How confident are you about your rapture beliefs?

[Jamdoc]

You brought up a lot in that response but I think the most important part is that you said Elijah and Enoch never died but the bible plainly tells us that they did die. I can't easily prove from the bible that Elijah died but I can prove that Enoch died.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

People seem to stop reading here where it says Enoch was translated that he should not SEE death because that supports the rapture doctrine. It never says that Enoch didn't die, it only says that Enoch didn't see the death of his body. If you keep reading that chapter you will see that Enoch and all the rest of the people in that did die.

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Now that is just silly semantics and a real stretch, because the bible plainly teaches that Enoch did not die but was taken alive.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

According to 2 Corinthians 5 we get our new body when this earthly temporary house is dissolved.

2Co 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Co 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
2Co 5:3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
2Co 5:4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

I don't know how that could mean anything other than the death of the body.

Why would you interpret that passage in such a way that contradicts 1 Cor 15:50-54? We need to interpret every passage in a way that doesn't contradict any other scripture. The passage you quoted here has to do with the contrast between being here on earth and being in heaven. If you continue reading on you can see that Paul was talking about being in heaven with the Lord even after being absent from the body on earth. As long as we are in the body we are absent from the Lord since He is in heaven.

2 Cor 5:6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

There's a lot of vagueness in 1 Cor 15:50-54 specifically these verses:

1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Is the trumpet a literal trumpet, I don't think it is, I think it's the New Testament for several different reason. And what gets changed? Is it our bodies? Is it the birth on the new man? Is it the Holy Spirit living within us?

This isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be. Whether the trumpet is literal or not is irrelevant. Either way, it's talking about a point in time when we (believers) will all be changed at the same time, resulting in us having immortal bodies. That time clearly has not yet happened. It will happen when the dead are raised, which will happen when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:22-23, 1 Thess 4:14-17).

Jesus said that he that believes in him will never die, he also says we have eternal life... that seems like we are immortal at the time of salvation.

Not bodily immortal. He wasn't saying that we will literally never die. Remember, He said "he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" (John 11:25). So, He wasn't saying that we would literally never die, He was saying that even if we physically die, we still will inherit eternal life rather than experience the second death as unbelievers will (Rev 20:15). Taking His statement that those who believe in Him will never die too literally results in contradicting other scripture.

2 Corinthians 5 is much more direct and to the point as to when we get our new bodies.

No, it absolutely is not. It says nothing about immortal bodies in that passage. But 1 Cor 15:50-54 does. And it's very clear that it will happen at a point in time in the future for all of us, which Paul refers to as the last trumpet, rather than each person being changed immediately upon death.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Lazarus and the other OT saints that were resurrected in the first century may have been raptured instead of dying a second time.

Where does scripture teach that? It seems to me that such a significant event would be recorded in scripture if that happened, but it's not.

As for the OT saints, who obviously had been dead awhile already by the first century, why would Paul neglect to mention their resurrection in 1 Cor 15:22-23 when he talked about the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I wasn't sure what the redemption of the body meant so I looked it up in Strong's to see what redemption meant and I posted Strong's definition.

You said our bodies will not be redeemed. Paul said they will be (Romans 8:23). Can you just acknowledge that you were wrong about that?

As far as the first part of your response, what do you think is the corruption, dishonor and weakness that "the body" is sown in?

That has to do with the fact that our natural bodies are corruptible and mortal. They die. In contrast to the immortal spiritual bodies we will have in the future which will never die.

 

[Bob_1000]

You said our bodies will not be redeemed. Paul said they will be (Romans 8:23). Can you just acknowledge that you were wrong about that?

That has to do with the fact that our natural bodies are corruptible and mortal. They die. In contrast to the immortal spiritual bodies we will have in the future which will never die.

I'm not arguing that the body is not redeemed, I'm arguing that redemption doesn't mean to transform something old into something new. I'm not being confrontational but isn't that obvious from the definition of the word? Redemption means to pay a ransom for something so that a thing or situation can be gotten rid of?

ἀπολύτρωσις
apolutrōsis
ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis
From a compound of G575 and G3083; (the act) ransom in full, that is, (figuratively) riddance, or (specifically) Christian salvation: - deliverance, redemption.

Apolutrōsis comes from these words.

̓πό
apo
apo'
A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.

λύτρον
lutron
loo'-tron
From G3089; something to loosen with, that is, a redemption price (figuratively atonement): - ransom.

Again I'm not trying to be confrontational but where do you get transforming something old into something new from that definition?

If you pay a ransom for someone that's been kidnapped you don't convert the old kidnapper into a new and better kidnapper, you release them from the kidnapper.

If I save my coupons so that I can redeem the coupons at the supermarket, I'm not replacing the old coupons with newer and better coupons, I'm getting rid of the coupons for a food item.

If Jesus redeems a person from their sins he's not replacing the old sins with new and better sins, he's getting rid of their sins.

 

[Jamdoc]

Where does scripture teach that? It seems to me that such a significant event would be recorded in scripture if that happened, but it's not.

As for the OT saints, who obviously had been dead awhile already by the first century, why would Paul neglect to mention their resurrection in 1 Cor 15:22-23 when he talked about the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality?

That's why I say "may have"
the bible is opaque on that issue, so we don't know if they died a second time or were translated alive. Either is possible, the bible just doesn't say so.. we really can't assume one way or the other. Having them die a second time would be going contradictory to Hebrews 9:27, but, it doesn't say they were translated, so we can't say for sure.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Olivet Discourse? Daniel? Revelation? the epistles to the Thessalonians?
they all teach of a period of tribulation before the end of the age.

The Olivet Discourse is about the destruction of the Temple that occurred in 70 AD.

Daniel is chiefly interested in the Syrian conflicts that preceded the Maccabean period.

The Revelation is chiefly interested in the conflict of the early Church under persecution by the Roman Empire.

1 Thessalonians talks about the resurrection of the dead at the Lord's return.

2 Thessalonians says that the Lord's return is not yet passed, but that first the man of lawlessness be revealed and the falling away.

I always encourage people to read the Bible with fresh, honest eyes; so I encourage that here to you as well.

Set aside your assumptions about certain passages of Scripture, read the texts just for what they say. Don't try and reaffirm confirmation biases, try to read the text just by itself. Ask yourself what this text meant to the author, what it meant for the original audience that read it.

Ground yourself in the text, begin in the text, dig through the text. Let the text speak. Once you let the text speak, then connect the dots--both to other places in Scripture and also history.

Scripture speaks a lot about tribulation, trial, testing, persecution, etc. These are the basic realities of life in this world, fallen and suffocated by death, part of what the Lord referred to as "birth pangs", the pains of the old dying world giving birth to the fresh, new world. Even as Jesus died and was raised from the dead, so God is going to do not just for us, but all creation; and we by the grace of God invited to participate and share in the work of new creation here and now--proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ and His kingdom.

Some periods are more intense than others, and varies from place to place.

The Church will face trouble in this world, but we do not tremble before the powers of this world, but are courageous in Christ who has conquered the world and defeated all the powers.

Even until the very end of the Age.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not even if Jesus tells you it's going to happen?

Matthew 24:21-22
For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. And if those days had not been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

You first need to establish that Jesus is talking about a great tribulation at the end of the age.

If the Olivet Discourse is primarily concerned with the destruction of the Temple that occurred during the First Jewish-Roman War (and it is), and that is the context of this great tribulation (and it is), then it is obviously not talking about a final "end times" tribulation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jamdoc]

The Olivet Discourse is about the destruction of the Temple that occurred in 70 AD.

Daniel is chiefly interested in the Syrian conflicts that preceded the Maccabean period.

The Revelation is chiefly interested in the conflict of the early Church under persecution by the Roman Empire.

1 Thessalonians talks about the resurrection of the dead at the Lord's return.

2 Thessalonians says that the Lord's return is not yet passed, but that first the man of lawlessness be revealed and the falling away.

I always encourage people to read the Bible with fresh, honest eyes; so I encourage that here to you as well.

Set aside your assumptions about certain passages of Scripture, read the texts just for what they say. Don't try and reaffirm confirmation biases, try to read the text just by itself. Ask yourself what this text meant to the author, what it meant for the original audience that read it.

Ground yourself in the text, begin in the text, dig through the text. Let the text speak. Once you let the text speak, then connect the dots--both to other places in Scripture and also history.

Scripture speaks a lot about tribulation, trial, testing, persecution, etc. These are the basic realities of life in this world, fallen and suffocated by death, part of what the Lord referred to as "birth pangs", the pains of the old dying world giving birth to the fresh, new world. Even as Jesus died and was raised from the dead, so God is going to do not just for us, but all creation; and we by the grace of God invited to participate and share in the work of new creation here and now--proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ and His kingdom.

Some periods are more intense than others, and varies from place to place.

The Church will face trouble in this world, but we do not tremble before the powers of this world, but are courageous in Christ who has conquered the world and defeated all the powers.

Even until the very end of the Age.

-CryptoLutheran

Preterism and Historicism fall flat and end up making God the god of hyperbole, because a lot of absolutely catastrophic language is used and if the historical view is correct, the fulfillments of these prophecies is a resounding nothingburger in comparison to how they were hyped up.
Jesus said that the Great Tribulation would be unmatched both previously and ever again.
We have had worse than 70AD within some people's lifetimes between the Holocaust and the communist purges of the 20th century.
70AD was not the Great Tribulation.
that's a joke.

But let's break it down.
Daniel 12

1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

This was NOT about stuff that happened prior to Jesus' birth as you claim, #1, the "end times" didn't begin until Pentecost.
#2, note the language referred to in that time of troubles.

Matthew 24

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Jesus references Daniel and speaks of it as a future event. So no, Daniel was not about Antiochus primarily, and the language He uses refers to the same time of trouble from Daniel 12, and He further clarifies that that time of trouble will be unequaled in the future as well.
also Jesus didn't return in 70AD and Revelation was written after 70AD, and so.. no, it wasn't about 70AD.

Continuing in Matthew 24

29 Immediately 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:
30 And 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.

First that didn't happen in 70AD, it hadn't happened by about 95AD when John wrote Revelation either, because John wrote about this in Revelation, as a still future event (that has not happened yet)

Revelation 6

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

There it is, the sun and moon darkening, the meteor showers, the signs that Jesus gave of His return.
I'm not an idiot, I do compare scripture to scripture. I base all of it on comparing scripture to scripture.

 

[Bob_1000]

Preterism and Historicism fall flat and end up making God the god of hyperbole, because a lot of absolutely catastrophic language is used and if the historical view is correct, the fulfillments of these prophecies is a resounding nothingburger in comparison to how they were hyped up.
Jesus said that the Great Tribulation would be unmatched both previously and ever again.
We have had worse than 70AD within some people's lifetimes between the Holocaust and the communist purges of the 20th century.
70AD was not the Great Tribulation.
that's a joke.

But let's break it down.
Daniel 12


This was NOT about stuff that happened prior to Jesus' birth as you claim, #1, the "end times" didn't begin until Pentecost.
#2, note the language referred to in that time of troubles.

Matthew 24


Jesus references Daniel and speaks of it as a future event. So no, Daniel was not about Antiochus primarily, and the language He uses refers to the same time of trouble from Daniel 12, and He further clarifies that that time of trouble will be unequaled in the future as well.
also Jesus didn't return in 70AD and Revelation was written after 70AD, and so.. no, it wasn't about 70AD.

Continuing in Matthew 24


First that didn't happen in 70AD, it hadn't happened by about 95AD when John wrote Revelation either, because John wrote about this in Revelation, as a still future event (that has not happened yet)

Revelation 6


There it is, the sun and moon darkening, the meteor showers, the signs that Jesus gave of His return.
I'm not an idiot, I do compare scripture to scripture. I base all of it on comparing scripture to scripture.

Preterism and Historicism fall flat and end up making God the god of hyperbole, because a lot of absolutely catastrophic language is used and if the historical view is correct, the fulfillments of these prophecies is a resounding nothingburger in comparison to how they were hyped up.
Jesus said that the Great Tribulation would be unmatched both previously and ever again.
We have had worse than 70AD within some people's lifetimes between the Holocaust and the communist purges of the 20th century.
70AD was not the Great Tribulation.
that's a joke.

But let's break it down.
Daniel 12


This was NOT about stuff that happened prior to Jesus' birth as you claim, #1, the "end times" didn't begin until Pentecost.
#2, note the language referred to in that time of troubles.

Matthew 24


Jesus references Daniel and speaks of it as a future event. So no, Daniel was not about Antiochus primarily, and the language He uses refers to the same time of trouble from Daniel 12, and He further clarifies that that time of trouble will be unequaled in the future as well.
also Jesus didn't return in 70AD and Revelation was written after 70AD, and so.. no, it wasn't about 70AD.

Continuing in Matthew 24


First that didn't happen in 70AD, it hadn't happened by about 95AD when John wrote Revelation either, because John wrote about this in Revelation, as a still future event (that has not happened yet)

Revelation 6


There it is, the sun and moon darkening, the meteor showers, the signs that Jesus gave of His return.
I'm not an idiot, I do compare scripture to scripture. I base all of it on comparing scripture to scripture.

70 AD was the wrath of God not the tribulation. The tribulation happened when the sun set at noon and there was a great earthquake strong enough to bring bones of dead men to the surface and three days later the bones grew muscle and tissue and rose to their feet and walked the streets of Jerusalem... that will never happen again.

 

[Jamdoc]

70 AD was the wrath of God not the tribulation. The tribulation happened when the sun set at noon and there was a great earthquake strong enough to bring bones of dead men to the surface and three days later the bones grew muscle and tissue and rose to their feet and walked the streets of Jerusalem... that will never happen again.

THE Wrath of God has not happened yet.
we haven't had all our oceans turn to blood, unless you believe not in the God of the bible but the god of hyperbole.

 

[Bob_1000]

THE Wrath of God has not happened yet.
we haven't had all our oceans turn to blood, unless you believe not in the God of the bible but the god of hyperbole.

The wrath of God has been poured out on mankind multiple times, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel etc. It’s being poured out on us right now.

My point was that the tribulation was completely different than Gods wrath.

 

[Jamdoc]

The wrath of God has been poured out on mankind multiple times, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel etc. It’s being poured out on us right now.

My point was that the tribulation was completely different than Gods wrath.

While that's true, there is a wrath of God in Revelation, the trumpets and bowls.
the Great Tribulation, is persecution by man, you might call it the wrath of Satan or the wrath of Antichrist.
Revelation 12

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

When Satan is cast out of heaven for good (he still has access to heaven to accuse us as he did with Job), he'll seek again to wipe out the Jews (the woman who brought forth the man child (Jesus)), and following that he'll persecute Christians

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[Bob_1000]

While that's true, there is a wrath of God in Revelation, the trumpets and bowls.
the Great Tribulation, is persecution by man, you might call it the wrath of Satan or the wrath of Antichrist.
Revelation 12


When Satan is cast out of heaven for good (he still has access to heaven to accuse us as he did with Job), he'll seek again to wipe out the Jews (the woman who brought forth the man child (Jesus)), and following that he'll persecute Christians

Do you think the heaven in Revelation 12 is the kingdom of heaven that was taken from the Jews or the heaven where Gods throne is?

 

[Jamdoc]

Do you think the heaven in Revelation 12 is the kingdom of heaven that was taken from the Jews or the heaven where Gods throne is?

The throne of God
it's there that Satan accuses.
I can see what you mean though because in Daniel 12 it's said that Michael protects Israel, and that Michael throws Satan out so yeah I can see how it can make you think was Satan being thrown out of heaven or Israel?
But I think it's heaven.
It is rather interesting though that Michael is connected with the Great Tribulation and it is an act that Michael does that precedes them, in both Daniel and Revelation.
In Daniel Michael stands up, signifying he no longer protects Israel, then the time of trouble begins (followed by the resurrection)
in Revelation Michael goes to war to cast Satan out of Heaven.
so it paints a picture that Michael is no longer protecting Israel, because He has gone to war in Heaven, and Satan, losing this war, then is cast down to earth, and proceeds to persecute Israel, then Christians.
2 Thessalonians 2 refers to a restraining force preventing the Antichrist from rising, a pretribulationists will claim it's the Church, and claim that means the rapture has to happen first (even though 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 says that it will happen after the Antichrist is revealed).
Michael is however another popular candidate for the restrainer, and Daniel 12 and Revelation 12 do seem to be showing Michael being taken out of the way by going to war.
But 2020 has also shown me that the Church could actually be the restrainer but that it can be taken out of the way without a rapture. simply by the government shutting it down and putting restrictions on it.

like I know I shouldn't be alarmist but I look at the world and I think, the first 4 seals don't even really have to be part of the 70th week. Everyone assumes that they are, but Revelation itself doesn't say that.
Of course some people claim the first 4 seals are historical events already in the past.
I think not, but at the same time it's like a nagging buzzing fly saying that 2020 saw the first two seals opened. The second seal doesn't say war, it says peace being taken from the earth which can be civil unrest and riots as well as war, particularly civil war.. and 2020 and beyond have seen a lot of civil wars and riots worldwide breaking out.
and the white horse.. conquers by deception.
so the Antichrist could be behind the scenes, not revealed yet, but currently operating through deception, we certainly have a lot of deception right now and everything feels like we are being groomed and steered into a system. The Agenda 2030/great reset is part of it.
part of the reason why is because that same plan, involves a global economic collapse and replacement with a global economic system, the great reset, which the collapse that preceeds the reset.. sounds like the 3rd seal, famine (and our current climate situations and plandemic exascerbate that) caused more by hyperinflation than actual food shortage (though they coexist). Those 3 things are manufactured.

I want to brush it aside and say no this isn't it, it'd be way worse
but at the same time it just keeps buzzing me like that fly that won't go away.
and it makes sense that the first 4 seals could in fact be pretribulational/pre 70th week events that establish the government that begins the 70th week.
Even though the traditional view has been the first seal is the beginning of the 70th week.

the feeling is like being on a chessboard with all the pieces moving into position, and you can see yourself being moved into checkmate from multiple moves ahead.
or at least it seems that way until you realize Satan has been in checkmate for almost 2000 years.

 

[Bob_1000]

The throne of God
it's there that Satan accuses.
I can see what you mean though because in Daniel 12 it's said that Michael protects Israel, and that Michael throws Satan out so yeah I can see how it can make you think was Satan being thrown out of heaven or Israel?
But I think it's heaven.
It is rather interesting though that Michael is connected with the Great Tribulation and it is an act that Michael does that precedes them, in both Daniel and Revelation.
In Daniel Michael stands up, signifying he no longer protects Israel, then the time of trouble begins (followed by the resurrection)
in Revelation Michael goes to war to cast Satan out of Heaven.
so it paints a picture that Michael is no longer protecting Israel, because He has gone to war in Heaven, and Satan, losing this war, then is cast down to earth, and proceeds to persecute Israel, then Christians.
2 Thessalonians 2 refers to a restraining force preventing the Antichrist from rising, a pretribulationists will claim it's the Church, and claim that means the rapture has to happen first (even though 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 says that it will happen after the Antichrist is revealed).
Michael is however another popular candidate for the restrainer, and Daniel 12 and Revelation 12 do seem to be showing Michael being taken out of the way by going to war.
But 2020 has also shown me that the Church could actually be the restrainer but that it can be taken out of the way without a rapture. simply by the government shutting it down and putting restrictions on it.

like I know I shouldn't be alarmist but I look at the world and I think, the first 4 seals don't even really have to be part of the 70th week. Everyone assumes that they are, but Revelation itself doesn't say that.
Of course some people claim the first 4 seals are historical events already in the past.
I think not, but at the same time it's like a nagging buzzing fly saying that 2020 saw the first two seals opened. The second seal doesn't say war, it says peace being taken from the earth which can be civil unrest and riots as well as war, particularly civil war.. and 2020 and beyond have seen a lot of civil wars and riots worldwide breaking out.
and the white horse.. conquers by deception.
so the Antichrist could be behind the scenes, not revealed yet, but currently operating through deception, we certainly have a lot of deception right now and everything feels like we are being groomed and steered into a system. The Agenda 2030/great reset is part of it.
part of the reason why is because that same plan, involves a global economic collapse and replacement with a global economic system, the great reset, which the collapse that preceeds the reset.. sounds like the 3rd seal, famine (and our current climate situations and plandemic exascerbate that) caused more by hyperinflation than actual food shortage (though they coexist). Those 3 things are manufactured.

I want to brush it aside and say no this isn't it, it'd be way worse
but at the same time it just keeps buzzing me like that fly that won't go away.
and it makes sense that the first 4 seals could in fact be pretribulational/pre 70th week events that establish the government that begins the 70th week.
Even though the traditional view has been the first seal is the beginning of the 70th week.

the feeling is like being on a chessboard with all the pieces moving into position, and you can see yourself being moved into checkmate from multiple moves ahead.
or at least it seems that way until you realize Satan has been in checkmate for almost 2000 years.

Another interesting thing is that when the 70 returned and said "even the devils are subject to them now" and Jesus responds with "yeah I know, I just saw Satan fall from heaven". Seems like Satan was kicked out of heaven a long time ago to me.

Luk 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

 

[Jamdoc]

Another interesting thing is that when the 70 returned and said "even the devils are subject to them now" and Jesus responds with "yeah I know, I just saw Satan fall from heaven". Seems like Satan was kicked out of heaven a long time ago to me.

Luk 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

See that's a hard thing for me to agree with because the result of Satan being kicked out of heaven by Michael is the Great Tribulation, and the time was "short" largely focused over 3.5 years.
but that didn't happen there.
I like to attribute it to Jesus being eternal and having an eternal perspective.
He saw Satan fall from heaven, even though from our perspective it's a future event.

 

[Timtofly]

There is no difference. That is ridiculous. Paul indicates no such thing. I've shown you this before, but it's hard to get anything through to you. Tell me the difference between being incorruptible and immortal. It means the same thing and Paul absolutely was not differentiating between the two terms.

Definition of incorruptible: not subject to death or decay; everlasting.

Definition of immortal: living forever; never dying or decaying

Can you see that these two terms mean the same thing? There is no basis whatsoever for thinking that the body becomes incorruptible at one event and then immortal at a later event. No, it will become incorruptible and immortal at the same event which is the return of Christ at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:50-54).

Immortal: adjective

living forever; never dying or decaying

Immortal: noun

an immortal being, especially a god of ancient Greece or Rome.

Immortality: noun

the ability to live forever; eternal life.

For one who puts all the emphasis on everything non physical as spirit and spiritual, why can you not see that Paul is stating one as pertaining to the physical and the other pertaining to the spiritual?

Now you just lump the physical and spiritual as being equally the same thing? Satan is a physical created being. Yet you define Satan as only spirit. Now when Paul is making a difference between the physical body and our spirit, you change your mind set?

Do we put on an adjective or a noun? Paul says we put on our spirit, noun, we put on God if we go with your immortal noun. Paul says we put on the ability to be eternal. Do you understand that eternity is outside of creation? That only God can transcend creation and is outside of creation? Are you saying our body will let us leave creation and reality and transcend like God? Because that is what claiming an immortal body is.

As pointed out, is Paul just repeating himself, or is he pointing out what our spirit is compared to the body? An imperishable body is also without decay and everlasting, but not God like. One description points to the physical and the other points to the spirit "of God".

Are you going to change your stance and claim a spiritual being also has a physical body? Are angels also body, soul, and spirit? If not what is a spirit that is different from our body, soul, and spirit? Seems just easier to point out the spirit is the outer part put on over the body. The body is put on over the soul. All are eternal. Permanent means everlasting. With the added point of never changing. We know the current body is constantly changing. It is organic, not a solid element like a rock or stone. A permanent body is one that will not change. What that entails is beyond what the body is now. So imperishable pertains to what we know about a physical body. But even angels have pointed out they were flesh and blood, created beings just like us.

That a heavenly body is just spirit is missing the whole point that sons of God are humankind created on day 6. Adam was a son of God, but died spiritually and physically. Sons of God have a body, soul, and spirit. We will be sons of God, when glorified. Right now we are only sons of Adam in Adam's image.

 

[Timtofly]

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Why would Paul say we're waiting for the redemption of our body if it already happened at the cross? See how I'm backing up my view with scripture? Why do you never do that? Seems like it must be because you have none to back up your view.

For the same reason we are waiting for the end of the 70th week promised by Gabriel in Daniel 9. You think it strange the body was redeemed at the Cross, but yet not strange that all of the 6 promises were fulfilled?

Why would our permanent body in Paradise need to be redeemed? You seem to not take the metaphor of the seed sown as literal, but yet claim a literal future redemption of a body that is just going to return to dust? Still just a figure of speech. The same principle that in Adam all are condemned, but in Christ all are redeemed. The sins of this body will not be held against us.

You can hold to your current body being redeemed in the future. I will hold to those in Christ in Paradise now as having their incorruptible bodies.

 

[Timtofly]

I said no such thing. I don't know when he died after he was resurrected.

Not in scripture, but does that mean he couldn't have died just because it isn't recorded in scripture? Paul's death isn't recorded in scripture. Does that mean he didn't die? Come on.

We've been over this before. It's not possible that Lazarus didn't die again because Paul made it clear that no one except Christ has been raised unto immortality yet. He showed the order here:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

The order is clear. Christ Himself was the first to be resurrected unto immortality. Other verses like Acts 26:23, Rev 1:5 and Col 1:18 confirm this. Next in order are those who belong to Christ at His second coming. Paul does not mention anyone else having been resurrected unto bodily immortality yet except for Jesus. That means Lazarus must have died and he will be resurrected along with all of the rest of the dead in Christ when Jesus returns at the last trumpet.

Sure. Where else would he have gone?

No, the dead in Christ have gone to the third heaven/paradise since then.

Christ Himself is the firstfruits. That's what you're not getting. No one but Christ has yet been raised unto bodily immortality. We (all believers from all time) will all be changed to have incorruptible/immortal bodies at the SAME time in the future when Christ returns at the last trumpet. That is what you don't get because you don't understand what passages like 1 Cor 15:22-23 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 teach.

See; you are lumping being glorified into having a physical body.

Christ the firstfruits is the whole of Abraham's bosom. You claim they are in Paradise, but not since the resurrection? How can they not be the firstfruits, not be in Paradise, yet are in Paradise at the same time?

That they are in Paradise, means they are the firstfruits and as firstfruits they have a physical body just like Jesus Christ.

Those at His coming are us folks chatting in a physical forum with a physical corruptible body. The alive and remain. Those are the second set. The third set, you completely deny, then comes the end. That is humans with incorruptible bodies on earth who did not follow Satan and who were not consumed by fire, when Christ offers up the 1000 year physical reign.


You claim no one is in the first group and shift all forward to the next group. That is not what Paul said at all.

Paul just explained the firstfruits:

"For if the dead are not raised, then the Messiah has not been raised either; and if the Messiah has not been raised, your trust is useless, and you are still in your sins. Also, if this is the case, those who died in union with the Messiah are lost. If it is only for this life that we have put our hope in the Messiah, we are more pitiable than anyone. But the fact is that the Messiah has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have died."

Paul is pointing out the resurrection of bodies at the time of the Cross. Also that of Lazarus' resurrection. If any claim they have not been raised, past tense, then neither has Christ, past tense, and it is vain to have hope. Firstfruits is plural. If Christ was the only one, it would be Christ the firstfruit, singular. It is Christ the firstfruits, plural. That means all. All who physically die, are firstfruits, once the soul enters a permanent incorruptible physical body. In Christ in Paradise is just like Christ. Except glorification. The church as a whole will be glorified as one.

Then we see:

"But each in his own order: the Messiah is the firstfruits (the whole of those in Abraham's bosom, including Lazarus, that was, yet no longer is, like all the rest); then those who belong to the Messiah, at the time of his coming (we in this forum still alive, until we are not, but join in the former group); then the culmination (see this? this is those alive at the end of the 1000 years, why?)(it is when He does the next thing), when he hands over the Kingdom to God the Father, after having put an end to every rulership, yes, to every authority and power.

Notice the "then"? The then is not at His coming, the Second Coming, the then is a later date. There has been over 1991 years between the firstfruits of the Cross, until the Second Coming. There will be a solid 1000 years between the 7th Trumpet and the culmination.

Interesting that some lump all three groups into one event and call it the Second Coming. Boom one point in time, and it is all over. Did Paul give a single event? No!

Christ the firstfruits. First event. At His coming. Second event. Then comes the culmination, the end after 1000 years, a third event. Three events, not one singular moment in time.


And no, I do not understand why you lump everything together, instead of rightly divide the Word to get the full context of what God's Word is stating.