What is "The Great tribulation"?

[Spiritual Jew]

No, not "final" wrath in context, but in context of God's wrath beginning.

You take everything out of context. The wrath that comes down on the day of the Lord is clearly the final wrath because it will burn up the heavens and the earth, as Peter said (2 Peter 3:10-12). That's why Paul said "they shall not escape". How could anyone escape that?

Up to the beginning of God's wrath, the world will be saying peace and safety. Saying peace and safety because the world will be thinking it has entered the messianic age.

I've told you this before, but I guess I'll have to say it again. The context of them saying "peace and safety" is not in the context of the state of the world, but rather in the context of their own personal spiritual peace and safety.

You are not reading the text carefully. Look at the context.

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. 7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night 8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

Verse 4 is a key to understanding the context of what Paul was saying in verse 3. He was indicating that the ones who are saying "peace and safety" are those who are in spiritual darkness. Paul is talking about the spiritual status of individuals here, not the physical status of the world. Pay attention to what he actually said instead of what you want him to be saying.

He told his Christian readers that they are not in spiritual darkness like the ones who will experience "sudden destruction" are. So, that's the context of them saying "peace and safety". These unbelievers are thinking that they are fine spiritually with no need to repent, so they think they are at peace spiritually and are safe from God's wrath. But the reality is that they are in spiritual darkness and God's wrath will come down on them if they don't repent.

In verse 6 Paul talks about the importance of watching and being sober. He is talking about being aware of what is going on spiritually and being mindful of our spiritual status. If we are right with God then we are the ones who can say "peace and safety" rather than the ones who are spiritually blind and falsely think that they are at peace and safe from God's wrath.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Again, you cannot find another trumpet gathering of a group to meet God.

Paul, a Jew, was relating to the call to meet God, according to that experience by his ancestors at Mt. Sinai.

Somehow two gatherings to meet God, at the sound of a trumpet, is not good enough for you.

Somehow two passages that speak of a last trumpet (the seventh trumpet is obviously the last of the seven trumpets) sounding with believers being rewarded at the time is not good enough for you.

Yet, Jesus was the second man.

1Corinthians15:
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

It calls Him the second man, not the last man. Just as I would expect a second trumpet out of only two to be called the second and not the last. Your arguments continue to be weak.

 

[Douggg]

You take everything out of context. The wrath that comes down on the day of the Lord is clearly the final wrath because it will burn up the heavens and the earth, as Peter said (2 Peter 3:10-12). That's why Paul said "they shall not escape". How could anyone escape that?

You are no longer in the 1Thessalonians5 context.

 

[Douggg]

It calls him the second man, not the last man. Your arguments continue to be weak.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You are no longer in the 1Thessalonians5 context.

LOL. Of course I am. Surely, Peter was not talking about some other day of the Lord that will come as a thief in the night than Paul was talking about. They obviously were talking about the same day of the Lord that will come as a thief in the night because they both said that complete destruction will occur at that time. Why else would Paul say that "sudden destruction" will come upon them from which "they shall not escape" except for the entire earth being burned up? No one could escape that, so it makes sense that Paul would say "they shall not escape".

Only extreme doctrinal bias would cause someone to try to claim that 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 is speaking of something different than 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Also, it's quite interesting that you only quoted that one part of my post #211. You have no thoughts on the rest of what I said in that post?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Ah, I didn't notice that because you mentioned "the second man" and that's what I was focused on. So, congratulations on finding an example where the second of two of something (the two Adams in this case) is referred to as the last.

I don't think that makes your argument any stronger since it makes no sense to relate the trumpet that sounded at Mt. Sinai to the one that will sound at the return of Christ. The last trumpet is a prophetic trumpet and is talked about in that context. It's referenced in terms of fulfilling a prophecy. So, it makes much more sense to compare it to the seventh trumpet of Revelation than to a trumpet that sounded at Mt. Sinai that had nothing to do with fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Timtofly]

Futurism would not be persuaded, even though every Jew crucified during the great tribulation of 70 AD rose from the dead.

Jesus was a full futurist. I am persuaded, and accept He rose from the dead.

There is no prophecy of crucifixion during the final harvest. There are no redeemed currently tasting death in their graves. All resurrections were future from the OD except Lazarus. When he came back from Abraham's bosom, it was what put the "fear of God" into the Pharisees to crucify Jesus.

"But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation."

Guess what?

Many did believe and were redeemed, and Rome even came and took their city away despite their rebellion, or because of it.

"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

 

[jgr]

Jesus was a full futurist. I am persuaded, and accept He rose from the dead.

There is no prophecy of crucifixion during the final harvest. There are no redeemed currently tasting death in their graves. All resurrections were future from the OD except Lazarus. When he came back from Abraham's bosom, it was what put the "fear of God" into the Pharisees to crucify Jesus.

"But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation."

Guess what?

Many did believe and were redeemed, and Rome even came and took their city away despite their rebellion, or because of it.

"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

Yes, AD 70 was between 30 and 40 years in the future from Jesus' Olivet discourse.

You've missed the point entirely. Go and read the pertinent posts.

 

[Douggg]

I don't think that makes your argument any stronger since it makes no sense to relate the trumpet that sounded at Mt. Sinai to the one that will sound at the return of Christ. The last trumpet is a prophetic trumpet and is talked about in that context. It's referenced in terms of fulfilling a prophecy.

In Revelation 4...

1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

So John was "raptured" to heaven, before the things were shown to him - hereafter his being raptured. So that is a case for the rapture to happen before the 7 years begin.

Where is your proof of a come up hither pending the seventh trump ?

 

[Timtofly]

Good point. He said the rapture will be the greatest thing ever for believers and yet, in his view, other believers will not get to experience it. Why not? What makes anyone who is a believer after a supposed pre-trib rapture somehow inferior to those who believe before a supposed pre-trib rapture? Nothing. So, he doesn't even realize that his view promotes elitism by making those who believe before a supposed pre-trib rapture superior to those who would become believers after a supposed pre-trib rapture.

Any doctrine that would cause division within the church (in this case division between those who believe before a supposed pre-trib rapture and those who believe after that) is clearly false.

Your Second Coming cannot have any one pregnant. So God has to work it out to send Christ at the point no woman on earth is pregnant, otherwise those humans in the womb would be left in limbo.

Now you can say they will be removed from all wombs and dealt with as individuals. Yet they still form a group of sorta left behind as they had no ability to choose God.

I agree that no redeemed will be left behind at the Second Coming. At that point they will be elect or directly chosen by God. Amil refuse to see any human as directly chosen by God without it being each individuals personal choice. How can they when they make the return so final with no after point. According to Amil nothing happens on earth after the Second Coming.

Many pre-mil cannot see any personal choices after the Second Coming either, and that is why they allow a separate rapture. But the rapture does not solve the issue either. The Second Coming is final when it comes to accepting salvation on one's own volition. Just look at the record of those during the 42 months. They can only be "saved" if they chop their heads off. What kind of perseverance is that? That is not a method of Salvation prior to the Second Coming. That is the final reality after the Second Coming already took place and Christ and the angels already harvested the sheep and the wheat. Even the sheep and the wheat had no choice in their redemption. They were directly chosen by Christ who was present on earth.

We see that also at the first coming. The 12 disciples were OT believers, because they were chosen before the Cross even happened. They were not even NT, and that is why they had to experience Pentecost. Obviously they did not leave earth at the Cross and Resurrection. They were still around for a while as the firstfruits of the NT. Many chosen prior to the Cross did walk away never to return, and many call that NOSAS. Then wrongly apply that to wishy washy choices of many since the Cross. While the term elect applies to all equally in the Lamb's book of life, while Christ is on earth being directly chosen puts a greater emphasis on the elect whom God chooses, and really took away the individual choice altogether. Just like the choice to cut one's head off. There is no take back on that choice. No wishy washy belief, non belief scenario.

Many today base their salvation on belief instead of knowing, so they are confused on actually being born spiritually from above thus not fully aware of OSAS. They really just have a wait and see approach to what happens after physical life is over. Applying that to the Second Coming, if they do miss the rapture of the church, all they have going for them, is perhaps Christ will chose them anyway, even if they never chose Christ. Else they will accept a lie, and be eternally damned.

They are correct about Amil though. Amil see the Second Coming as final. There is no space for a wait and see approach after the Second Coming. While pre-mill allow for some time to work this out. I doubt any really see that no one is going to persevere, because only removing one's head to avoid the mark is the last ditch perseverance effort. Headless people will not be raptured at the very end. And any one with a head, will also have the mark. No one will be left to rapture, at the end of Amil's finality of a Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

Paul discussed the order of people receiving their incorruptible bodies in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23.

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.

Can you tell me why he wouldn't have mentioned those who supposedly receive their incorruptible bodies at the GWTJ when giving the order of receiving incorruptible bodies here? Did he somehow forget about them?

Are you saying now that at the Cross, they were given incorruptible physical bodies? Because that is what I have been stating all along and you call that nonsense.

The point of the end though is after the 1000 year reign. The only one getting a chance at incorruptible physical bodies are those in sheol. They are the only dead who can recieve a resurrection.

Was Paul speaking of only a physical bodily resurrection?

Or was Paul pointing out Christ handing over to God a redeemed body of individuals?

We see two things here:

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." - physical

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." - spiritual

"But every man in his own order:"

So did the church in the OT experience the second birth? Would they have called it that? You can impose that upon them, but how did they actually see it? Obviously Nicodemus a learned Pharisees, and a spiritual leader had no clue about the second birth. Paul as both a Pharisee and directly called out by God, did his best to explain it in the NT, but the second birth was a teaching associated with the Cross, not the Law of Moses.

But both a physical resurrection and a spiritual birth happened at the Cross. The OT as a whole became the firstfruits of the NT.

The next order is the Second Coming. Which happens before the Tribulation and final harvest. Those spiritually born from above, the second birth, will be raptured. Their physical resurrection called a change in mid-air. This is the point the whole church is complete as one body, thus glorified. Yet Christ and the angels are on the earth for the final harvest. Matthew 13, and all verses stating the angels come to earth. Do you deny the angels coming to earth?

The last order set out by Paul is at the end after the Second Coming. Paul does not give any time frames, period. But John does. John states 1000 years after the Second Coming, Christ as Prince will have that final kingdom, and death will be defeated. So who is left at the end?

All those living and being born for 1000 years. Minus those consumed by fire who chose to listen to Satan and be decieved. Those from the Millennium already are physically alive, so will they be spiritually born then? Who knows? What did Paul say with his three orders? Obviously John did not specify the who. The only ones physically dead are those in sheol. Those in Death, are the eternally damned, the goats and tares, and those with the mark. There is no spiritual resurrection as they are not even in the Lake of Fire yet. They rejected the second birth, altogether.

How can one have a spiritual resurrection before a spiritual birth and death, ie LOF? Yes Adam died spiritually and physically. Not natural physical death 900+ years later. The instant Adam ate, he disobeyed God, and contrary to Satan's lies, Adam literally died physically and spiritually. That is what Paul states.

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." - physical

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." - spiritual

The resurrection is of the physical body always. The point about spiritual death is not that the spirit is dead, because a dead spirit is a demon. Yet that is still not Paul's specific point about the spiritual. Paul's point is being alive or born from above, and no resurrection was or should be attached to the spiritual. Because demons are never resurrected nor changed back to living spirits. They are cast into the LOF along with their reprobate souls.

Yet no theology seems to want to touch what a spirit and a demon are. Paul does claim that all have the Holy Spirit as interest, because since Adam the spirit was separated from the physical. The spirit is not a body, but an outer "garment". In the 5th Seal it is the putting on of the robe of white. The term is being glorified. Putting on immortality is not the textbook definition of putting on long life. It is the putting on of our spirit that has been with God since our conception, while God gave us the Holy Spirit until the Second Coming. Being spiritually born from above is not getting our spirit back. It ensures we are willing to conform to the Holy Spirit, so our spirit does not become a demon and flees God's presence to come to earth and possess the minds of other humans. Being glorified at the Second Coming is the completion of the image of God, body, soul, and spirit. We will no longer need the Holy Spirit. At the Second Coming, the Holy Spirit will be removed. The sheep and goats judged by works and directly chosen of Christ, not their being born from above spiritually, and conforming to the Holy Spirit.

Why would any one apply a spiritual application to Matthew 25, in direct contradiction of the redemption of the Cross, and our faith and acceptance of the Atonement? Christ is obviously already on earth, and the Second Coming already happened prior to the events in chapter 25, because chapter 24 already announced the Second Coming. Matthew 25 is not a recap of Matthew 24. Matthew 25 deals with Israel in the aftermath of the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

You are making up your own criteria. There will be a large number of believers martyred during the great tribulation. Is that because God is incapable of protecting His own people? So, answer your own question.

There have already been a great number of martyrs throughout the great tribulation of the last 1991 years. There are not two great bodies of martyrs. There is only one, and still ongoing as many are being martyred even as we comfortably post on some Christian forum. I think it a travesty to state martyrdom after the Second Coming has already happened. I do not separate the rapture from the Second Coming, and Christ is on earth with all the angels during the Trumpets and Thunders. Besides the archangel is bringing the Trump of God. Of course it sounds at the Second Coming. It also sounds at the end of the final harvest to show the harvest is complete. IMO, Gabriel is the one blowing that Trumpet and probably did so at Mt. Sinai as well, also the birth of Jesus, and the Second Coming. Gabriel came to Daniel, why not also the voice that sounded like a Trumpet to John? The first and last Trumpet being the same. Not the first sounding in Revelation 8. I am talking about all the times an archangel sounded his Trumpet.

"And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets."

John did not specify an archangel, but Paul did. Is there any objection to the point one of these or even all of these are archangels? According to Paul the archangel and Trump already sounded. Surprisingly all those who re-arrange the chronology of Revelation seem to avoid allowing the Trumpets the same latitude.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes, AD 70 was between 30 and 40 years in the future from Jesus' Olivet discourse.

You've missed the point entirely. Go and read the pertinent posts.

No I did not miss "the point". I stated a point.

 

[jgr]

No I did not miss "the point". I stated a point.

You stated your point, which is irrelevant.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

In Revelation 4...

1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

So John was "raptured" to heaven, before the things were shown to him - hereafter his being raptured. So that is a case for the rapture to happen before the 7 years begin.

Where is your proof of a come up hither pending the seventh trump ?

I hope you are not expecting this argument to be taken seriously. Assuming that the term "rapture" refers to the act of being caught up to meet the Lord in the air, that is not what John experienced. His body was not changed and he was not caught up "in the air". So, you equating that with the rapture is ridiculous, in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that it was just him and no one else. But, his experience represents the rapture of the church? Give me a break.

 

[Douggg]

I hope you are not expecting this argument to be taken seriously. Assuming that the term "rapture" refers to the act of being caught up to meet the Lord in the air, that is not what John experienced. His body was not changed and he was not caught up "in the air". So, you equating that with the rapture is ridiculous, in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that it was just him and no one else. But, his experience represents the rapture of the church? Give me a break.

John being called up in Revelation 4 is a foreshadowing of the Rapture. The voice he hears as a trumpet is Jesus's voice.

We can know that by what is in Revelation 1:10-11.

In Revelation 1:
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Revelation 2-3 is the church age.

Revelation 4:1-2 is the church, represented by john, is raptured to heaven where John sees all the things in Revelation 6-20 that will take place here on earth...during the 70th week of Daniel 9.

In verse 2, John was immediately in the spirit, not his physical body, and beholds the throne in heaven.

1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

John being called up in Revelation 4 is a foreshadowing of the Rapture. The voice he hears as a trumpet is Jesus's voice.

We can know that by what is in Revelation 1:10-11.

In Revelation 1:
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Revelation 2-3 is the church age.

Revelation 2 and 3 were addressed to seven actual churches that existed in the 1st century in the ancient Roman province of Asia. Why are you trying to change it to be referring to the church age instead? Did Jesus say things to those seven first century churches that we can still learn from today? Sure. But, to try and say Revelation 2 and 3 refers to the church age and then everything written after that refers to a post-church age is utterly ridiculous.

Revelation 4:1-2 is the church, represented by john, is raptured to heaven where John sees all the things in Revelation 6-20 that will take place here on earth...during the 70th week of Daniel 9.

In verse 2, John was immediately in the spirit, not his physical body, and beholds the throne in heaven.

1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Again, what John experienced does not relate to the rapture of the church. That is as farfetched as it gets. He wasn't changed and he wasn't caught up "in the air". Maybe if his body was changed to be a spiritual body and he was told to come up to the air instead of heaven then you might somewhat have a tiny bit of a point. But, that wasn't the case.

All you're doing here is showing that you have to resort to farfetched things like this to keep your doctrine afloat. This shows that your doctrine is on shaky ground, at best.

To think that the church on earth isn't mentioned after Revelation 4 is a joke. That view can't be taken seriously at all. Who are the people who make up the church? Is it not those "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"? Of course it is. So, is Revelation 12:17 not in your Bible?

Who are "their fellowservants also and their brethren" of "the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held" who "should be killed as they were" (Rev 6:9-11), if not the church?

How about the reference to "the saints" in Revelation 13? Who else but those in the church are saints? Paul refers to people in the church as saints several times in his writings, for example.

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Who else watches for the return of Christ except for those in the church?

 

[Douggg]

Revelation 2 and 3 were addressed to seven actual churches that existed in the 1st century in the ancient Roman province of Asia. Why are you trying to change it to be referring to the church age instead? Did Jesus say things to those seven first century churches that we can still learn from today? Sure. But, to try and say Revelation 2 and 3 refers to the church age and then everything written after that refers to a post-church age is utterly ridiculous.

We are currently in the church age. The church age will end with the rapture.

Again, what John experienced does not relate to the rapture of the church. That is as farfetched as it gets. He wasn't changed and he wasn't caught up "in the air". Maybe if his body was changed to be a spiritual body and he was told to come up to the air instead of heaven then you might somewhat have a tiny bit of a point. But, that wasn't the case.

It says in Revelation 4:2 that he was immediately in the spirit. In 1Corinthians15, Paul calls the incorruptible bodies as spiritual bodies. John did not receive his incorruptible body in Revelation 4:2, but being immediately in the spirit was symbolic of what will take place in the Rapture.

To think that the church on earth isn't mentioned after Revelation 4 is a joke. That view can't be taken seriously at all. Who are the people who make up the church? Is it not those "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"? Of course it is. So, is Revelation 12:17 not in your Bible?

The church is not mentioned anymore in Revelation 6-20, the 70th week of Daniel 9 events.

Them in Revelation 12:17 is a reference to the Jews, Israel, who become Christians in Revelation 12:10. They are not the church.

How about the reference to "the saints" in Revelation 13? Who else but those in the church are saints? Paul refers to people in the church as saints several times in his writings, for example.

The saints are not the church. They are them who become Christians post the rapture event.

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Who else watches for the return of Christ except for those in the church?

It will be the post rapture event saints, who will be watching in hope of Jesus's return to end the persecution by the beast, false prophet, and Satan.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

We are currently in the church age. The church age will end with the rapture.

Where does scripture speak of a "church age"? It doesn't. But, I agree that the time of the existence of the church as we know it on the earth will end with the rapture.

It says in Revelation 4:2 that he was immediately in the spirit. In 1Corinthians15, Paul calls the incorruptible bodies as spiritual bodies. John did not receive his incorruptible body in Revelation 4:2, but it was symbolic of what will take place in the Rapture.

No, it is not. That is a farfetched comparison that someone came up with to try to support false pre-trib doctrine (and similar doctrines like yours).

It's ironic how literal you take things most of the time, but then you resort to this farfetched symbolic interpretation when it suits your doctrine.

The church is not mentioned anymore in Revelation 6-20, the 70th week of Daniel 9 events.

Them in Revelation 12:17 is a reference to the Jews, Israel, who become Christians in Revelation 12:10. They are not the church.
The saints are not the church. They are them who become Christians post the rapture event.

It will be the post rapture event saints, who will be watching in hope of Jesus's return to end the persecution by the beast, false prophet, and Satan.

That is complete nonsense. The qualification for being in the church is to be a Christian. To try to say that any Christian from any time is not in the church is completely ridiculous at best and could even be considered heresy. This belief (church on earth not referenced in Rev 6-20), in particular, makes it impossible to take the pre-trib rapture and similar beliefs seriously.

 

[Douggg]

Where does scripture speak of a "church age"? It doesn't. But, I agree that the time of the existence of the church as we know it on the earth will end with the rapture.

I agree that "church age" is not a biblical term. It is just an expression used by many Christians to refer to the time of the church spanning from the apostles to the rapture.

No, it is not. That is a farfetched comparison that someone came up with to try to support false pre-trib doctrine (and similar doctrines like yours).

There would be no reason for Revelation 4:1-2 if it were not reflective of the rapture event.

That is complete nonsense. The qualification for being in the church is to be a Christian. To try to say that any Christian from any time is not in the church is completely ridiculous at best and could even be considered heresy.

To be part of the body of Christ, a person has to be a Christian. The body of Christ is removed from the earth in the rapture before the wrath of God is poured out on the world, in 1Thessalonians5. The rapture being in verses 9-11.