill in the details, e.g. the white horse. We are also looking at apocaylptic literature in which there are pictures that are described that can be highly symbolic. Do you think there will be a multi-headed beast, in a physical sense, that looks like something vaguely similar to a monster from a 50's Japanese movie in the end times, or is that symbolic?

But we also don't read in Acts 1 that Jesus ascended part-way, then came back for seven years and came back again.


I think you are getting a little confused. I did not write this. If you did, and you think your view was in error, that's good. I didn't argue for it.


Can you show some Biblical justification for the idea of Jesus coming back an additional time before the Second Coming, which would serve as a justification for wrapping these interpretations of various passages around that assumption. Could you do that?

Also, deal with the passages that contradict the viewpoint or are difficult for it. Can you show me some evidence within the passage, that the parousia, the coming of the Lord in II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8 are different events? How can that passage word in such a way?

Lets look at these verses in II Thessalonians 2
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
(NKJV)

Why do pretribbers have Jesus coming to be glorified in the saints (presumably) seven years before?

You went on to attribute ideas to me that I did not discuss with you.

I will ask you why pretribbers seem to think God will be angry at the tribulational saints? Do you agree with the idea that God's wrath will be against them?

QUOTE
"Like I pointed out before, the similarity to the flood of Noah is right there in the passage. People eat and drink, marry and marry until the day it happens. It does not say that there will be an actual global flood. You try to stretch it beyond the actual analogy that is clearly spelled out. if I disagree with your speculation, that is not the same as me saying Jesus is wrong. Don't go to the extreme of sinning and being a liar to argue your point."

I never said there is a coming global flood

I take a postribber doctrinal well known point to task.
Postrib doctrine says the flood is analgeous to the trib.
Seems factual and it is.
Now...why reject Jesus words in the CLEAR AND VIVID portrayal of setting and timeline?

I can read it and agree with EVERY COMPONENT.

You have demonstrated that Jesus was in error or confused

Wanna know why?
You have hamstring the entire Bible due to 2 erroneous starting places

1) that you detest THE IDEA of a pretrib rapture ( inspite of the bible verses)
2) that there can only be one coming.

The first 2 are to earth's atmosphere.
The second is BACK TO earth.
(Like you admitted in the virgin parable)

Earth's atmosphere is PART OF EARTH.


So 3 comings should be problem at all.

 

[Psalm1]

@Psalm1 you wrote



This is reasonable. The burden of proof is on those who say that are two second comings. In Matthew 24, Jesus lets us know that the coming of the Son of Man is after the tribulation, and then describes certain things and says 'so shall the coming of the Son of man be.' It is not reasonable to assert that the coming of the Son of man refers to a separate event from the coming of the Son of man earlier in the passage.

Also, in I Thessalonians 2:1 a reference to the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto Him. Then in verse 8, the lawless one is destroyed at the brightness of his coming. It is reasonable to assume these refer to the same event unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. I mean, why would 'coming' refer to a separate coming without the passage telling us. And not just the passage... the whole rest of the Bible. Where is there any evidence at all of Christ coming back an additional time before the second coming?

Really think about this. Why do you actually believe in it? You know, this wasn't church doctrine that was widely taught or believed before about 1827 with John Darby, don't you? There were references to 'the rapture' in English, but not as a separate event years before the second coming, like in John Gill's writings.

I know pretribbers try to fit interpretations of passages into the pretrib system, but where is the scripture that justifies the assumption of two comings in the first place? It's not like there is a passage in Revelation that clearly lays out a rapture at the end of chapter 3. Pretribbers have to rely on loose allegorical interpretations, trying to make Jewish wedding customs (information some of these may actually come from late pre-trib speculations) into evidence for pretrib. There are arguments like 'not appointed unto wrath' as if that is supposed to prove pre-trib, but I don't get why pretribbers would think God would be angry at the tribulational saints who overcame the Devil by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, whose clothes are washed in the blood of the Lamb.



In your zeal do not lie. Do not lie about me. I say,

"Jesus is right. You are wrong."

Like I pointed out before, the similarity to the flood of Noah is right there in the passage. People eat and drink, marry and marry until the day it happens. It does not say that there will be an actual global flood. You try to stretch it beyond the actual analogy that is clearly spelled out. if I disagree with your speculation, that is not the same as me saying Jesus is wrong. Don't go to the extreme of sinning and being a liar to argue your point.

And your analogy, stretching it, that the flood took people to the heavens-- up above the mounts.... if there is some hidden meaning in mentioning the flood, I think a lot of different eschatologies would be fine with the idea that the meeting in the air could conceivable as high as the ark went. That doesn't fit the pretrib theory better than posttrib or some of the amil views.




There is no reference to a trumpet in Acts 1, either, or the voice of an archangel. We get further revelation to fill in the details, e.g. the white horse. We are also looking at apocaylptic literature in which there are pictures that are described that can be highly symbolic. Do you think there will be a multi-headed beast, in a physical sense, that looks like something vaguely similar to a monster from a 50's Japanese movie in the end times, or is that symbolic?

But we also don't read in Acts 1 that Jesus ascended part-way, then came back for seven years and came back again.


I think you are getting a little confused. I did not write this. If you did, and you think your view was in error, that's good. I didn't argue for it.


Can you show some Biblical justification for the idea of Jesus coming back an additional time before the Second Coming, which would serve as a justification for wrapping these interpretations of various passages around that assumption. Could you do that?

Also, deal with the passages that contradict the viewpoint or are difficult for it. Can you show me some evidence within the passage, that the parousia, the coming of the Lord in II Thessalonians 2:1 and 2:8 are different events? How can that passage word in such a way?

Lets look at these verses in II Thessalonians 2
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
(NKJV)

Why do pretribbers have Jesus coming to be glorified in the saints (presumably) seven years before?

You went on to attribute ideas to me that I did not discuss with you.

I will ask you why pretribbers seem to think God will be angry at the tribulational saints? Do you agree with the idea that God's wrath will be against them?

QUOTE
"And your analogy, stretching it, that the flood took people to the heavens-- up above the mounts.... if there is some hidden meaning in mentioning the flood, I think a lot of different eschatologies would be fine with the idea that the meeting in the air could conceivable as high as the ark went. That doesn't fit the pretrib theory better than posttrib or some of the amil views"

Was the ark above the waters?
Were the waters above the mountains?

Both points facts.
Ahem, Noah taken up high into the clouds is a no brainer.
You are not able to examine the facts?

What is the fear ?

 

[Omegatime]

The end has always been near. And yet far.

I would recommend a time study starting at creation

 

[NightTwister]

I would recommend a time study starting at creation

You assume I haven't already. Is that because I came to a different conclusion?

 

[Omegatime]

You assume I haven't already. Is that because I came to a different conclusion?

I didn't see a conclusion of near or far

 

[presidente]

QUOTE
"Like I pointed out before, the similarity to the flood of Noah is right there in the passage. People eat and drink, marry and marry until the day it happens. It does not say that there will be an actual global flood. You try to stretch it beyond the actual analogy that is clearly spelled out. if I disagree with your speculation, that is not the same as me saying Jesus is wrong. Don't go to the extreme of sinning and being a liar to argue your point."

I never said there is a coming global flood

You included a future flood' n your series of events, previously, but you didn't explain yourself well, so I assume you meant it as a metaphor now. But you still wrote it.

I take a postribber doctrinal well known point to task.
Postrib doctrine says the flood is analgeous to the trib.
Seems factual and it is.
Now...why reject Jesus words in the CLEAR AND VIVID portrayal of setting and timeline?

I can read it and agree with EVERY COMPONENT.

You have demonstrated that Jesus was in error or confused

Wanna know why?
You have hamstring the entire Bible due to 2 erroneous starting places

1) that you detest THE IDEA of a pretrib rapture ( inspite of the bible verses)
2) that there can only be one coming.

The first 2 are to earth's atmosphere.
The second is BACK TO earth.
(Like you admitted in the virgin parable)

Earth's atmosphere is PART OF EARTH.


So 3 comings should be problem at all.

 

[presidente]

@Psalm1

I take a postribber doctrinal well known point to task.
Postrib doctrine says the flood is analgeous to the trib.
Seems factual and it is.
Now...why reject Jesus words in the CLEAR AND VIVID portrayal of setting and timeline?

What post-tribber says the flood is analagous to the tribulation? Do you mean in the context of Matthew 24? That doesn't make sense in that context, because it tells us that the coming of the Son of man occurs after the tribulation of those days (called 'great tribulation' in the passage) and that as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. This is AFTER the tribulation.

I've made that point before, so don't attribute straw man arguments to me.

Also, please quote post-trib sources who say that the flood in Matthew 24 is about the tribulation. And you could quote any historical pretrib sources that make the point while you are at it.

I can read it and agree with EVERY COMPONENT.

Can you agree with Jesus' teaching that the coming of the Son of man is after the tribulation, and His teaching that as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be?

You have demonstrated that Jesus was in error or confused

1. Don't blaspheme Christ.
2. Don't lie about me.

Jesus was not in error confused, and I did not argue that he was. Those are your words. Do not attribute them to me.

For every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof on the day of judgment.

Be respectful to the Lord Jesus Christ. He is Lord.

Wanna know why?
You have hamstring the entire Bible due to 2 erroneous starting places

1) that you detest THE IDEA of a pretrib rapture ( inspite of the bible verses)
2) that there can only be one coming.

You haven't shown any Bible verses that support a pre-trib rapture. The passage we have been talking to sets the coming of the Son of man after the tribulation, and that is the passage we are discussing. I have also shown you passages from II Thessalonians that are inconsistent with pre-trib.

As far as pre-trib is concerned, I was raised believing that, then sat down and went through Revelation and other scripture looking for it, and it wasn't there. So I decided I wasn't going to be dogmatic about it and opened my mind. And of course upon meditation on scripture and reading it, I could see passages didn't align with pretrib.

The first 2 are to earth's atmosphere.
The second is BACK TO earth.
(Like you admitted in the virgin parable)

I didn't 'admit' to your eschatology in the virgin parable. This continues Jesus discussion after setting the coming of the Son of man in the previous chapter AFTER the tribulation.

But I don't get what you are saying. Do you think Jesus comes back into the atmosphere two more times after the ascension before the second coming? Where do you get that idea? Are you inventing a new eschatology? Are you a Double-Darby?

Earth's atmosphere is PART OF EARTH.


So 3 comings should be problem at all.

The only way I can see three comings aside from potential Christophanies in the OT is His birth, second coming, and whatever happens after the thousand years. But it is the city that John sees descend as a bride adorned for her husband at that point, after being shown the bride. If the church goes up for the destruction of all things by fire, I suppose that could work. But where does it say Jesus keeps going up and down?

Don't be too creative in this area. If you want to be creative, take up tap dancing or painting.

 

[BBerean]

You changed the word "church" to the word "believers" in the original question. The question is, "Why isn't the church mentioned again afte rRevelation chapter 3?"

Know of any unbelievers in the church ?