Where in Revelation is a Rapture Mentioned?

[seventysevens]

The verse says "...when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him", it is referring to the Old Testament, which is all about Christ. You really need to read a little more carefully.

I spoke of it earlier and you said it "Nothing remains"
the posts are still there , it obvious you meant nothing remains as nothing whatsoever as that is what I addressed and you chose to try to play it off , but you make it obvious that you meant nothing at all , I spoke of Jesus return and you said "nothing remains "

 

[Cynthia1234]

I guess some people just can`t wait to get into the time of Jacob`s trouble and either get their head chopped off, go to jail, get beaten, die of hunger and thirst or deep cold or heat, or just give up taking the mark, while Jesus deals with the JEWS his people who rejected him in the first century and pours his wrath on himself(the church) and the whole world... ENJOY!

 

[jgr]

View attachment 226457 View attachment 226456
I spoke of it earlier and you said it "Nothing remains"
the posts are still there , it obvious you meant nothing remains as nothing whatsoever as that is what I addressed and you chose to try to play it off , but you make it obvious that you meant nothing at all , I spoke of Jesus return and you said "nothing remains "

That's because nothing of what you wrote does remain. Christ established His Kingdom in the hearts of those who believed in Him, and continue to believe in Him, at His first coming. And tribulation has always been and always will be a part of every believer's experience. There is no future tribulation that will be any greater than what has been and continues to be experienced.

And Christ fulfilled all that was written of Him in the Old Testament, which is all about Him.

 

[BABerean2]

I guess some people just can`t wait to get into the time of Jacob`s trouble and either get their head chopped off, go to jail, get beaten, die of hunger and thirst or deep cold or heat, or just give up taking the mark, while Jesus deals with the JEWS his people who rejected him in the first century and pours his wrath on himself(the church) and the whole world... ENJOY!

Are you turning the pretrib doctrine into a cult by claiming that Christians who do not believe the pretrib doctrine will be "left behind", while pretrib believers are taken to heaven for a period of 7 years?

When are you going to deal with Hebrews 12:22-24, and Acts 2:36?

.

 

[seventysevens]

That's because nothing of what you wrote does remain. Christ established His Kingdom in the hearts of those who believed in Him, and continue to believe in Him, at His first coming. And tribulation has always been and always will be a part of every believer's experience. There is no future tribulation that will be any greater than what has been and continues to be experienced.

And Christ fulfilled all that was written of Him in the Old Testament, which is all about Him.

As I said you be hilarious , Jesus will return that is yet to happen and I have already said it , a real physical Jesus will return to earth - as he came to earth before - he will come to earth again , it is sad for those of you that won't accept it

 

[Cynthia1234]

Are you turning the pretrib doctrine into a cult by claiming that Christians who do not believe the pretrib doctrine will be "left behind", while pretrib believers are taken to heaven for a period of 7 years?

When are you going to deal with Hebrews 12:22-24, and Acts 2:36?

.

I never said those who do not believe in the pre-trip rapture will not get caught up. If you are saved, you will get caught up. If you`re not, you won`t. Simple as that. But the pre-wrath and pors-trip rapture theories don`t make sense. And I need to have a deeper study on the two verses you gave me. It`s a quite challenging subject. Just give me some time and I`ll get back to you!

 

[seventysevens]

a quick glance a acts 2 :36
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

God has made Jesus both king and the anointed one/chosen one savoir

matches well with
Jesus saying of Himself "I AM the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the End"

 

[BABerean2]

But the pre-wrath and pors-trip rapture theories don`t make sense.

Pretrib author Grant Jeffrey cut and pasted the Post-trib writings of the Early Church Fathers, in an attempt to convert them into the pretrib viewpoint.
Did the Post-trib viewpoint "make sense" to the Early Church Fathers?


Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf

Hebrews 12:22-24 is quite challenging for what you said earlier about the New Covenant, because it destroys the claim that Christ did not bring in the New Covenant during the first century, and it also destroys the claim that the New Covenant does not apply to the church.

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Appently, Bryan Denlinger thinks none of us have ever seen this passage in which the Greek word "diatheke" was translated as "covenant" in the KJV.
Denlinger conveniently left out this passage.
.

 

[Cynthia1234]

I`m starting a study on the words covenant and testament. Anyone wanting to participate, I have gathered a PDF with all the instances of these words in the bible you can use!

 

[Cynthia1234]

Pretrib author Grant Jeffrey cut and pasted the Post-trib writings of the Early Church Fathers, in an attempt to convert them into the pretrib viewpoint.
Did the Post-trib viewpoint "make sense" to the Early Church Fathers?


Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf

Hebrews 12:22-24 is quite challenging for what you said earlier about the New Covenant, because it destroys the claim that Christ did not bring in the New Covenant during the first century, and it also destroys the claim that the New Covenant does not apply to the church.

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Appently, Bryan Denlinger thinks none of us have ever seen this passage in which the Greek word "diatheke" was translated as "covenant" in the KJV.
Denlinger conveniently left out this passage.
.

Please take a look at this article. There might not be a difference in the Greek word that they used(I`m not a master of Greek, so I`ll stick with the context of the bible), but there was certainly a difference big enough that they had to chose the word covenant in some places and testament in other places to ease our understanding. There is a difference in the definition of the words testament and covenant. You can find out here in this article. I think it might help understand why they chose two different words in the KJV. Let me know what you think. It`s very eye-opening to me already. I hope it will be for you, too!

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COVENANT AND A TESTAMENT: Ken Blue Ministries

Romans 9:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

TO WHOM(THE ISRAELITES) PERTAINETH THE COVENANTS!

``At His return, the New Covenant aspect would be implemented. The church today gets the benefits of the TESTAMENT, or His blood. It paid for our sins, but the New Covenant promise was to Israel only.
Thus, a covenant is an agreement between two parties and does not require blood. The testament was a testification of a will, in the form prescribed by law, made solemnly, on purpose that it may be effectual after ones death...
Thus, Jesus signed, as a testament, the promise of the NEW COVENANT to Israel, with His own blood``

 

[BABerean2]

Please take a look at this article. There might not be a difference in the Greek word that they used(I`m not a master of Greek, so I`ll stick with the context of the bible), but there was certainly a difference big enough that they had to chose the word covenant in some places and testament in other places to ease our understanding. There is a difference in the definition of the words testament and covenant. You can find out here in this article. I think it might help understand why they chose two different words in the KJV. Let me know what you think. It`s very eye-opening to me already. I hope it will be for you, too!

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COVENANT AND A TESTAMENT: Ken Blue Ministries

Romans 9:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

TO WHOM(THE ISRAELITES) PERTAINETH THE COVENANTS!

``At His return, the New Covenant aspect would be implemented. The church today gets the benefits of the TESTAMENT, or His blood. It paid for our sins, but the New Covenant promise was to Israel only.
Thus, a covenant is an agreement between two parties and does not require blood. The testament was a testification of a will, in the form prescribed by law, made solemnly, on purpose that it may be effectual after ones death...
Thus, Jesus signed, as a testament, the promise of the NEW COVENANT to Israel, with His own blood``

I looked at the article, which also failed to mention Hebrews 12:22-24.

Why did the author ignore Hebrews 12:22-24?
Because it destroys his Two Peoples of God doctrine.

You are looking at the words of men, instead of the Word of God.

The Greek is the Word of God, so if you are going to stick with the context of the Bible, that is what you are going to have to deal with.

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
(KJV)


"Thus, a covenant is an agreement between two parties and does not require blood."

The authors argument above that a covenant does not require blood falls apart below in the KJV.

Gen_17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
(Can you cut off the foreskin without blood?)

Exo_24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
(KJV)

The author also refers to the "Gentile Church".
He has also failed to read Acts 2:36, where Peter addressed the crowd as "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost. When the Church first began almost all of its members were Israelites.

.

 

[Cynthia1234]

I looked at the article, which also failed to mention Hebrews 12:22-24.

Why did the author ignore Hebrews 12:22-24?
Because it destroys his Two Peoples of God doctrine.

You are looking at the words of men, instead of the Word of God.

The Greek is the Word of God, so if you are going to stick with the context of the Bible, that is what you are going to have to deal with.

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
(KJV)


"Thus, a covenant is an agreement between two parties and does not require blood."

The authors argument above that a covenant does not require blood falls apart below in the KJV.

Gen_17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
(Can you cut off the foreskin without blood?)

Exo_24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
(KJV)

The author also refers to the "Gentile Church".
He has also failed to read Acts 2:36, where Peter addressed the crowd as "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost. When the Church first began almost all of its members were Israelites.

.

I need to say that if you don`t want me to look at the words of men, then you are a hypocrite to be doing the same by attaching links of videos and articles that have words of men…Just saying.


So, to address the issue of Hebrews 12:22-24, here is what I have come up with.


In Hebrews 12:18-21, we read this:

18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:

20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:

21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake



So it is saying here they are not come unto the MOUNT that might be TOUCHED, BURNED, etc like during the time Moses. They COULD NOT ENDURE it. It was TERIIBLE AT SIGHT. Moses was afraid.

So they are NOT come to that.



In Hebrews 12:22 we read:

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Here we see we speak of mount Sion, which is part of a city or a city itself(not sure about it) OF THE LIVING GOD. The HEAVENLY Jerusalem. Heavenly is an important word here. I`ll explain why. With an innumerable company of angels.

Now, where are the angels? Answer: in heaven.

Where is the city of the living God? Answer: in heaven

How many angels? Answer: Innumerable

In Hebrews 12:23 we read:

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

They are come to the GENERAL ASSEMBLY and CHURCH(Body of Christ) of the FIRSTBORN(Jesus Christ), and all those names are written in HEAVEN…

They are come to GOD and to the SPIRITS of just men made PERFECT(Which I think are saved people made perfect by the blood of Jesus:to be verified)

So they are come to the Church and God at the same time, which means they are come to Heaven.


In Hebrews 12:24, we read:

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


So they are come to Jesus, the MEDIATOR of the NEW COVENANT(Moses was the mediator of the old covenant), and to the BLOOD of SPRINKLING(which Moses sprinkled on people) , that is BETTER than the things of ABEL(Here I think they are referring to Abel as the one the Lord preferred because he gave better offerings than his brother Cain. So here the Lord will have something better than having to offer things to the Lord to gain his love for us)


So, in summery, they are come to the city of the living God(heavenly Jerusalem) accompanied of Angels and a general assembly and church of Jesus whose names are written in Heaven, whose spirits are made perfect and to the new covenant and to the blood of sprinkling.


So I tried to see what the author was talking about here, and I think I have a pretty good idea. I believe it is speaking of the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven in the millennial Kingdom.


Here are some verses about the new Jerusalem:

Revelation 3:12

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.



Revelation 21:2

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.



Revelation 21:10

And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

Revelation 14:1

And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.


And during that time, the angels(we who are in Jesus become as the angels of heaven: Matthew 22:30) will be ruling with Jesus(GOD and mediator of the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31) on earth in the city of God, new Jerusalem coming down from heaven, which is the promise of the new covenant made to the JEWS in the book of HEBREWS, where gentiles and Jews will be living together there. It will not be a horrible place as in the time of Moses, but peaceful and not full of fear. So they are come to that when the time comes for that kingdom to be established and beyond! Because today, the heavenly Jerusalem isn`t here yet as described in Hebrews 12:22-24. So no, it isn’t now, but later.

 

[BABerean2]

So, in summery, they are come to the city of the living God(heavenly Jerusalem) accompanied of Angels and a general assembly and church of Jesus whose names are written in Heaven, whose spirits are made perfect and to the new covenant and to the blood of sprinkling.

Very good.

You have just destroyed John Nelson Darby's Two Peoples of God doctrine, in your summary above.

Dispensatioanlist Clarence Larkin used to say... "The Church is the Church, and Israel is Israel, and never the twain shall meet."
You have just shown Larkin to be in error.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church.


“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

Once again your statement above proves Chafer, and Walvoord to be in error.

We find in the words of Christ below that there is only one people of God.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


In Romans chapter 11 Paul uses the Olive Tree as a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of believing Israelites and believing Gentiles grafted together into the same tree.
Paul says the branches broken off can be grafted back into the tree, through faith in Christ.
Paul provides no path to salvation outside of the Olive Tree Church in the passage.
Paul also proves that the Church as a whole has never been a "Gentile Church", as Dispensationalists often claim.
This fact is confirmed by Peter addressing the crowd as "all the house of Israel" in Acts 2:36, on the Day of Pentecost.
When the Church began almost all of its members were Israelites. (See Romans 11:1)
At the present time the Church continues to be made up of all races of people. I have had Jewish Christians in my home for Bible study.

I appreciate your honesty in dealing with the text of Hebrews 12:22-24.

.

 

[Cynthia1234]

Very good.

You have just destroyed John Nelson Darby's Two Peoples of God doctrine, in your summary above.

Dispensatioanlist Clarence Larkin used to say... "The Church is the Church, and Israel is Israel, and never the twain shall meet."
You have just shown Larkin to be in error.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church.


“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

Once again your statement above proves Chafer, and Walvoord to be in error.

We find in the words of Christ below that there is only one people of God.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


In Romans chapter 11 Paul uses the Olive Tree as a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of believing Israelites and believing Gentiles grafted together into the same tree.
Paul says the branches broken off can be grafted back into the tree, through faith in Christ.
Paul provides no path to salvation outside of the Olive Tree Church in the passage.
Paul also proves that the Church as a whole has never been a "Gentile Church", as Dispensationalists often claim.
This fact is confirmed by Peter addressing the crowd as "all the house of Israel" in Acts 2:36, on the Day of Pentecost.
When the Church began almost all of its members were Israelites. (See Romans 11:1)
At the present time the Church continues to be made up of all races of people. I have had Jewish Christians in my home for Bible study.

I appreciate your honesty in dealing with the text of Hebrews 12:22-24.

.

I am a dispensationalist, but that doesn’t mean I am going to agree with other dispensationalists, that can have different views on what the dispensations are and who are involved and where and when, etc. It is true that today we are all one in Christ Jesus(Galatians 3:28). But the new covenant comes into effect in the millennial kingdom for the house of Israel and of Judah. And yes there will be gentiles in the kingdom, and yes, we who are saved in the church age until the rapture will reign on the earth with the Jews. Even there are Gentiles mixed with Jews during the millennial Kingdom, that doesn’t disprove dispensationism. Can you imagine a world with only Jews? The Bible doesn’t teach that. God has had a chosen people since Abraham(Jews). It is the apple of his eye. He has special things prepared for them. They are a special group. But because they rejected him in the first century, he extended his mercy in gentiles. But then when the rapture happens, he will send two witnesses(Moses an Elijah) to preach to that nation to repent and believe on Jesus Christ as their Messiah to get into the Kingdom, in which the covenant will be implemented, which was testified by the blood of Jesus(Matthew 26:28) done during the last supper. But Christ also died for the sins of the world. The new covenant is for the Jews(Jeremiah 31:31-34, Romans 9:4). I keep repeating myself and I very tired. I think we should call it a day. Please search more for yourself on this and I’ll pray for you that God opens your eyes on this issue. The new covenant is for Israel at the millennial kingdom, it’s written in plain English
Take care!

 

[Postvieww]

Some times symbols are used but I tend to be more literal than anything else.

Then maybe you can acknowledge that the four beasts are just created beings in the presence of God ! Literal heavenly creatures in God’s heavenly hosts.

However, WHEN the Church is REMOVED from earth to heaven in the Rapture (TYPIFIED in Revelation 4:1-2), God returns to using "the Old Testament MYSTERY form"--and the Church is therefore shown AFTER the Rapture IN SYMBOLISM and TYPE.

Brother you are making my point. You can make any claim that works for you with types.

IMHO Revelation 4:1-2 is a description of what happened to John nothing in the text tells us it is a type of anything. The person of John was taken to heaven “in the spirit” before the throne, where “one sat on the throne”. The “One” being God the Father no mention yet of Jesus in the text until Rev. 5:6 where He (Jesus) appears standing in the midst of the throne, the 4 beasts and the Elders. My friend why should anyone believe Rev 4:1-2 is a type of the resurrected church in heaven? Much has to be assumed and ignored to make that happen.

When Stephen was martyred he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father, when John was taken to heaven in Revelation 4:1 Jesus was not even shown or said to be there as of yet.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Jesus was in His rightful place when Stephen was killed but not when John was take to heaven. That to me speaks of timing and the order of events in the book of Revelation. IMHO Rev 4:1-2 was just before Jesus arrived from His ascension. Fine to disagree but please show why this is not possible and we should believe your theory.

Current established pre-tribulation believers and scholars maintain that the Day of the Lord, and thus the Tribulation, begins with the breaking of the first seal. If this is the case, and the Church is raptured before the Tribulation, then it is understood that the Church must be found in heaven as Jesus prepares to open the seven-sealed scroll.

My friend, there are pre-trib believers on this forum whom I could name that disagree that the breaking of the first seal is the beginning of the tribulation, so that is not established theory among all pretrib scholars or believers. To take the line of defense you are on it does have to be true but that cannot be established as a fact. The timing and order of the book does not allow it IMHO. I would love to address every point you made in this post but I am already long here. What is your response to what I have presented thus far? I have laid out specific reasons why I believe Rev 4:1-2 cannot be a type of a pre-trib raptured church.

 

[Major1]

Are members of the Church in heaven now?

All of the Apostles of Christ are there now.

Thousands burned at the stake and fed to the lions in the Roman coliseum are there now.

Thousands upon thousands of our dead Brothers and Sisters are there now.

It should not surprise us that John saw Christians in heaven.


The verse below proves there is no pretrib removal of the Church.

Rev 12:11 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.

A person cannot be under the blood of the Lamb and not be a part of the New Covenant Church.

.

You asked me.............
"Are members of the Church in heaven now?"

NO! Those who believe in Christ, who have accepted His sacrifice in payment of their sins, will spend eternity in heaven. Those who reject Him will not.

No amount of church attendance will earn eternity in heaven. When a born again believer dies, his spirit/soul goes to heaven and his body to the earth. They will be reunited at the Rapture and then glorified as corruption must put on incorruption.

The Rapture will not take place until the last person that God has predestined to be saved is actually saved and that will complete the CHURCH of Christ and that is who will be Raptured.

Eccl 12:7 ..........
"and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

2 Cor 5:8-9 .........
"......would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

Ezek 18:4 .......
"For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son-both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die."


Then you said..........

"All of the Apostles of Christ are there now."​

Correct! Their souls/spirit are with the Lord just as is all others who have died in faith of the Lord Jesus Christ.


Then the question was...............​

"Thousands burned at the stake and fed to the lions in the Roman coliseum are there now."

Again you are correct! The BODIES of believers went to heaven the moment of their death.​

2 Corinthians 5:6–8 .........​

"So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. "

Philippians 1:21-24.......
“For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you”.

Personally, I am confident that believers who die are indeed absent from their physical bodies and present with the Lord in conscious bliss waiting that grand resurrection day
which is the coming Rapture.
Then you said..............
"Thousands upon thousands of our dead Brothers and Sisters are there now."

Again you are correct except that I would say BILLIONS upon BILLIONS.


Then you said..............
"It should not surprise us that John saw Christians in heaven."

Now what you have just done is classic. YOU have read into the Scriptures what YOU want them to say. ​

IMO, he did just that because that is what the Scriptures actually do say.

Revelation 1:19 gives us the fulfilling of he promise of revelation of.........
“the things which shall be hereafter.”

Then in Rev. 4:4......... his vision of the glorified Christ described in the clause, “the things which thou hast seen,” and in contrast to the revelation of chapters 2 and 3, messages to the seven churches designated as “the things which are.”

Beginning in chapter 4, things to come are unfolded which have to do with the consummation of the age and what John saw was the CHURCH in heaven after being Raptured.

Therefore, he futuristic concept of a pre-tribulation Rapture is supported by the similarity of the expression in 1:19, “the things which shall be hereafter” (Gr., ha mellei genesthai meta tauta) to the clause in 4:1, “things which must be hereafter” (Gr., ha dei genesthai meta tauta).
4. The Church In Heaven

Then it is my understanding that the 24 elders are in fact represenitive of the Raptured church. The fact that they are a representative group, however, seems to be clear from the parallel of the Old Testament where the priesthood was represented by twenty-four orders of priests. There were actually thousands of priests in Israel’s day of ascendancy under David and Solomon, but they all could not minister at the same time. Accordingly, they were divided into twenty-four orders, each of which was represented by a priest!!!!!
​

Then you said...............
"The verse below proves there is no pretrib removal of the Church."

NOPE! As I have previously told you now about 6 times, Rev. 12:11 is the view of the humans who accepted Jesus as Savior after the Rapture and during the 7 year Tribulation.

They must accept Christ as Saviour and then they must keep the commandments of God as the salvation of God reverts back to Old Test. economy.

Thank you again for these questions as it allow me to explain to YOU personally that the view you have is erroneous and also so that the world through this explanation can grow and learn the Word of God.​

 

[Major1]

Then maybe you can acknowledge that the four beasts are just created beings in the presence of God ! Literal heavenly creatures in God’s heavenly hosts.


Brother you are making my point. You can make any claim that works for you with types.

IMHO Revelation 4:1-2 is a description of what happened to John nothing in the text tells us it is a type of anything. The person of John was taken to heaven “in the spirit” before the throne, where “one sat on the throne”. The “One” being God the Father no mention yet of Jesus in the text until Rev. 5:6 where He (Jesus) appears standing in the midst of the throne, the 4 beasts and the Elders. My friend why should anyone believe Rev 4:1-2 is a type of the resurrected church in heaven? Much has to be assumed and ignored to make that happen.

When Stephen was martyred he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father, when John was taken to heaven in Revelation 4:1 Jesus was not even shown or said to be there as of yet.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Jesus was in His rightful place when Stephen was killed but not when John was take to heaven. That to me speaks of timing and the order of events in the book of Revelation. IMHO Rev 4:1-2 was just before Jesus arrived from His ascension. Fine to disagree but please show why this is not possible and we should believe your theory.


My friend, there are pre-trib believers on this forum whom I could name that disagree that the breaking of the first seal is the beginning of the tribulation, so that is not established theory among all pretrib scholars or believers. To take the line of defense you are on it does have to be true but that cannot be established as a fact. The timing and order of the book does not allow it IMHO. I would love to address every point you made in this post but I am already long here. What is your response to what I have presented thus far? I have laid out specific reasons why I believe Rev 4:1-2 cannot be a type of a pre-trib raptured church.

Acknowledging that the FOUR beasts are created is not a problem.

Colossians 1:16 actually answers your comment very clearly..............
"For by him (Christ Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him"

Now as for your comment that you can name all kinds of people who do not agree with me that the 1st SEAL opens the Great Tribulation. I do not mean any disrespect neither am I trying to project any arrogance but please understand that I DO NOT CARE!!!!

Revelation 6:1-2 says clearly to all who read it that............
"Then I saw as the Lamb (Christ) broke ONE OF THE SEVEN SEALS [of the scroll initiating the judgments], and I heard one of the four living creatures call out as with a voice of thunder, “Come.” I looked, and behold, a white horse [of victory] whose rider carried a bow; and a crown [of victory] was given to him, and he rode forth conquering and to conquer.

During the seven year Tribulation, three great series of judgments will come upon the Earth initiated by the Lamb's breaking off of the seals from his scroll.
1). They are the Seal,
2). the Trumpet
3). and the Bowl Judgments.

Each series consists of seven judgments. Also, the last judgment of the first two series introduces the first judgment in the next series. So, the breaking of the seventh Seal introduces the first Trumpet judgment and the blowing of the seventh Trumpet introduces the first Bowl judgment. After the pouring out of the seventh Bowl judgment, Christ will immediately return to Earth with great power and glory and rule and reign here for a thousand years.

When Christ breaks the first seal off his scroll, the seven year Tribulation period will commence down on Earth.

 

[Postvieww]

SIX:
The number 24 again. The Church is composed of BOTH Jews and Gentiles. 12 tribes of Israel. 12 apostles of the Church. This offers a total of 24.

I have made my case that the timing of Revelation 4 is before Jesus’s arrival in heaven from His ascension. That IMHO this alone refutes this theory of yours. For your theory to work John would have to have seen himself as one of the 24, we have to allusion to that. John knew personally all of the apostles no indication in the text he recognized anyone. One of the Elders specifically spoke to John Rev 5:5 no indication he recognized him or had a clue as to who they were. They are never identified as saints or angels so all we can do is build a case based on the information we do have. That is what I have tried to do.

 

[Postvieww]

Acknowledging that the FOUR beasts are created is not a problem.

Addressing my main point on the timing of Revelation 4 seems to be, you ignored it.

 

[Postvieww]

Revelation 6:1-2 says clearly to all who read it that............
"Then I saw as the Lamb (Christ) broke ONE OF THE SEVEN SEALS [of the scroll initiating the judgments], and I heard one of the four living creatures call out as with a voice of thunder, “Come.” I looked, and behold, a white horse [of victory] whose rider carried a bow; and a crown [of victory] was given to him, and he rode forth conquering and to conquer.

You seem base your interpretation of the passage on the crown and white horse, I base mine on Zechariah 6: 1-8 .

1. The 4 horses are “the four spirits of the heavens which go forth from standing before the Lord of the earth”.

2. I don’t believe the Lamb opened the 1st seal to release Himself. Just my opinion, based on Zechariah of course.