Pre-tribulation Rapture Believers Safe House

[Copperhead]

It is going to be a small part. And those that flee will not be rescued until Jesus returns.

I would have to agree, but maybe from an different angle. Zechariah seems to say that 2/3 of the Jews in the levant will die with 1/3 left and brought thru the fire. As with any period, there seems to always be a remnant.

 

[Copperhead]

Go back in Matthew 24 and read Jesus words: "the end is not yet." Go back and study Revelation chapters 4 & 5 and learn the TIMING of the first seals: it was the very time Jesus ascended! It was around 32 AD. My friend, that is CHURCH AGE, not "end times." Seal 1 is the gospel sent out. Seals 2 through 4 is the devil's attempts to stop the advance of the Gospel. Seal 5 are the martyrs of the CHURCH AGE.

The only issue I have with that is the first verse of Chapter 4, specifically the phrase "after these things". The previous two chapters had been describing the church, I believe in both a present and history setting. If only in a present sense, those churches did not start till quite some time after Yeshua's ascension.

John had been told to write down what he had seen, the things that are (the churches), and the things that will take place after this (after the churches). That puts us back onto Chapter 4.... "after these things".

So the seals even starting before the "after these things" does not line up.

But let's assume your analysis of the seals is correct. For the position to have merit, it must be supported from the OT in an equal measure, which is a requirement of the Torah to establish a matter. Since your position really deviates from the normal eschatological views, you really are going to have to provide that OT evidence to enable your view to have any validity.

 

[iamlamad]

So then, there was no first fruits harvest on the feast of first fruits which is the day that Yeshua was resurrected? Matthew 27 seems to disagree with that.

Yeshua tells Mary, after His resurrection, not to touch Him as He had not yet ascended to the Father. As the High Priest, He would be required to remain ceremonially pure until He had offered the first fruits of the harvest as per Leviticus 23. Matthew 27 states that many "saints" were resurrected after Yeshua's resurrection. We have no other reference in scripture, but many of the early writers who were either in direct contact with the Apostles or their students stated that these saints were taken to the Father. The circumstantial evidence supports that these saints were the first fruits.

Later that day, Yeshua appears to many and tells them to touch Him to see that He is not a ghost or spirit. He had by then already fulfilled the Torah regarding the first fruits.

So it is possible that the "first fruits" were these saints. The main harvest occurs later, and then the gleaning harvest follows, as per the Torah. I see the main harvest as the removal of the dead and righteous saints redeemed from the time of Yeshua onward to before the start of the end times events. The gleanings harvest as being those redeemed during the tribulation period.

Which came first: those resurrected when Jesus rose, or the 144,000? OF COURSE those that rose when Jesus rose. But it is the 144,000 that are called "firstfruits." It must be then that in the mind of God those were not any kind of "fruits," since they rose 2000 years before the "first fruits" will be sealed. Then perhaps we should call those that Jesus rose when He rose as the "elders."

 

[iamlamad]

The only issue I have with that is the first verse of Chapter 4, specifically the phrase "after these things". The previous two chapters had been describing the church, I believe in both a present and history setting. If only in a present sense, those churches did not start till quite some time after Yeshua's ascension.

John had been told to write down what he had seen, the things that are (the churches), and the things that will take place after this (after the churches). That puts us back onto Chapter 4.... "after these things".

So the seals even starting before the "after these things" does not line up.

But let's assume your analysis of the seals is correct. For the position to have merit, it must be supported from the OT in an equal measure, which is a requirement of the Torah to establish a matter. Since your position really deviates from the normal eschatological views, you really are going to have to provide that OT evidence to enable your view to have any validity.

You can't make a doctrine out of "after these things." John wrote a very similar phrase 6 times in Revelation. The only real meaning we can get from it is that John used it as a transitional phrase from one part of his vision to another part; in other words, when God changed subjects with John, he wrote "after this" or "after these things."

I hope you realize that it was still 95 AD when God called John up to heaven. It was not after the church age, it was just after God finished dictating the messages to the churches.

John was called up to heaven in 95 AD, but what came next? Did he see the throne room of 95 AD or did he see a VISION of the throne room or another time? We can only tell by the substance of the vision itself.
I find a story with words:
JESUS NOT IN THE THRONE ROOM
THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE THRONE ROOM
NO MAN FOUND in a search for one worthy
(after time passes)
JESUS FOUND WORTHY
JESUS SUDDENLY APPEARING IN THE THRONE ROOM
THE HOLY SPIRIT SENT DOWN.

How do YOU read this story?

There IS no book with seven seals in the Old Testament. However, from other scriptures we KNOW Jesus came to take on human flesh, died on the cross, was buried, then rose from the dead.
We KNOW He appeared to Mary and after He sent her away, ascended into the throne room. And as He has said, we know He sent the Holy Spirit down so people could be born again. Later He breathed on those in the upper room and said, "receive the Holy Spirit," and they were all born again.

There are many more than just two or three witnesses.

 

[Copperhead]

Which came first: those resurrected when Jesus rose, or the 144,000? OF COURSE those that rose when Jesus rose. But it is the 144,000 that are called "firstfruits." It must be then that in the mind of God those were not any kind of "fruits," since they rose 2000 years before the "first fruits" will be sealed. Then perhaps we should call those that Jesus rose when He rose as the "elders."

And that only is a working idea if the idea of the pre-trib gathering of the righteous is invalid. But there is plenty in both OT and NT to support that idea. So the only way the 144,000 can be the first fruits is if they are to be the first fruits of the tribulation period. And that is viable idea.

 

[iamlamad]

And that only is a working idea if the idea of the pre-trib gathering of the righteous is invalid. But there is plenty in both OT and NT to support that idea. So the only way the 144,000 can be the first fruits is if they are to be the first fruits of the tribulation period. And that is viable idea.

What is written?
"These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."

John really does not tell us. However, since these are 12,000 from each tribe, it seems just common sense to believe they are the first-fruits of the Jews and Hebrews.

 

[Copperhead]

You can't make a doctrine out of "after these things." John wrote a very similar phrase 6 times in Revelation. The only real meaning we can get from it is that John used it as a transitional phrase from one part of his vision to another part; in other words, when God changed subjects with John, he wrote "after this" or "after these things."

I hope you realize that it was still 95 AD when God called John up to heaven. It was not after the church age, it was just after God finished dictating the messages to the churches.

John was called up to heaven in 95 AD, but what came next? Did he see the throne room of 95 AD or did he see a VISION of the throne room or another time? We can only tell by the substance of the vision itself.
I find a story with words:
JESUS NOT IN THE THRONE ROOM
THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE THRONE ROOM
NO MAN FOUND in a search for one worthy
(after time passes)
JESUS FOUND WORTHY
JESUS SUDDENLY APPEARING IN THE THRONE ROOM
THE HOLY SPIRIT SENT DOWN.

How do YOU read this story?

The thing you are missing that what John was told to write down... the things that he had seen (chapter one), the things that are (chapters 2 & 3), and the things that are to come (Chapter 4 onward).

And the elders that are there with John are the redeemed righteous. Peter calls us a royal priesthood. These elders are kings and priests (royal priesthood), they sit on thrones, and the are divided into 24, which is the number of divisions of the priests under King David. It is the only division of 24 in scripture.

Thus the vision is future... after these things... of the preceding chapters. The church is never mentioned again until final salutation of the book.

There is scripture support from both OT and NT that these elders are the redeemed who were caught up. So for your assertion to stand, it also must have equal support from both the OT and NT to be worthy of consideration.

 

[Copperhead]

What is written?
"These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."

John really does not tell us. However, since these are 12,000 from each tribe, it seems just common sense to believe they are the first-fruits of the Jews and Hebrews.

Of course! The main focus of the tribulation period is on the Hebrew people! Yeshua will not return until they as a corporate body acknowledge their offense of rejecting Him as Hosea said. They are the first fruits of the tribulation period.

 

[Copperhead]

No, I am certianly not missing anything. You may think I am.

You could be right. You may not be missing anything. But nothing you have presented is making the case. You have to provide OT evidence as well to support your contention or it is invalid. That is the requirement of the Torah. We are told to test all things, the Bereans were commended for it, and the Holy Spirit gave us the standard to test by. You have yet to meet that standard. If you can provide evidence from the OT that supports you view, then many of us will be open to looking at it.

 

[iamlamad]

You could be right. You may not be missing anything. But nothing you have presented is making the case. You have to provide OT evidence as well to support your contention or it is invalid. That is the requirement of the Torah. We are told to test all things, the Bereans were commended for it, and the Holy Spirit gave us the standard to test by. You have yet to meet that standard. If you can provide evidence from the OT that supports you view, then many of us will be open to looking at it.

Your necessity of an Old Testament validation is in error. "The book with seven seals in not in the Old Testament. We are NOT UNDER the Torah. My theory is validated four times in chapters 4 & 5. And it is validated again and again in the New Testament.

If you wish to disagree, it is OK. But you cannot change the context of the first seal, after we get done discussing, the context will still be Jesus suddenly appearing in the throne room and sending the Holy Spirit down.

 

[Copperhead]

Your necessity of an Old Testament validation is in error. "The book with seven seals in not in the Old Testament. We are NOT UNDER the Torah. My theory is validated for times in chapters 4 & 5. And it is validated again and again in the New Testament.

If you wish to disagree, it is OK. But you cannot change the context of the first seal, after we get done discussing, the context will still be Jesus suddenly appearing in the throne room and sending the Holy Spirit down.

No it is not error. The Torah makes that requirement clear and the Bereans in Acts 17 gave us the example on how that is applied to scripture exegesis. And we are under the instruction of the Torah and the NT. The word Torah is derived from the root yara, which means teaching. If you choose to throw out the 5 books of Moses or negate them to the dust bin, that is your choice.

The Bereans showed us that all teaching must be supported from the OT. Paul was teaching them, and his teaching constitutes a significant portion of the NT. So the standard remains... all doctrine must have support in both the OT and NT.

It is the standard I am sticking by. The Bereans were commended for it. I am not worried that someone in the 21st century thinks about it.

 

[iamlamad]

No it is not error. The Torah makes that requirement clear and the Bereans in Acts 17 gave us the example on how that is applied to scripture exegesis. And we are under the instruction of the Torah and the NT. The word Torah is derived from the root yara, which means teaching. If you choose to throw out the 5 books of Moses or negate them to the dust bin, that is your choice.

The Bereans showed us that all teaching must be supported from the OT. Paul was teaching them, and his teaching constitutes a significant portion of the NT. So the standard remains... all doctrine must have support in both the OT and NT.

It is the standard I am sticking by. The Bereans were commended for it. I am not worried that someone in the 21st century thinks about it.

IT is not that we throw out the torah, the truth is, we are under a new and better covenant. There were something like 614 points of law to follow. Yet, Paul said, under the new Covenant that if we try to follow just one thinking it was law to us, then we become obliged to follow ALL the law.

I think what you are really saying is, you cannot prove what I have written is in error using the scriptures I use. You cannot disprove me using verses in these two chapters. In other words, you have no idea why Jesus was NOT SEEN at the right hand of the Father; you have no idea why "no man was found" in that first search John watched; and you have no idea why the Holy Spirit was there at a time when Jesus seemed NOT to be there. You don't know why God showed the moment Jesus suddenly appeared in the throne room; nor do you know why God had John write that the Holy Spirit was then sent down. You cannot explain the REAL intent of the Holy Spirit in these scriptures, but you are SURE my explanation is in error. I got it.

 

[Copperhead]

IT is not that we throw out the torah, the truth is, we are under a new and better covenant. There were something like 614 points of law to follow. Yet, Paul said, under the new Covenant that if we try to follow just one thinking it was law to us, then we become obliged to follow ALL the law.

You do know, don't you, that redemption thru the Messiah is per the prescription of the Torah?

We are all guilty of murder when it comes to the killing of Yeshua. Yet, from the cross, He asked the Father to forgive us for we know not what we do. What we are guilty of is manslaughter... the unintentional death of Yeshua.

If one is guilty of manslaughter and not murder, under the Torah they could flee to a city of refuge and be safe from the Avenger of Blood of the family. Back then, the state didn't execute justice, the next of kin in the family legally could do so. By fleeing to a city of refuge, one is safe from the avenger of blood. They remain there until the death of the high priest and then they were free to leave and not fear any punishment.

We are guilty of manslaughter. We flee to the city of refuge which is Messiah. We are then protected from the Avenger of Blood, the next of kin, The Father. Yeshua is our High Priest and lives forever. We are forever protected from punishment.

The Torah teaches us all about Yeshua in every way. Yeshua said the Torah was written of Him. He is in every part of the Torah. The Torah also shows us how to view the scripture and others. It gives us the guidance we need to properly apply the scripture. And it gives us the standard to establish a matter so as to protect us from error. And that standard is what I use when it comes to doctrinal positions that I am confronted with. That standard helps weed out some pretty wild ideas that crop up.

Many wonder how King David could extoll the "law" and sing its praises. That is because "law" is a cold, hard term. Kind of hard to imagine David speaking of "I love the speed limit laws, they refresh my soul". But he could sing that praise of the Torah because the Torah is teaching. It shows us who Yeshua is. David saw the redeemer to come in every word of the Torah.

We are not under the penalty of the Torah, but it is still foundational teaching about the Messiah. It is far more than most people think it is. It shows us Messiah. It even protects us from the evil one. It is a guide for living. It is of the Lord. It is so much more than "law". There is some validity to the assertion that the Torah is the total history of the world. The Torah is the 5 books of Moses, not just the "law". It shows us the battle of history between Yahweh and the evil one. When we understand that war going on as outlined in the Torah, then many things that have gone on in history and about the future become clearer.

And when one begins to understand the war that is going on, then the idea of the righteous being removed before the tribulation period is not as crazy as it sounds to some. If one better understands the war that is going on and outlined in the Torah, one can have a better awareness of the depth of darkness that will exhibit the tribulation period and how it will be worse than anything that has preceded it, just as Yeshua told us.

 

[iamlamad]

Can a pretrib rapture be proven from scripture? Many "experts" in the pretrib camp say no. I disagree. I think pretrib can be proven. No, not in one verse, but using several verses.

Are any pretribbers here confident they can prove pretrib?
Let's see your arguments.

 

[Copperhead]

Actually, I think it can be done in one verse, or probably more aptly, within 3 verses of the same passage.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, many translations say a "falling away", "rebellion", etc happens before the man of sin / antichrist is revealed. But many Greek scholars, along with every English translation prior to the KJV, state that what is actually in view is the "departure" of the redeemed.

The context of the chapter is laid out in verse 1...

2 Thessalonians 2:1 (NKJV) Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you

The context is our gathering to the Lord, not our departure from the Lord.

And for some reason, either a word or forged letter had upset the Thessalonians so that Paul has to make a point that they not get all worried that the Day of the Lord was at hand....

2 Thessalonians 2:2 (NKJV) not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

And this leads into verse 3, which is best shown in the Geneva Bible....

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (1599 Geneva Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

Dr. Andy Wood, Dr. Ed Hindson, Dr. Kenneth Wuest, and the list goes on of respected Greek scholars along with many well known expositors, contend that apostasia in the Greek of v3 simply means departure. And that in this verse, has a specific article in mind... "the departure". A singular event. Unless there is something in the passage to say what is being departed from, it is taking liberty with the text to make it sound like a falling away, apostasy (an English word the does not have the same meaning as apostasia in the Greek though they sound the same), rebellion... something not in the text.

The only other verse that uses apostasia is in Acts 21:21, but in that verse the object is also included as to what is being departed from. It doesn't support the idea that apostasia, by itself, means a falling way or rebellion.

It simply means "departure". Again, the context is our gathering to the Lord, not our falling away or departing from Him. Therefore, the passage is clearly pre-trib. As Dr. Andy Woods has stated... game, set, match.

And when viewed along with verses that come later, it supports this idea.

2 Thessalonians 2:5-8 (NKJV) Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

The only thing that restrains evil is the Holy Spirit. And it is within the redeemed that the HS resides. So if the HS is taken out of the way, what does that say about the redeemed? That they are left to fend for themselves? Hardly, since the redeemed are sealed by the HS.

 

[iamlamad]

Actually, I think it can be done in one verse, or probably more aptly, within 3 verses of the same passage.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, many translations say a "falling away", "rebellion", etc happens before the man of sin / antichrist is revealed. But many Greek scholars, along with every English translation prior to the KJV, state that what is actually in view is the "departure" of the redeemed.

The context of the chapter is laid out in verse 1...

2 Thessalonians 2:1 (NKJV) Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you

The context is our gathering to the Lord, not our departure from the Lord.

And for some reason, either a word or forged letter had upset the Thessalonians so that Paul has to make a point that they not get all worried that the Day of the Lord was at hand....

2 Thessalonians 2:2 (NKJV) not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

And this leads into verse 3, which is best shown in the Geneva Bible....

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (1599 Geneva Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

Dr. Andy Wood, Dr. Ed Hindson, Dr. Kenneth Wuest, and the list goes on of respected Greek scholars along with many well known expositors, contend that apostasia in the Greek of v3 simply means departure. And that in this verse, has a specific article in mind... "the departure". A singular event. Unless there is something in the passage to say what is being departed from, it is taking liberty with the text to make it sound like a falling away, apostasy (an English word the does not have the same meaning as apostasia in the Greek though they sound the same), rebellion... something not in the text.

The only other verse that uses apostasia is in Acts 21:21, but in that verse the object is also included as to what is being departed from. It doesn't support the idea that apostasia, by itself, means a falling way or rebellion.

It simply means "departure". Again, the context is our gathering to the Lord, not our falling away or departing from Him. Therefore, the passage is clearly pre-trib. As Dr. Andy Woods has stated... game, set, match.

And when viewed along with verses that come later, it supports this idea.

2 Thessalonians 2:5-8 (NKJV) Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

The only thing that restrains evil is the Holy Spirit. And it is within the redeemed that the HS resides. So if the HS is taken out of the way, what does that say about the redeemed? That they are left to fend for themselves? Hardly, since the redeemed are sealed by the HS.

This is good. I agree, it does show the timing of the rapture in relation to the Day of the Lord. However, one would have to know where in Revelation the 70th week begins in relation to the beginning of the Day of the Lord.

 

[Copperhead]

This is good. I agree, it does show the timing of the rapture in relation to the Day of the Lord. However, one would have to know where in Revelation the 70th week begins in relation to the beginning of the Day of the Lord.

Why? If the redeemed depart before the man of sin is revealed, then what is the point of focusing on the 70th week? I really could give a rip on the actual day it starts or when the man of sin / lawless one / antichrist is revealed or who he is because it is not my destiny as one of the redeemed.

 

[iamlamad]

Why? If the redeemed depart before the man of sin is revealed, then what is the point of focusing on the 70th week? I really could give a rip on the actual day it starts or when the man of sin / lawless one / antichrist is revealed or who he is because it is not my destiny as one of the redeemed.

We have to take every end time scripture to get the whole picture. The man of sin will be revealed when He enters the temple and declares he is God. And when he does that, he will pollute the temple and the daily sacrifices will be stopped: it will the the abomination that Jesus spoke of.

Therefore, we need to know where the day of the Lord STARTS. Some people think the DAY starts when He returns, as in Rev. 19. If that was the case, then a rapture just before the DAY could mean the church going through God's wrath.

Or course, that is NOT the case: the DAY begins at the 6th seal. The 70th week begins at the 7th seal. The Day starts God's wrath, so the rapture must come before His wrath. By Paul's words, the rapture must come before the 6th seal that begins wrath.

 

[Copperhead]

And one has to factor in the elders of Revelation 4 onward. Many folks have speculated who these guys are. I think it is another one of those clear cut issues.

Good 'ol Pete in 1 Peter 2:9 calls the redeemed a royal priesthood (kings and priests). King David divided the priests into 24 divisions. The only group in scripture to be divided into 24. Yeshua says in Revelation 2:26-27 that the redeemed will rule with a rod of Iron along with Him.

The debate seems to center on whether the elders say "us" or "they" in Revelation 5:9-10. Textual criticism methodology comes into play. The KJV and similar use the majority text method, that what the majority of texts say, go with that. Some like the NASB, have a restricted view. If one of the established texts does not contain a specific word, even though the majority of texts have the word, the methodology is to leave the word out. Sometimes they will fudge a little and include a passage, even though their methodology would states that it should be left out. But they then will add a comment that the passage may not be legit because some texts don't have it. The clearest example of this is John 8 regarding the woman caught in adultery.

And the majority of texts have the Greek "ego" which is a personal possessive that equates to "us", "we", "I", etc. In fact, out of the 24 main manuscripts that translators rely on, only one does not contain "ego", so some like the NASB, NIV, etc don't include it. But for grammatical structure will use "They", "them", etc.

So then, if the majority of manuscripts say "ego", then it is legit that the elders are referring to the redeemed by stating "us", "we", etc. That then means that the removal of the redeemed occurred before the 1st seal is broken.

Then, since the seals all are initiated at the hand of Yeshua, even seal one onward could be considered the Lord's wrath. It doesn't have to say specifically that it is His wrath to be so. After all, the flood of Noah event and the destruction of Sodom, wrath is never mentioned. Not even until Genesis 48. Yet, it would seem clear that these events were the wrath of the Lord.

 

[iamlamad]

And one has to factor in the elders of Revelation 4 onward. Many folks have speculated who these guys are. I think it is another one of those clear cut issues.

Good 'ol Pete in 1 Peter 2:9 calls the redeemed a royal priesthood (kings and priests). King David divided the priests into 24 divisions. The only group in scripture to be divided into 24. Yeshua says in Revelation 2:26-27 that the redeemed will rule with a rod of Iron along with Him.

The debate seems to center on whether the elders say "us" or "they" in Revelation 5:9-10. Textual criticism methodology comes into play. The KJV and similar use the majority text method, that what the majority of texts say, go with that. Some like the NASB, have a restricted view. If one of the established texts does not contain a specific word, even though the majority of texts have the word, the methodology is to leave the word out. Sometimes they will fudge a little and include a passage, even though their methodology would states that it should be left out. But they then will add a comment that the passage may not be legit because some texts don't have it. The clearest example of this is John 8 regarding the woman caught in adultery.

And the majority of texts have the Greek "ego" which is a personal possessive that equates to "us", "we", "I", etc. In fact, out of the 24 main manuscripts that translators rely on, only one does not contain "ego", so some like the NASB, NIV, etc don't include it. But for grammatical structure will use "They", "them", etc.

So then, if the majority of manuscripts say "ego", then it is legit that the elders are referring to the redeemed by stating "us", "we", etc. That then means that the removal of the redeemed occurred before the 1st seal is broken.

Then, since the seals all are initiated at the hand of Yeshua, even seal one onward could be considered the Lord's wrath. It doesn't have to say specifically that it is His wrath to be so. After all, the flood of Noah event and the destruction of Sodom, wrath is never mentioned. Not even until Genesis 48. Yet, it would seem clear that these events were the wrath of the Lord.

I will admit this is good human reasoning. But in some cases, human reasoning comes up with the wrong answer.

If it is "us" then that includes the 4 beasts. That tells us the 4 beasts are redeemed also!

However, ignoring that problem, why can't they be the real elders, say the first 24 righteous starting with Adam? Who would be more elder than Adam?