Any Post or Non-Tribbers in Here?

Lori said:
arguments for a post tribulational rapture don’t hold water
I invite both of you to address post 274 and show how each verse doesn't actually say what I believe they say.

Then, provide a verse that shows Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven. That would be the ultimate proof for your idea.

FreeGrace2 said:
Correct, "rapture" doesn't mean a glorified trip to heaven. Not even the 2W were given glorified bodies and taken to heaven. They were taken to heaven, but even they are awaiting their glorified bodies, which will occur "when He comes", as 1 Cor 15:23 says:

But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Red words: Second Advent

Blue words: EVERY believer from Adam forward

This verse summarizes the singular resurrection of the saved. All saved will be given glorified bodies at the same event; "when He comes".

Jesus doesn't come back until after the 2W are taken to heaven. They will taken to heaven the SAME WAY they were taken the first time they went to heaven.
Yes.

My default is what the Bible actually says. I find it rather shocking that believers either ignore clear verses or even just reject them.

But post 274 lays it all out clearly.

There is one resurrection of the saved. It occurs at the Second Advent and includes those living at the time. All will receive their resurrection body and then reign/serve in the Millennial Kingdom.

Instead of dealing with the verses I've shared, they just keep bringing up verses/passages that don't actually say what they believe.

So sad.

Live4Him2 said:
Where's the imaginary U-turn back to the third heaven?
What is missing from this resurrection passage is ANY MENTION of Jesus taking these resurrected and glorified believers up to heaven.

That is the ONLY kind of verse that will prove your belief.

Yet, if there is one, you've only revealed that the Bible is internally CONTRADICTED.

Because post 274 lays out all the verses that PROVE that there is no resurrection pre trib. And proves that there aren't "stages" to resurrection of the saved.

I invite you to address 274 and show me where my error is. I would really appreciate if my errors would be corrected.

Since I am rock solid convinced by the verses I shared in 274, someone would need to address those verses to show me where I've errored.

I've seen all the verses used by pre-tribbers and NONE of them are clear about a glorified trip to heaven, or even a resurrection before the Trib.

If you can help me understand Scripture better than I do, thank you from the bottom of my heart.

The resurrection of the unsaved occurs at the GWTJ. This is where we see what the resurrected unsaved are doing, where they are at, who they are with, where they are going:

Revelation 20:12 KJV
12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Why Revelation 20:5 is not the resurrection of the unsaved dead is because it says it occurs after 1,000 years, before Satan is release from prison, to gather a world of unsaved people to literally fight against God.

In order to keep the second resurrection (of the unsaved) a singular group, the second resurrection must occur after all unsaved dead are not living. That means the second resurrection must take place after the battle of Gog and Magog.

That’s why the first resurrection of the saved must be at least two groups.

This is the only way to keep Biblical harmony that I’m aware of.

FreeGrace2 said:
”The first resurrection has two groups, each group experiencing a singular resurrection, separated by a period of 1,000 years per Revelation 20:5.”

This is where we are not in agreement. Since the Bible very clearly states there will be a resurrection of the unsaved, where do you place that resurrection then?

This quote from your post is incorrecct. The first sentence is from your post, and the second and 3rd sentences are my response.
The words at the beginning of v.5 (the rest of the dead) refers to the unsaved. They are in the second resurrection for the GWT as you correctly note. The last sentence refers back to v.4 and to v.6, which are the saved.

I agree with this.

There is already harmony.

1. 2 resurrections total. Acts 24:15
2. resurrection for the saved at the second advent. 2 Thess 2:1, 1 Cor 15:23
3. resurrection for the unsaved at the GWT judgment. Rev 20:5a

That’s good you agree with that, but the resurrection in Revelation 20:5a is not the resurrection of the unsaved because that takes places before all of the unsaved are dead in the Battle of Gog and Magog.

The battle of Gog and Magog lasts for an unspecified period of time. So when they die with fire from heaven they are later resurrected to the GWTJ.

That means the second resurrection does not take place after the 1,000 years are finished, at least not immediately. The only remaining option is to make the resurrection of the saved two groups, the math and numbers can’t lie here.

Can’t have it both ways here without either making two resurrection groups of the unsaved or having the resurrection of the unsaved die again then resurrect again after Gog and Magog. Main problem here is that means the second death would become the third death. All roads in your theology lead to contradictions.


Yes the Bible has harmony, but often our interpretations create disharmony and yours are doing that.

I think you believe you will be resurrected for the MK, right? Sorry , but that isn’t Biblical.

The only group of people who will be resurrected to reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom are those who were beheaded in the great tribulation.

Revelation 20:4
4And 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.

When you said previously that the Lord rebuked you Himself for holding to a pre tribulation view - where were you in your person when the Lord in His person rebuked you and thus delivered you from the Satanic lie you say others are promoting?

If you can answer that question there will be no need to answer your question which I have cited.

I am blessed that you didn't ask me that question or the other question you say no one will answer in the same comment. I may been tempted to answer you. Ive taken the liberty of highlighting your question in red.

Hi Pilgrimshope,

All great scriptures there, and we both believe them. The point that I would have you consider is that we all receive the promise of the Spirit and are heirs, however what we are heir to is in different realms of God`s great kingdom. Please let me show you what I see God`s word is actually saying -

1. The `promise` - of the Holy Spirit. (`receive the promise of the SPIRIT through faith,` (Gal. 3: 14) Agree so far.

2. Heirs - according to the promise. (Gal. 3: 29) So we are heirs because we receive the Holy Spirit. But `heirs of what? That is the key. We need to have specific scriptures to show what we, the Body of Christ are `heirs,` of. We cannot assume that we inherit the OT saints inheritance.

`Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.` (Gal 4: 7) So we both would agree that we are now `sons, heir of God through Christ.` Still we need to have specific scriptures as to what we are `heirs`of.

Now I see that God`s word clearly tells us that our inheritance is with the Lord on His throne.

`To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me on my throne as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne.` (Rev. 3: 21)

So we would both agree with that. The question then is `where is the Lord`s own throne?`

3. Christ`s own throne - God the Father, `seated Him at His right hand far above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this age but in the one to come. And He put all things under His feet and gave Him to be head of the church which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fill all in all.` (Eph. 1: 21 - 23)

Thus we see that the Lord has been given all authority and power (in connection to the Father) and His Body will be with Him `far above all in God`s great kingdom.

That is our indescribable, utterly amazing, and blood bought inheritance.

This only prove my point that "the first resurrection" ushers in the Millennial Reign of Christ.

With such being the case, they're couldn't possibly have been another resurrection 7 years earlier or else this wouldn't be "the FIRST resurrection."

Hi RS,

I agree that we receive the promise of the SPIRIT. (Gal. 3: 14) and `heirs` as sons. (Gal. 4: 7) However it does not say there specifically what we are `heir` to. We need specific scriptures to show that.

`To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with me on my throne as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne.` (Rev. 3: 21)

So where is that throne?

God the Father `seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And he put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.` (Eph. 20 - 23)

Now God is above all of His creation.

`But will God indeed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you...` (2 Chron. 5: 18)

`the King of Kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see,...` (1 Tim. 6: 16)

`God is a Spirit,...` (John 4: 24)

God dwells with His people throughout His great kingdom by His SPIRIT.

First of all, "the Lord" can be used properly to describe either the Father or the Son.

Here are a couple of examples:

"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matt. 2:15)

Here, "the Lord" is God the Father who is talking about "my son" or Jesus.

"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (Matt. 4:7)

Here, Jesus, the Son, is referring to his Father as "the Lord".

From my initial post here, which I'll quote in a moment, I have been referring to God the Father while speaking of how "the Lord" thoroughly rebuked me.

With such being the case, "the Lord", as in God the Father, did not "rebuke me in his person" or while manifesting to me in bodily form which is seemingly where you're headed with your question.

In any case, I've deliberately mentioned how "the Lord" or God the Father "THOROUGHLY rebuked me". In other words, this wasn't just a single isolated instance. Instead, it began one day while I was reading I Corinthians chapter 15 in the house in which I lived at that time, and it continued over the course of about 3 years. Again, as I said in my opening post here, he had me read the entire Bible from cover to cover 6 times, and that took me somewhere close to 3 years to accomplish. Over that period of time, there were many different interactions between me and God the Father.

Anyhow, I've repeatedly posted SCRIPTURE as the basis of my ultimate rejection of the pre-tribulation rapture heresy because it is SCRIPTURE that God himself used to convince me of the same.

Finally, I'm not sure what all that stuff about you being blessed and tempted was about, but, quite frankly, it sounds quite odd to me.

Nah ... the scripture I quoted matches 2. Thess.2. very well ... I am aware that the last resurrection unto judgement comes after the rap.

try 1, 000 years ...

both Jesus and Paul stress the urgency of our not being deceived on this subject ... it's like they knew ...

Let's look at v.4 and 5

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

The red words in v.4 are the trib martyrs who are resurrected "when He comes" per 1 Cor 15:23, which is the Second Advent.
The red words in v.5 refer to the Trib martyrs in v.4.
The red words in v.6 refer to the Trib martyrs in v.4 and 5.

The blue words in v.5 are in a parenthesis, because this phrase refers to the resurrection 1,000 years later. This is the resurrection of the unsaved, BECAUSE 1,000 years after the Second Advent is the GWT judgment. And all the unsaved will be resurrected in their mortal bodies to appear before the GWT for judgment.

There is no way the blue words can refer to any believer. All are resurrected "when He comes". which is the Second Advent.

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

This verse proves that there is just one resurrection for the saved, and includes ALL the saved.

Which is a second resurrection, 1,000 years AFTER the first resurrection of all the saved.

Are you wanting days and hours as well? Do you think the 1,000 years will be exactly to the minute?

I've already shown you there is only 1 resurrection of the saved. The Bible SAYS so. But you seem very unwilling to believe the Bible on this point.

chew on these verses:

Matt 22:30, Luke 14:14, Acts 24:15, 1 Cor 15:23. 1 for the saved and 1 for the unsaved.

That's 2 totaly. And Rev 20:5 acknowledge that.

The "math" is simple. 1 + 1 =2.

Thanks and I believe I understand why you interpret it that way. To you the blue words in parentheses are a temporary escape to a different subject before returning to the original subject.

I’ve considered that as well, even factoring in other verses such as 1 Corinthians 15:23.

“Those that are Christ’s at His coming” still get resurrected and they are said to be those who are beheaded in the great tribulation who get resurrected first, according to Revelation 20:4. No such talk of the saints in Earth’s history. It’s important what a verse does not say too.

*It’s my belief that the interpretation your providing is circumstantial at best. There isn’t a clear reason to assign them to the second resurrection when the surrounding context is about the first resurrection. This is how normal language flows in a coherent manner.

Revelation 20:6 explains how this should be understood.

Revelation 20:6
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

1. The second death does not have power over those in the first resurrection.
2. However, they still get to be priests and reign with Christ in non-resurrected form.
3. They don’t actually get to come to life (be resurrected) until after the 1,000 years are complete according to Revelation 20:5.
4. The first resurrection must be two groups one before and after the MK.

Why I believe the angle I am providing is accurate is because of what I have been saying all along. If the second resurrection is after the 1,000 years, before Gog and Magog, then there are some unfortunate math problems that seem irreconcilable.

Here are some questions for you to consider:

1. If Revelation 20:5 is the second resurrection then where do they go?
2. If those unsaved die in Gog and Magog, when did they get resurrected?
3. How many second resurrection groups do you say there are?

...hmmmmmm

"spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense. foolish or unacceptable behavior." <--is this really what some of us are saying to other believers?

I wonder do we read about caught up and think..well someone has to be right and.. I know its me. Song playing.. "holy are you LORD" ..you are worthy of the highest praise!". Oh loved it!

Something I don't read about is just what this "great tribulation" is going to look like. In my 20s to talk about say God heals. .oh man so easy.. duh God heals. Ok as of March 25th I turned 61 haha and to shout GOD HEALS .. is a greater fight. Does not help when your wife says to you when you say have a pain "what is it now!" haha. Your body feels like its just slowly breaking down...which it is. I hmm 3 days ago had a hernia operation. God heals.. 24/7 but.. something for me this small.. man I always worried.. and I am the cause of it. For I remember exactly when it happened. So since I worried.. I best get to the doctor. Yet a great pain in my chest which they said looked like a I had a massive heart attack yet in that moment.. I had no doubts (song playing YOU GOT THIS) .. that one hurt.

My point is experiencing tribulation are we? Like little girl sees them bust in to their house.. and kill dad the preacher before her eyes. Or in Afghanistan just after Biden really goofed that up someone was on the phone with some in Afghanistan.. they were together praying . .the woman heard them bust in and killed every one of them. Whats coming is not going to happen like you or I personally believe. We really need to get that fact down. We are NEVER going to be right here. He alone is. We can't even say ONE WOMAN ONE MAN or its hate speech. So we can see how the WORlD is about to treat believers for believing Adam + Eve = life. So yeah its all going basically great or ok so we can say duh its post trib! From what I read all the wars combined wont' compare to whats coming.

NO OFFENSE my family.. but can you right now blindly.. oh the SONG now..well I was going to say haha LOVE THIS! I was going to say can you trust Him right now? NO guess what was being said the exact time I was going to type? "going to trust you right now right now.. going to trust you right now". LOVE it when He does that! The song? I just looked "TRUST" by 7eventh Time down.

So can you trust Him right now? Knowing what HE said in His word HE IS GOING TO DO? If you can't do that now you never will during the worse time that has ever been. Then someone out there doing lying wonders that only a god (false) can do. HAHA can't get over that TRUST YOU! So He went to make me a place in His Fathers House so where He is (said that somewhere else also ) we will be. He is coming.. for me every time I TRUST YOU JESUS.. just taking what He said..not what MAN tells me what JESUS really mean but..just believe it has happened EVERY TIME! So I watch ready now.. I simply believe.. I will never miss Him...I will never see His wrath.. if you can't believe for His protection PS 91 now you again never will for whats coming. So easy now.. no one has a gun to your kids or friends head "deny Jesus". sorry kinda all over the place.. no writer.. why I don't reply much. .I am just awful at this

No, I don't believe the blue words "are a temporary escape to a different subject", but simply noting the resurrection in v.4 is of all the saved, which is contrasted with the resurrection of all the unsaved 1,000 years later.

I believe that 1 Cor 15:23 nails it down nicely.

Why would you not be convinced by that verse?

Not following your logic. We KNOW decisively that the GWT judgment will be 1,000 years after the Second Advent. And the Second Advent is when all the saved will be resurrected, which is the FIRST of TWO resurrections.

So the second resurrection by default HAS TO BE the resurrection of the unsaved for the GWT.

I don't know how else to connect the dots.

[QIOUTE]Revelation 20:6 explains how this should be understood.

Revelation 20:6
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

1. The second death does not have power over those in the first resurrection.
2. However, they still get to be priests and reign with Christ in non-resurrected form.
3. They don’t actually get to come to life (be resurrected) until after the 1,000 years are complete according to Revelation 20:5.
4. The first resurrection must be two groups one before and after the MK.[/QUOTE]
#1 is obvious and stated.
#2 is a real misread of the verse. Those in the first resurrection are the martyrs from the Trib. And they, in their glorified bodies, WILL reign with Christ in their resurrected bodies. I am perplexed at #2. The verse does support that point.

Therefore, #3 is also misguided. The text is very clear that it is the martyred saints will reign with Christ at their resurrection.

I am perplexed why you can't see the clarity in v.4 - I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

This verse very plainly says the martyrs "came to life (which is resurrection with glorified body) and reigned with Christ a thousand years". It couldn't be more plain than that.

Another problem here. Why do you think the record resurrection is BEFORE Gog and Magog??? That's not in Rev 20.

7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison
8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.
9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Follow the bolded words: when the 1,000 years are over, Satan is released and gathers from the 4 corners of earth, Gog and Magog for battle. After surrounding the camp of God's people (could be all the resurrected saints who had been reigning/serving in the kingdom) fire comes down from heaven and DEVOURS THEM.

There it is. God brings down fire and destroys ALL the unbelievers on earth. And what follows v.10? v..11-15 is the account of the GWT judgment.

So v.7-10 proves that all unbelievers will be killed before they are then resurrected for the GWT. And all the rest of unsaved mankind from Adam forward.

That connects all the dots.

The second resurrection of of all the unsaved, for the GWT. They will go to the lake of fire.

After they die, along with ALL the unsaved throughout human history, for the GWT.

Only one. The Bible says so. 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.

And John 5:28,29
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice
29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

FreeGrace2 said:
each verse doesn't actually say what I believe they say.
Why the attempt to be sneaky and quote ONLY part of what I said, as if I'm admitting what I NEVER said???

Can you be a bit more honest here, and just quote ALL that I said? I am inviting anyone to challenge the verses I have used that prove there is no rapture trip to heaven and only one resurrection of the saved, which occurs at the Second Advent.

In that invitation/challenge, I said "TO SHOW that each verse doesn't actualy say what I believe they say".

To leave of "to show" and that I was inviting people to challenge my view by showing the verses don't say what I believe they say is just dishonest.

Such a tactic is exactly what the Marxist Democrats have been doing for yours. Twist what conservatives say to make it look like they have said something else.

I'm very disappointed in your post. Unlike another poster who isn't posting anymore, I held you up to more integrity than he, but now, your tactic leaves me wondering.