S.T. Ranger

Enlarging the Scripture to distinguish it from what I say is just typical in my posts and few would view it as yelling or shouting. I can reduce the font one step below but I would rather not maintain a consistent font in my responses. I have responded to numerous posts where yelling was without question, and nothing has been said, so if you would, please clarify if you are saying that you are not going to allow enlarging of the font in the case of Scripture. I posted this to everyone. If you find a post that is against the ToS, report it and it will be dealt with. This site is a ministry, not Facebook, Google Groups or many other sites where people do what they want. Please, be respectful in replying. If people can read regular font, just bold or change the color to emphasize its importance. Then I am forced to take my leave of this forum. As I said enlarging the text of Scripture is to distinguish what I say from what is written. May God bless your ministry. God bless.

So then, how do you see that in relation to these scriptures – On the earth. `And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it; & the kings of the earth do bring their glory & honour into it. (Rev. 21: 24) In the New Jerusalem.`.....& His servants shall serve Him: & they shall see His face; & His name shall be in their foreheads.` (Rev. 22: 3 & 4) Interested to hear what you say, Marilyn. I still see it as one people of God, so I am still not sure what you see as a significant point. And I am afraid I will have to take my leave of this forum, so glad to have met you and see you at the Rapture, lol. Good bless.

Continued from post #317.... Well, you are the first person I have ever heard try to say that the imagery established here is not referring to the rapture. I know of no serious theologian that confuses this as a rapture passage. This takes place at the end of the Tribulation, and is in view in regards to like 17. No, lol, because you miss what is said in both passages: when Christ returns, those taken are the ones that die. They become fodder for carrion fowl. And with this statement I can see no need for further discussion about the Rapture of the Church. I just can't seriously engage an a-millennial view, and was not until this point understanding your view. If the thousand years clearly spoken of in Revelation is rejected, all discussion becomes meaningless. He will rule them with an iron scepter, and somehow you equate this with rest? There is no rest, there is judgement, wrath. Rest comes when everything has been placed under his feet. Really, who is speaking here? Revelation 16:15 “Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.” Who is coming? Jesus. Who gave us the sign of the thief? Jesus. If this were a snake, it would bite you There are 7 trumpets in Revelation, following the 7th trumpet, there are no more trumpets mentioned. That would make the 7th trumpet, the last trumpet, which is precisely what Paul wrote. The fact is, this is precisely when the resurrection occurs, before the 6th judgements have finished this last trumpet will sound. This is what scripture says. Incorrect. The event is His second coming, the sign attached to it by Jesus is the thief, and also the fig tree, as well as the signs in the heavenly bodies. Each one of these appears during the 6th judgements, not prior to the tribulation, but during it, and very near the end. So when you read Revelation 16:15 understand that this is what He is saying. "Look, I am coming. Two men will be in the field, one will be taken and the other left." That is precisely what He is telling you here. This is a great big neon sign flashing at you. The above statement was made in response to Revelation 14. First, it must occur when the tribulation is still in progress, because that is when He comes by all accounts of scripture. It is also when John writes that the first resurrection takes place. Anyway, let's look at these two resurrections in chapter 14, the same two resurrections you see in chapter 20. Revelation 14:14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested. This is the first resurrection. Revelation 14:17 Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18 Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, “Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth’s vine, because its grapes are ripe.” 19 The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20 They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia. This is the second resurrection. These are the only two resurrections that occur in this time period. Notice that Jesus does the first resurrection, and the angel does the second resurrection. Also pay attention to what is said in the second resurrection, again, this reference to the winepress points to the Fall of Babylon. What is the final thing to be destroyed? Death. If death is gone, then there are no more dead. The command comes from God the Father, because He is the only one who knows the day or hour. Jesus is waiting for the Father to give the word, we all know that. The angel is merely delivering a message, one of the tasks we quite often see an angel doing. What does the angel say, "for the time to reap has come." What time do you think he is referring to? Incorrect. While we agree that overcomers are not in need of an invitation, this can be said because this book is a prophetic one, and is speaking to what is to come. This entire prophecy was for all the churches from the day it was written until we arrive at the end. You are trying to take what this says and apply it as if "it is done", big difference in perspectives there. Something else to add for consideration. The Israelites did not come up out of Egypt until after the ten plagues. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego went in to the fiery furnace. Daniel went in to the Lion's den. Noah went through the flood. Jesus suffered the cross. The apostles went through their tribulation. People right now are being killed for their faith in Jesus. It goes on and on and on.... Anyway, I think that covers everything. I look forward to your reply, God bless you. Continued from post #317.... Well, you are the first person I have ever heard try to say that the imagery established here is not referring to the rapture. Let me clarify this for you, so you will understand this is no problem for me to reconcile with everything. You answered it yourself, where are they taken? What imagery is this we are given? Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.” 19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. The reason you will find those taken here, is because they were resurrected just prior to this, and from that point on they will be following Jesus wherever He goes. They represent part of that army following Him. This is where He goes, so this is where you will find those taken, understand? Oh and by the way, what precedes the above passage. Revelation 19:15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. Again, this is the phrase referencing His reign, the millenium, applied to this specific battle, also linked to the Fall of Babylon with the reference to the winepress, and when do all these things happen? On the last day. The millenium is a day, not a thousand years. Everything you associate with the millenium is referring to eternity. His reign is one of vengeance, there is a huge difference between the two. Again, what does Peter say? II Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. Peter is discussing the day of the Lord in this entire chapter, so any attempt to say this does not apply to the end times is futile. And what is that one thing we are not to forget? A day= a thousand years. The millenium is a day, the day of the Lord. It is a day of extreme violence and wrath. II Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Peter goes on to attach the symbol of the thief directly to the day of the Lord. Why? Simple, because this is when He comes, on the beginning of this day, when that 7th trumpet sounds. So to answer your question, who populates the millenial kingdom? Revelation 6:15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?” These people above, which are also these people below. Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. 21 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts. Which are also these same people. Revelation 16:16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon. And let us not forget these people. Revelation 11:13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven. Mostly what is left at this point are opposed to God. The majority of believers will have been executed by this point, whatever remains will either be locked up in prison awaiting execution, or the group of survivors in Jerusalem who give glory to God following the first resurrection. Keep in mind that Jerusalem has been handed over to the Gentiles for this 42 month period, so these survivors are most likely Gentiles. He will rule them with an iron scepter, and somehow you equate this with rest? There is no rest, there is judgement, wrath. Rest comes when everything has been placed under his feet. Really, who is speaking here? Revelation 16:15 “Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.” Who is coming? Jesus. Who gave us the sign of the thief? Jesus. If this were a snake, it bite you. There are 7 trumpets in Revelation, following the 7th trumpet, there are no more trumpets mentioned. That would make the 7th trumpet, the last trumpet, which is precisely what Paul wrote. The fact is, this is precisely when the resurrection occurs, before the 6th judgements have finished this last trumpet rect. The event is His second coming, the sign attached to it by Jesus is the thief, and also the fig tree, as well as the signs in the heavenly bodies. Each one of these appears during the 6th judgements, not prior to the tribulation, but during it, and very near the end. So when you read Revelation 16:15 understand that this is what He is saying. "Look, I am coming. Two men will be in the field, one will be taken and the other left." That is precisely what He is telling you here. This is a great big neon sign flashing at you. The above statement was made in response to Revelation 14. First, it must occur when the tribulation is still in progress, because that is when He comes by all accounts of scripture. It is also when John writes that the first resurrection takes place. Anyway, let's look at these two resurrections in chapter 14, the same two resurrections you see in chapter 20. Revelation 14:14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested. This is the first resurrection. Revelation 14:17 Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18 Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, “Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth’s vine, because its grapes are ripe.” 19 The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20 They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia. This is the second resurrection. These are the only two resurrections that occur in this time period. Notice that Jesus does the first resurrection, and the angel does the second resurrection. Also pay attention to what is said in the second resurrection, again, this reference to the winepress points to the Fall of Babylon. What is the final thing to be destroyed? Death. The command comes from God the Father, because He is the only one who knows the day or hour. Jesus is waiting for the Father to give the word, we all know that. The angel is merely delivering a message, one of the tasks we quite often see an angel doing. What does the angel say, "for the time to reap has come." What time do you think he is referring to? Incorrect. While we agree that overcomers are not in need of an invitation, this can be said because this book is a prophetic one, and is speaking to what is to come. This entire prophecy was for all the churches from the day it was written until we arrive at the end. You are trying to take what this says and apply it as if "it is done", big difference in perspectives there. Something else to add for consideration. The Israelites did not come up out of Egypt until after the ten plagues. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego went in to the fiery furnace. Daniel went in to the Lion's den. Noah went through the flood. Jesus suffered the cross. The apostles went through their tribulation. People right now are being killed for their faith in Jesus. It goes on and on and on.... Anyway, I think that covers everything. I look forward to your reply, God bless you. Again, I will have to withdraw from discussion with you, as a denial of the Kingdom is by far the worst position one can take. It denies the thousand year Kingdom clearly prophesied throughout Scripture and discussion between an a-millennialist and a premillennial believer is usually pointless, because we approach Scripture two different ways b That doesn't mean, my friend, that I question your salvation, only your approach to Scripture and the conclusions you have drawn. I may be interested in looking at a few items of interest such as the first resurrection, but as far as debating an eschatological timeline and how events unfold, we simply are working with two different Bibles. God bless.

Hello again ranger, Thank you, and yes my Christmas was joyful, hope yours was as well. You are more than welcome for the response, I am always willing to discuss scripture. I will start with your first question and work my way down, but I would like to attempt to stay with the original topic. Specifically the resurrection topic. I think this is the epi-center, and so we have to work our way out from there. However, this chronology issue has to be addressed, so I am going to present some scripture and ask you some direct questions that I must know your answer to in order to understand what you are saying. I am slightly puzzled by the question, because I thought we agreed that the rapture is a resurrection, yet now you are trying to separate the two. But to answer the question, how can this be the first resurrection when the two witnesses were resurrected in chapter 11? Revelation is not chronological. Revelation 11:15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.” 16 And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17 saying: “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was,because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign.18 The nations were angry, and your wrath has come.The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophetsand your people who revere your name, both great and small—and for destroying those who destroy the earth.” Revelation 22:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. The judging of the dead only occurs once, the first passage is from Chapter 11 (Your midway point), do you see the problem here? Which ones demand that they are different judgements? Hopefully the above example will have changed your thought process on this issue. The scripture tells us that Revelation is not chronological. When I got my degree in eschatology, I knew of no one that held your viewpoint on that, and they all believed what you are presenting, including me. Now it's been awhile, but I'm not that old If ncn sees that he won't be able to resist Anyway, I am just wondering if that is the majority viewpoint now? I seriously see no argument here scripturally. Anyway, let's get back to the resurrection. Revelation 20:4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. Fact 1. There are three different groups of people: those who had been given authority to judge, those who had been beheaded, the rest of the dead. Who do you think these three groups represent? Fact 2. All three groups are dead. Fact 3. Two of the groups: those who had been given authority to judge, those who had been beheaded come to life and reign with Him for the thousand years. Fact 4. The same two groups are part of the first resurrection. Fact 5. The same two groups are blessed and holy. Fact 6. The same two groups are not affected by the second death. Fact 7. The same two groups will be priests of God and Christ. Fact 8. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the second resurrection. The millenium separates the two as stated in the passage. You seem confused on this, because in your responses it looks like you only see those who had been beheaded, and you stated that the first resurrection occurs after the millenium. Neither of those are true. Revelation is a complete accounting of the end times, John is not addressing the past, he is speaking to the future. That is what a Revelation is, a revealing. The resurrection of Christ was a given, he was clear on that in his gospel, and he touches on that again at the beginning of the book. When he writes first resurrection, it is because it is the first resurrection within this book of prophecy. And this prophetic book is dealing with a very specific time, the end time. In doing so, John is telling you that this book is not chronological, because of the resurrection of the two witnesses 9 chapters prior to this. He is telling you that the two witnesses are part of the first resurrection. The same thing Paul tells us, "the dead in Christ shall rise first". You are seriously trying to argue that first doesn't mean first? Does Alpha not mean Alpha? I'm afraid that the scriptures you posted do not at all suggest what you claim to me, I will address your first offering and explain to you what this means to me. Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” 22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” 24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The goal of this passage is to be "first", to please God. To do this you must have a servant's heart; contrite, humble, and happy to be so. In short, to be Christlike. This speaks to the very heart of the overall message in scripture from beginning to end, and does the opposite of what you are suggesting. The problem you have here is fairly simple, you are forgetting to apply what you already know, and trying to dismiss the word "first" as if God wrote it by mistake. The two witnesses are dead, correct? Paul tells us that the dead in Christ rise first, and then those who are alive join them, correct? Therefore when the two dead witnesses rise, those alive will follow them, correct? In your scenario you have those alive going ahead of the dead, do you see the problem? Certainly the two witnesses qualify as the dead in Christ, correct? This all comes from disregarding the word "first" in Revelation 20. The passage in Revelation 11 establishes that the two witnesses receive the "breath of life", displaying that they receive their glorified body here, and you are trying to separate them from the first resurrection. This only happens once in scripture prior to the millenium when addressing the end times. They are the same event, this is one of the many things that illustrate how Revelation is not chronological. Exactly, and what is the definition of the word first? According to Thorndike Barnhart dictionary it is this. first , adj. 1a coming before all others; before anything else: Sunday is the first day of the week. First is used as the ordinal of one, in which it may be written, 1st. SYN: earliest, original, initial, chief, foremost, principal, leading. 1b foremost in position, rank, or importance: He is first in his class. 2a playing or singing the part highest in musical pitch: first violin, first soprano. 2b highest in musical pitch 3 designating the lowest gear ratio of a standard automobile transmission; low. first , adv. 1 before all others; before anything else: We eat first and then feed the cat. The good die first (Wordsworth) 2 before some other thing or event: First bring me the chalk. 3 for the first time: When first I met her, she was a child. 4 rather; sooner: The soldiers said they would never give up their flag, but would die first. I'll go to jail first. first, n. 1 a person, thing, or place that comes before all others; first number or member of a series: We were first to get here. 2 the winning position in a race or contest. 3 the first day of the month: I'll see you on the first. 4 baseball. first base. 5 the beginning: the first of a storm. 6 the first gear; low gear. 7 the voice or instrument of its class taking the highest part. 8 British. a) a place in the first class in an examination: a first in Physics. b) a person who has taken a place in the first class. Before all others; before anything else. Re-defining words does not work for me, I am an English major after all. That should be easy enough, just post the passage of scripture that establishes the "types" of resurrections in the end times and let's have a look. I only see two types of resurrection in regards to the end times one of the living, and one of the dead. Ironically, they are the only two that John or Daniel see as well. So that would be the criteria necessary, scripture that speaks to this other type of resurrection, what do we call it? I completely agree that understanding is not only possible, but expected. Which is why your assertion that first does not mean first is untenable. If first does not mean first, then it is not understandable at all, that would be confusion. Your acknowledgement of this is contradictory to your conclusions and how you have to arrive at them. You say: God wrote a book anyone can understand, but the word first doesn't mean first, see the problem? What it appears you are trying to suggest here is that John being in the spirit somehow equates to this missing event in your scenario. Consider that this is in chapter 4, and look at what John says in chapter 1. Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.” First off, John was in the spirit here, correct? Is this the rapture as well? Three chapters apart, visions are random my friend, which means they should not be viewed chronologically. There are so many examples that it is not in sequence throughout, I just keep offering them to you. In addition, there is nothing in scripture to support joining the phrase "in the spirit" with the rapture or any resurrection. Are we not "in the spirit" when we read scripture? When we pray? During worship? On top of that, John would have died more than once in your scenario, because he wrote Revelation after the vision and died some time later. He could not have been there and gone through the entire thing without having died himself at the first resurrection. He still has to write it down, see the problem here? I want to offer you an illustration from my personal perspective for your consideration and response. Revelation 20:4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. My father passed away some time ago now, he was a christian, he believed the same thing you do. Right now he is with Jesus, and when we arrive at the first resurrection, he is one of those who had been given authority to judge. Currently, our brothers and sisters in Christ are being murdered all over the world, particularly in Africa. Many of them have been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. Right now they are with Jesus, and when we arrive at the first resurrection, they are in that second group. We also know for certain that this second group includes people from within the great tribulation. This is the first resurrection, see the problem? The passage clearly states, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." They came to life, think about that. There are only two types of resurrection in relation to the end times, one for the living, and one for the dead. One takes place before the millenium, the other takes place after. Do you not see in scripture that the group in this first resurrection are the ones to reign with Him? Does scripture not tell you that you are in that group? Your argument doesn't even agree with itself. This is why I no longer believe what you currently do. I am not attacking anyone with this viewpoint, I am displaying why it falls apart under scrutiny, as it did for me. Everything I have to say I have already said to myself, so I want to be clear that all of this comes from the heart, with all the love of Jesus that is in me. The above statement was in response to what I posted regarding the letters to the churches. We don't disagree that they will be caught up, the question is when. There is nothing in any of these letters to indicate that these churches are removed prior to the first resurrection. In fact, the only one to imply that any of them are going anywhere points right to the first resurrection. And then there is this letter. Revelation 2:8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. 9 I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. 11 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death. Focus on the underlined passages please. Do not be afraid of what your are about to suffer. The devil is going to put some of them in prison. Not wicked men, not corrupt chiefs, the devil. When does this take place? Revelation 13:3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?” 5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. Revelation 13:9 Whoever has ears, let them hear. 10 “If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity they will go.If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword they will be killed.” This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints. John connects these two things together, in each letter to the churches he uses the phrase "Whoever has ears, let them hear", and you will notice right here in these passages the word "saints", which is the equivalent of believers, which is what we call those within the church today, saints. You say the church is gone, and yet here they are. And what does John write at the end of the letter to Smyrna, The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death. And who in Revelation 20 is not hurt by the second death? Those who take part in the first resurrection. That includes this church, they are part of the first resurrection, which happens just prior to the millenium. There is nothing in the letter to Smyrna to indicate the Lord has one single grievance with this church, and what is said to them places them right in the midst of the mark of the beast, do you see the problem here? Jesus tells us over and over again to be prepared. What you suggest is that I need to be prepared for an evacuation that will come unexpectedly. If I am being evacuated unexpectedly, what do I need to be prepared for? I have nothing to worry about at that point. When Jesus tells me to be prepared, this is what I think of. Ephesians 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. 19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should. Paul tells us how to prepare ourselves for the day of evil, what does that mean to you? Paul tells us to stand our ground in that day, what does that say to you? Paul emphasizes to stand firm then, in that day of evil, what does that say to you? I fear you are preparing yourself for an evacuation, when scripture makes it apparent you should be preparing for war. Furthermore, this is the message being given to the future generation, so this is why I challenge what you are saying with scripture. This letter is also written to the church, see the problem here? Your above response is regarding this passage from I Corinthians. I Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Surely you can't be serious. Paul places this precisely where John does in Revelation, just prior to the millenium (verse 25). He finishes the job, and puts everything under his feet. The exact same sequence John gives, but in verse 23 Paul specifies the order of resurrection to a glorified body. Christ, the firstfruits, then when he comes, those who belong to Him. Then the end will come. It says exactly what it says. To suggest that the passage does not speak to the timeline in the end leaves me with this expression. Continued...... On a tablet so I will just present a few comment to your post. The primary issues would be first, I would ask you to review the post dealing with ''first.'' I have given a link to Strong's. You gave a dictionary for first, now take a look at the definition of protos. As a second note on that issue, tell me if the''first covenant'' spoken of by the writer of Hebrews is the first covenant. I gave a number of verses where we can see a sequential meaning is not in view. Your response leads me to think you didn't read my post, and I cannot invest time in discussion like that. Again, the first resurrection would be that of the Lord, if we are speaking of order and sequence. In regards to going to school and a majority view, that would the a-millennial view, lol. In regards to your puzzlement concerning my position on the Rapture being a resurrection, it is in regards the the Rapture of the Church. However, these are two separate and distinct parts. We are resurrected then raptures (caught up). It is not the resurrection that catches away, but the Lord raising us and then raising us, lol. The first resurrection does not imply rapture, but resurrection only. As far as Revelation being chronological or not, I know its the popular view that it isn't, but I suggest that view is rooted in apologetics within an a-millennial framework. What other prophetic Scripture do we have that follows that pattern? None. You have Revelation as the time of the end of the Tribulation by correlating it to a similar statement in Revelation 20 (you mistakenly have 22 in your post, by the way) when some problems with that would be that first, this is at the end of the Kingdom (not the end of the Tribulation), and secondly we still have the seven Vial Judgments, making it impossible that this is the end of the Tribulation. Problems like this disappear when the order God gave them in us maintained. I will just address one more issue for now, which is the attempt to make the judgments the same to make the seventh Trumpet judgment the end because it is thought this is ''the last trump of the Rapture.'' In the second Trumpet, Revelation 8:9, we see a third of the creatures in the sea die; in Revelation 16:3 we see in the second Vial...every living soul in the sea dies. This clarifies they are not the same judgment, hence we do well to maintain Revelation as it is given. Sorry for this response being short, but using this tablet is killing me, lol. Worked on one for several hours yesterday and when I posted...the thread had been locked due to certain members abusing each other. So just a few key issues we need to focus on before we can really progress. The First Resurrection of CH.20 is not the first in sequence, but first in type. That is an important distinction to make. Revelation is chronological, despite the views of institutions of ''higher learning.'' The judgments are, though similar, separate and distinct judgments. God bless.

Your response to my first post wasn't exactly meek. Further I am simply applying what Peter tells us that those who cannot apprehend Paul’s deeper teachings are UNLEARNED and UNSTABLE, and therefore, they TWIST these Scriptures to suit their own interpretations. And, not only do they twist these hard to apprehend Scriptures, but Peter says that they are, "... TWISTING ... THE RESTOF THE SCRIPTURES...Which you clearly demonstrated. You should be angry with yourself, not me. No where do I question the salvation of a believer whether they pre mid or post rapturists, you are twisting what I said... Since you mentioned it, one does not gain salvation in believing in the rapture...the doctrine has no bearing on ones salvation....knowing this how could I possibly question it enlighten of our topic? Unless you firmly believe the rapture is paramount to ones salvation? Then we have two means of salvation? One through rapture and one through resurrection... You don't understand, I guess, that by applying passages which designate unbelief to your antagonists...you question their salvation, which is not your place to do, particularly when you have not spoken with a person long enough to know their heart. If you want to be useful to the Lord in posting, and presume to speak for Him, you might consider your approach. While we can question the doctrines of others, and should, who is saved and who is not is better left in the Lord's hands. If we are used of Him in that process, then are we blessed, but, it is doubtful that we could think the Lord makes it a habit of reading one post and then casting that person into the role of false teacher and one who is lost. As far as my response not being meek, lol, sorry, but there is nothing in there that I would not, and often do...reiterate. If one has a hard time having their doctrine questioned...perhaps forum discussion is not for them. As far as the false argument of people being saved by the rapture in a salvific sense, there is nothing in my post that suggests that. So you have two options: you can address the doctrine which I addressed, or, you can continue posting irrelevancies. I will be out of town for a few days so the only posting I might get to do will be on a tablet, which is like getting teeth pulled for me, lol, so I would just suggest we start over, and take a point at a time, and try to reason together like adults. What say you? Understand, we are dealing with the most controversial issues there are, and feelings are easily hurt, but it doesn't have to be that way. Nothing you or I say impacts each others' salvation, in the salvific sense, but what may occur is that our perspectives, which are right now in conflict concerning the Rapture, may allow one or the other to understand a perspective we haven't previously considered. I have learned that until we understand the basis of any belief another holds, we do well to put off judgment, particularly when those judgments are eternal in nature, meaning we cast judgment concerning another's salvation. That is not our right, and that is not pleasing, I feel, to the Lord. I have a strange sense of humor, which is probably the first thing you need to understand about me, and I will neither hesitate to yank chains, or respond in the tone of my antagonist (though I think my tone maintains a sense of humor (even if it isn't recognized as humor, lol)). So we can set aside irrelevancies, and focus on the doctrine itself, and you never know...we might both learn something. I have learned more from those my doctrinal views come into conflict with than those that would be seen to be in agreement. It's a great process of learning. So no need for emotion, we can just focus on the doctrine. God bless.

Sorry, bro’, but you have an error in your poll. There is no third option to the question about the covenant. Hence, when I tried to vote with neither selected, it gave me an error message. Only the two primary thoughts are given in the poll, and we can see that there is a majority who feel that Antichrist makes a covenant that may be thought to be distinct to Antichrist. There is good reason why the Davidic Covenant is not given, which is because it simply will not fit the context of either Daniel or Other relevant passages. And why we would reject the Davidic Covenant as an option is quite simple: neither Christ not Antichrist will confirm the Davidic Covenant for one Week. It is not the Davidic Covenant that would allow for sacrifice and oblation, because we would have to see one or the other claiming to fulfill that role. Christ certainly did, but it had not impact on Levitical Service, which was already established and being carried out. Christ did confirm the Law, as well as the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. He also confirmed the covenant of the Levitical Priesthood. But none of these are confirmed by God for one Week. Only Antichrist fits in a confirmation of any covenant which is then broken, thus we do not see God breaking any Covenant. Not even the Law is despised by Christ, but fulfilled. The writer of Hebrews says to leave the Law, not despise it, which is also confirmed by Paul, who says we establish the Law (and this may cause some confusion). I agree completely. Often it is by addressing points in Scripture backwards that they are best understood. But the one thing you need to consider is that the New Covenant, which is how the Davidic Covenant is fulfilled, cannot be broken, particularly by God Himself. as Strong’s Dictionary of the Hebrew and Chaldee Languages lists it. It’s the same word that is used for “latter days” or “end times,” which in Hebrew is “achariyt hayamim.” It literally can mean "ANYTIME after!” Verse 26 gives us the general, more inclusive points, and then verse 27 goes into the details of those main points. Again, Christ is cut off after the 69 Weeks, which makes it doubtful He is in view. I will go back and emamine this later, as I am in a hurry at the moment, but I see nothing here to make point one in error. So Christians destroy the city and the sanctuary? Take a look at "that shall come," and see how that is significant to who it is that the covenant pertains to. I would ask if you see the Seventieth Week as being a seven year tribulation period to come. When you answer this, then we can discuss how Christ can confirm the Davidic Covenant within that period. God bless.

Too funny, lol. If it helps, fifty three is still pretty young... God bless.

...which does not equate to understanding that which was previously unrevealed, not negate the very declaration of God's Word which teaches contrary to the belief that men had foreknowledge and "ancient comprehension." 1 Corinthians 2:5-8 King James Version (KJV) 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Romans 16:25 King James Version (KJV) 25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, Ephesians 3:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Keep in mind, brother Joe, that at this time the Rapture is yet a Mystery. Martha understand the foundational teachings of the resurrection of the dead, but has no understanding of the resurrection the Lord will bestow upon those believing on His name, and no understanding of the Rapture. Beloved, I Have Little Knowledge Of What Sister Martha May Or May Not Have Understood Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. John 11:5 Except That She Sat Directly Under Jesus As Her Teacher Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house. John 11:20 So, If Her Creator Did Not Correct Her But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. Luke 10:40-42 Neither Would Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. John 11:25 I But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. Revelation 20:5-6 ~ Be Blessed Beloved Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6 Love, Your Brother Joe Would you also view Martha as understanding the Gospel of Christ as well? Or any "believer" that sat under the teachings of Christ? What you are saying here is that I am adding to the words of Christ, when in fact we know that the revelation of the Gospel Mystery as well as the mystery of the Rapture was in fact added after the Lord's earthly ministry ended. Without this distinction we nullify the fact that much of the New Testament deals with new revelation which was not provided in the Old Testament, and Christ's ministry, which precedes the beginning of the Church, as well as the very mysteries said to be revealed through Paul by the power of the Holy Spirit, can be placed under the economy of the Law. Christ was made under the Law, ministered under the Law, and it is not until His death that we can say He established the New Covenant which was established by the very blood of Christ. The New Covenant, while spoken of in the Old Testament, remained promised until that promise was fulfilled. It is fulfilled in Christ, and we mark the difference between the Age of Law and the Age of Grace which are two entirely different covenants. Paul wrote that he (and his companion evangelists/ministers) had been made able ministers of the New Covenant, and again, we see the distinction between the two. If we do not make the distinction as Scripture does, then we merge and blend teachings and concepts which is the very reason so many get confused about issues such as whether we are under the Law still...or not. God bless.

Enlarging the Scripture to distinguish it from what I say is just typical in my posts and few would view it as yelling or shouting. I can reduce the font one step below but I would rather not maintain a consistent font in my responses. I have responded to numerous posts where yelling was without question, and nothing has been said, so if you would, please clarify if you are saying that you are not going to allow enlarging of the font in the case of Scripture.

Hello wingnut, just going to make a few comments due to the fact I am leaving town this afternoon and am about of time. First, while I can appreciate an association of the Sixth Day with the Six Judgment/s, I would remind you that it is still the sixth, not the seventh, which I also see in the Millennial Kingdom, meaning, the Kingdom can be viewed as the "rest" which this current universe will receive prior to passing away and yielding to the new heavens and earth. The Sixth Judgment/s cannot be correlated to the sixth of any of the three judgments, though, because they are all within the Tribulation and prior to Christ's Return, by which we might correlate His Return to the Seventh Day. Secondly, Christ does not Return during any of the Sixth Judgments. Third, while both Paul's teaching and the Seventh Trumpet mention a trumpet, we have to acknowledge that it is just a fact that Christ does not return at the Seventh Trumpet's sounding, for there are still the Seven Vial Judgments left, which I believe are unleashed when the Seventh Trumpet is sounding, that last Trumpet being, not Christ's Return, but the Third Woe itself. Thus showing the weakness of trying to make the last trump Paul taught about (which is the final trumpet call for the Church) the Seventh Trumpet, where we see neither Christ's Return (which is given in Revelation 19) nor the end of the Tribulation, which would correspond, if we take the view of the Millennial Kingdom being the promised rest (physically) promised to Isrrael and the "seventh day" (which I do). When Christ returns there will be, physically, both believing and unbelieving who will be separated. The unbelieving will go into eternal punishment (which begins by being cast into Sheol/Hades and culminates one thousand years later in the Lake of Fire) and the believing will, physically, enter into the Kingdom. This reference to resurrection reaches into the eternal state, and is not a timeline for the Tribulation. Within that framework we have no less than one thousand and seven years. Where the Church is raptured cannot be designated by this passage. Nor does this establish a sequence to the Rapture, or resurrection at all, for here Paul maintains that it is to the Jew first, not in the sense of a rapture or even an individual salvation, but even as he states here: Romans 2:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; ...Israel is not disassociated with salvation in Christ, but have their roots prior to the establishment of the New Covenant and the beginning of salvation in Christ. They did not receive salvation in Christ prior to the Cross and Pentecost, but, they precede those that are saved by the Gospel. It is the same principle we see in Romans 11, where Israel has not been cast of, but that they precede the wild branches grafted in. And sorry for repeating this verse, but I thought it good to see it in relation to the previous verse with a different perspective clearly attached for the purpose of consideration. Again, this is not a sequential timeline given for the Rapture, nor is this individual, but simply takes into account that Israel preceded the Church and God has dealt with them first. IF this did establish the Jew being first in anything, we would then establish God as being a respecter of persons, which is not the case when we have the Church in view, and salvation in Christ, the twain have been made one. Again, the "sign" is the actual return of Christ. For those in rebellion against God, who are under the power of Antichrist and strong delusion of God, when the destruction that takes place at His return occurs, they will never know what hit them. At least, they will not see it coming. The soldier in the trenches will be under the impression that he is on the side of right, which the Return of Christ will dispel that immediately. Two primary reasons not to view this as a picture of the Rapture: first, it occurs while the Tribulation is still in process, and secondly, we note... Revelation 14:13-16 King James Version (KJV) 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. 14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. 16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. In view is the distinction between those that die in the Lord and those that come into His judgment in wrath. Now we contrast that with the second reaping and we see that: Revelation 14:17-20 King James Version (KJV) 17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. 19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs. ...again two points of interest, the first being that we see the use of "another" which indicates the reaping of the first was done by an Angel, rather than the Lord, and secondly, again, in view is death...not resurrection, not rapture. So we have Christ receiving commands from...an Angel? And let's see Who and who, lol, are mentioned at the end of Revelation: Revelation 22:17 King James Version (KJV) 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. This can be said because those that have overcome are not in need of the invitation, because they have entered into salvation already. This is, I believe, a strong indication that the Church will not go through the Tribulation. And again, sorry for the brief response. Look forward to your replies to the points brought up, and thanks for the responses you have given. God bless.

You do relies this verse undermines your doctrine? In Greek "will keep thee from" is TEREO EK. TEREO means to watch over protectively, guard. The word EK is a preposition and it means to be rescued out the midst of danger. Isn't your rapture before danger? The entire idea of TEREO EK is actually to be protected within the sphere of danger and not protected from danger. Like I said you have to twist scripture to support your Rapture nonsense. Matt 24 Yes Matt 24 doesn't mention resurrection. But that doesn't rule out a resurrection is taking place now does it? Lets look at Matt 24 and lets compare to Isaiah to get the full picture of what and who is gathered and its not in the air...you see you need to look at other scripture to get the complete image. Matthew and Isaiah Description Matt1:22–23 .........Is 7:14a = virgin shall conceive Matt2:1–2........Is 60:3 = wise men come Matt 3:3..... Is 40:3 = the voice of one crying in the wilderness Matt 4:14–16 .........Is 9:1–2 = people walking in darkness have seen a great light Matt 5:34–35 .....Is 66:1 = heaven is God's throne, earth His footstool Matt 8:17 .....Is53:4 = He hath borne our griefs Matt11:5 .......Is 29:18–19; 35:5–6 = blind see, lame walk, deaf hear Matt11:23 ........Is14:15 = brought down to hell Matt12:17–21 ........Is 42:1–4a = bruised reed shall He not break Matt13:14–15 ......Is 6:9–10 = people hear but don't understand Matt15:7–9 .....Is 29:13 = hypocrites draw near with mouth, but heart is far away Matt15:14 .......Is 9:16 = blind leaders and followers both destroyed Matt 21:13......Is 56:7 = My house called the house of prayer Matt 24:29 ......Is13:10 and 34:4 = sun, moon darkened, stars fall Matt 24:31 ......Is 11:12 and 27:12–13 = the gathering Matt 24:35 .......Is 65:17 and 66:22 = heaven and earth replaced by new heaven and earthquake 1 Thessalonians 4:17 Look at the greek word perileipomenoi it means surviving We that remain or survive will be caught up in the air.....survivors? SURVIVING FROM WHAT? Further had the Paul wanted to communicate that Christ coming downward to take us upward was the goal, he could have chosen to use a word like οὐρανός. This word, which is interpreted as “air” on some occasions, would have given the impression that going to meet Christ in the “air” was a upward heavenly route. However, Paul chose to use was one that indicates the lower part of the atmosphere. Paul had a grammatical choice to make, and clearly he did not want to misguide his first century audience by making them think that being “with the Lord forever” actually meant going to heaven, away from the creation project. So, in order to keep his metaphorical devices in place without giving the wrong impression, he chose to use ἀήρ to indicate that he was not talking about escaping this world; but rather being part of its redemptive process. Since my logic is twisted, which is the condescending tone you took previously as you questioned the salvation of all pre-trib believers and teachers, I see no point in further attempt at communication. When you can learn to talk with someone, rather than at someone, perhaps what you have to say might be seasoned with something other than insult. God bless.

Hi S T Ranger Consider what Job said; Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: We know the saints in the first resurrection will be raised to spirit. These consist only of those who followed Christ. Not those who were before him. And regarding your conversation with Salty about Lazarus being raised from the dead, I agree with you that it was not the same type of resurrection that Jesus spoke of, because Lazarus would of died again. Jesus raised many from the dead, but they too would of died again. There is a big difference between being "resurrected" and "raised from the dead". The raised just had the breath of life put back in them, but the resurrected will be changed to spirit. The word "resurrected" is not used when referring to Lazarus or others who were brought back to life. John 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. John 12:9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. John 12:17 The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record. Then after this amazing miracle; John 12:10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; This scripture nails it. Lazarus was raised only to flesh, and not spirit, otherwise how could they even contemplate to kill him? Now keeping all this in mind, the difference between "being resurrected" and "raised from the dead" is just a taste of an amazing event we will witness during the millennium. A subject I brought up some time ago, with not much response. Before I get there, we know the saints who followed Christ will take part in that first resurrection where the dead will be raised to spirit, and those alive caught up and changed in the twinkling of an eye (quickened to spirit). Only those in Christ will take part in this, and we know those Jews who believed in Christ will be in that same resurrection also. ....But the whole house of Israel who died before Christ was sent, died under that old covenant, and died never knowing their Messiah, nor his new doctrine which he was sent to preach. Most of those who lived during the days of Christ and after, rejected Christ, and the scriptures confirm this. So for the millennial kingdom on earth to be populated with a flesh population, and the promise to Abraham that in Isaac (not Ishamael's line), but Isaac's line, the Jews....to be placed in the promised land and this prophecy to be fulfilled..., would mean that same taste of what many saw and witnessed with Lazarus and others being "raised from the dead" by Christ and the apostles to "flesh only" and "not spirit" will apply again during the millennium. Only this time they have been dead for a very long time. And it's revealed in Ezekiel exactly the way it will happen as prophesied - so plain and clear, ..in fact so clear that it's almost unbelievable and written off as to having only a "spiritual meaning". Please read these verses, I hope it will fill in a piece of the puzzle for you. Ezekiel 37:1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, Ezekiel 37:2 And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. Ezekiel 37:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Ezekiel 37:4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Ezekiel 37:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: (BREATH NOT SPIRIT) Ezekiel 37:6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. (FLESH, BREATH, SKIN,) Ezekiel 37:7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. Ezekiel 37:8 And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Ezekiel 37:9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. Ezekiel 37:10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. (BREATH OF LIFE, SAME AS WHAT GOD BREATHED INTO ADAM, BREATH IS FOR FLESH) Ezekiel 37:11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Ezekiel 37:12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Ezekiel 37:13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, Ezekiel 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD. (NOW, AFTER THE FLESH IS RESTORED, AN THE BREATH OF LIFE PUT BACK INTO THEM, THEN THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL BE GIVEN, BUT THEY ARE STILL FLESH, LIKE WE ARE NOW) If we go back to Job again, we can now understand what he's revealing to us; Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: There is a remnant of Israel. A left over, a remainder; Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. Romans 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Zechariah 8:6 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in these days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts. These who will be raised are not all of Israel,...but only those "according to the election of grace" and these elected will make up the whole house of Israel, ..they are especially chosen, and hand picked by God to be brought into the kingdom to glorify God's name. There will be a remnant chosen of the last days also amongst the living, but they will not be quickened, instead placed into the kingdom on earth after the Lords 2nd coming. These Israelites will live, multiply and die for 1000 years in peace, and these are the people who will be attacked at the end of the millennium (the battle of Gog and Magog) for how can men make war with the saints? They would have no chance, but it's these he makes war with, because they are living at peace in a kingdom so bountiful, that the enemy wants to take it for himself and they are flesh and blood. In one day, a nation shall be restored; Isaiah 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Israel will be sifted, the wicked will not enter God's rest; Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. There will be nations that will survive Armageddon, but their dominions are taken away, for Christ will rule now with a rod of iron. His law will go forth; Micah 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (ISRAEL WILL TEACH THE NATIONS OUTSIDE THE KINGDOM) Zechariah 8:11 But now I will not be unto the residue of this people as in the former days, saith the LORD of hosts. Zechariah 8:12 For the seed shall be prosperous; the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her increase, and the heavens shall give their dew; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things. Zechariah 8:13 And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong. Israel will be brought back "IN THE FLESH" because of mercy, and she will be a beacon to the nations. Israel formerly cut off, will be re-grafted back on to the tree and will produce good fruits. They will be filled with the holy spirit and all will know the Lord. In the kingdom there will be no jealousy for the resurrected saints, for all will serve the Lord with a pure heart and Israel will be healed. The only ones who will be provoked to jealousy would be the Israelites that have not been elected to part-take in this amazing kingdom we will witness. They will not have a share in this kingdom. They will even be jealous of the gentiles who will be raised in the resurrection instead of them. Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. There is a general rule that we die once, and then judged to die again or attain eternal life, but there are some exceptions to this rule, and this is one of them. These Israelites who die in the millennium will die again. They will be raised in the 2nd resurrection. The end result is what God is after when all is fulfilled, all will be in God, and God in all. Well that's my two cents worth, I hope you can see this too. Thanks you for the contribution Sister, but I don't completely reject a teaching that sees only a physical resurrection of those that died prior to the establishment of the New Covenant, as it seems you suggest here, I think it unlikely. We are in agreement that those resurrected prior to the Cross and Pentecost were only physically resurrected, but the "remnant" always deals with those that are currently alive in both primary texts we normally look to, not those that have already died. Ezekiel 37, in my view, deals primarily with Israel on a National basis, just as Romans 11 does, rather than having those of Israel who have already died to physically populate the Kingdom. The primary problem you will have is that the relevant texts dealing with the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom always have the unbelieving dying physically and the believing living physically. The Rapture deals with both the dead and the living of the Church, and the body which we receive will be both physical as well as spiritual, even as Christ our Lord was raised. We know flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, but, we do not deny that the Lord had flesh and bone, which He contrasts with a or the spirit of a man here: Luke 24:39 King James Version (KJV) 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Thus rendering the use of the proof-text in Job concerning the flesh moot, because we do not deny the spiritual body we receive in glorification is physical, rather than simply spirit, and those that endure the Tribulation remain physically alive apart from a resurrection at all. Now I will concede that one could speculate that those not in Christ in the sense of not being members of the Church, meaning, the Old Testament saints...are only raised physically and are not glorified until the Great White Throne, thus fulfilling the foundational doctrine of the Resurrection of the dead as taught in the Old Testament, however, while acknowledge that this in many ways fits within the framework of resurrection, the writer of Hebrews indicates that the Old Testament Saints were made complete in Christ...with us (the Church): Hebrews 11:13 & 39-40 King James Version (KJV) 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Hebrews 12:22-24 King James Version (KJV) 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, 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, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. What this means is that the incomplete nature of atonement found under the Law (the last Word in regards to atonement we have before Christ) has been remedied, which establishes a basis that because they were made complete, they were liberated from Sheol/Hades when Christ died for their sins. I lean heavily to the view that the Old Testament Saints, who fell under the grace of God and while not going to be with the Lord in Heaven because they were yet in need of being made complete, were still "saved" in the sense that they were obedient to the gospel they received in their day, and obedient to the revelation of God they had (c.f. Hebrews 4:1-3). But in regards to those that populate the Kingdom, regardless of the Rapture it is necessary to deal with those that survive through the Tribulation, and we see in Matthew 25 that those that remain (the believing) are never said to be glorified, and it is they who will enter into that Kingdom because they were born again during the Tribulation. The Scripture presented here to support your view is very well thought out, but, again we have no mention of resurrection in regards to Tribulation (and in particular the Lord's Return) events apart from the First Resurrection which involves only those who die during the Tribulation (though we see the Resurrection and Rapture of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11). Thanks for the post, and I wish I had more time to address it in more detail, but we are leaving town this afternoon and my time is about gone. So I respond with this shorter post to perhaps center on a few more obvious details. Again, I would say that the dead from the Old Testament saints could only be physical, but, in regards to the Church, they are glorified. You would need to show a resurrection apart from the two already mentioned where we would see the Old Testament only physically resurrected. You would need to show the resurrection of the Old Testament Saints in passages dealing with those that remain physically alive throughout the Tribulation. And again, sorry for the short response, but again I am running out of time, and so far have only responded to one of Wingnut's posts, lol, and I hate leaving posts unanswered (unless they are simply ridiculous, which this presentation is not as far as I am concerned). God bless.

Whereas the clearest picture I see is the Rapture of the Two Witnesses. Jesus Himself is the sign in view, not a statement: Matthew 24:30-31 King James Version (KJV) 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. The reason believers will not be deceived is because when Christ appears there will be no question, thus believers in that day are to endure. And when Christ does come, at that point His Angels gather the Elect as well as the unbelieving to the Sheep and Goat judgment. In the Rapture, it is Christ Who personally gathers us unto Himself apart from judgment: Hebrews 9:28 King James Version (KJV) 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. This, like many prophetic utterances do, has two applications I believe, and applies to both the Rapture as well as the Return. While non-mention is not a good case to build doctrine around, it is still true that no judgment is ever mentioned in Paul's teaching concerning glorification, and in the Return of Christ there is no mention of resurrection, apart from passages dealing with the resurrection of the Great White Throne Judgment. None of the sixth of any of the judgments...is the end. We see the Seventh Vial poured out, and at that point we see the result of that last judgment, and then...the Return of Christ. Only by taking into consideration the dissimilarities of the judgments in Revelation can ne distinguish that each one is a separate and distinct event. Still within the Tribulation and prior to the Return of Christ, and...no resurrection in view other than the resurrection of tribulation martyrs. That is quite the dilemma for the Post-Tribulation view. Agreed. Relevance to the Rapture? Don't let length be an issue. This is how the details are examined in the detail needed, and I applaud your efforts. God bless.

I agree: Christ's teaching here deals directly with the Tribulation and His Return. The one problem the Post-Tribulation believer is going to have is actually finding a text which teaches a resurrection in this time. No such resurrection exists. You view "those taken" as being raptured, when this is incorrect. When we consult the parallel passage in Luke we see that those taken (and see the Greek on "taken" and "left" for an interesting bit of trivia, lol)... ...die: Luke 17:32-37 King James Version (KJV) 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. A few things to consider: 1. those saved in the examples given did not "leave" but were left behind; those that fell to the judgment...died; 2. we cannot debate whether this refers to Christ's Return; 3. in v.33 we see that in view is either preservation or loss of life, even as it was in the examples used by the Lord; 4. the disciples' question "Where, Lord?" can only refer to "Where are they taken, and His answer refers to where the eagles are gathered, which speaks of carcasses and carrion fowl. There is no argument concerning the correlations between these passages: in view is the Tribulation and the Return of Christ. But you need to show a resurrection besides that of the Tribulation Martyrs if you want to impose the Rapture during these events. It does, as well as continues the familiar theme of sudden judgment, as well as shows the wicked are completely unaware of what is taking place. Agreed: 2 Peter 3:3-6 King James Version (KJV) 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: And again, just as every passage dealing with the Lord's Return teaches, the unbelieving perish and the believing survive...physically. That is the point of the question of the OP, my friend, to point out that it is both taught as well as necessary that believers that endure/survive the Tribulation are not glorified, but enter into the Kingdom physically, from whom come those descendants of theirs which rebel against God at the end of the Kingdom and are destroyed. Continued...

Keep in mind, brother Joe, that at this time the Rapture is yet a Mystery. Martha understand the foundational teachings of the resurrection of the dead, but has no understanding of the resurrection the Lord will bestow upon those believing on His name, and no understanding of the Rapture. The writer of Hebrews tells us not to lay again the foundational principles of the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, but to go on unto completion, which we have received through Christ our Lord. God bless.

Verse 5 would have to be, I dunno, the Tenth Resurrection according to what you present. It is actually, in sequence of time, the fourth resurrection we are told about in regards to glorification: Christ, the Church, the Two Witnesses, and then the Tribulation Martyrs. But all of these are the First Resurrection, the resurrection unto life. Consider that at this time...John is seeing them showing them enthroned...before the First Resurrection of Revelation 20: Revelation 20:4-5 King James Version (KJV) 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. This first group I view as those that have at this time received positions of rule. The thrones are filled before the Tribulation Martyrs are raised, and again we see the value of keeping the actual sequence of events in Revelation. THis limits quite a bit of confusion. Are they still problems? That would be your problem only, it raises no dilemma for my doctrinal view. This resurrection alone, not to mention that of Christ...makes a sequential meaning to first untenable. You would have to deny it is a resurrection and rapture in the case of the Witnesses in order to make a sequential understanding tenable. Nor do you see the Church mentioned except with Christ. But consider what is written before the Tribulation events begin: Revelation 4 King James Version (KJV) 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. Heaven is opened and John is caught up. 4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. These, I believe, are the same thrones John sees here: Revelation 20:4 King James Version (KJV) 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The point is...these are already in Heaven. Prior to the Tribulation, of course. What we cannot debate is whether they are already in Heaven or not. That is clear in both texts (from Revelation). While we might not see Revelation 4 giving us a veiled reference to the Rapture, we do see John caught up (like we see the Two Witnesses caught up, and just as Paul describes the Rapture of the Church) into Heaven and being immediately in the spirit. We could describe this as a vision only but it is just my view John was actually caught up and saw events in real time. God can do that. Not entirely accurate: everyone from each of these Churches who overcomes will be caught up. The point in each Epistle is for them to overcome, and John, the same writer, tells us how one overcomes: 1 John 5:1-5 King James Version (KJV) 1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? One overcomes because Christ has overcome, and because of that we are born of God in salvation which takes place in our lifetimes. Secondly, we must keep these Epistles in their context, which is not one which describes "periods of the Church Age," but are Epistles written to existing Churches, of whom there were members who needed to be...saved. Those born of God, for example, are not spewed out of the Lord's mouth, but are kept by the power of God and are in His hand, from which no man can remove us. The truth is that every promise to those who overcome belong to everyone who...overcomes. And the warnings given to everyone who has not, and does not overcome belong to everyone who remains unregenerate. Just think about that, my friend. I appreciate your reasoning, but, if you simply acknowledge the continuity of the timeline provided for us by the Lord in Revelation the need for this type of reasoning disappears. I agree this in relation to the saints, that is, those that are born again during the Tribulation, but, in regards to salvation from the eternal perspective, our endurance does not change the fact that we are kept by the Power of God, not through our efforts which pertain to our temporal lives: 1 Peter 1:3-5 King James Version (KJV) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. As we study we must learn to distinguish between the temporal and the eternal, and the letters of Revelation speak to overcoming in the temporal by the blood of the Lamb, so that the eternal destiny of those involved is sealed. Continued...

Hello again Ranger and Merry Christmas, Thanks for the clarification on how you see things, as I understand you see 4 resurrections, in the order I had them. Where I only see 2. I suppose that is the best place to start. The obvious question is, why does John write this is the first resurrection? Revelation 20:4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Merry Christmas, my friend, hope yours was a joyful one, and thanks for the response. The first question to ask is how can this be the first resurrection (in sequence) when the Two Witnesses are not only resurrected in ch.11 but raptured? We know that this takes place during the Second Woe, which preceded not only the Seventh Trumpet (Third Woe) but all 7 of the Vial Judgments. Many have tried to make the Seal, Trumpet, and Vial Judgments the same judgments based on similarities, however, when we compare these judgments we are forced to abandon that view when we acknowledge the dissimilarities between them which demand that they are different judgments. If that is not enough (the differences), then we also factor in that after their resurrection and Rapture...the Tribulation is still going on. Their ministry spans forty two months, as does the reign of terror of the Beast. When we see them raptured, we are then told of events which demand...another 3 1/2 years. Because many have been told "Revelation is not sequential" based on the parenthetical elements in Revelation, they feel they have liberty to place the events of those parenthetical portions...wherever they choose. Not only does this disrupt the flow of the timeline carefully given us by John, it brings about dilemmas that need to be reconciled. One such dilemma is "How can the Beast's reign of terror run concurrent with the ministry of the Two Witnesses? If no man has power over them, then we must conclude that their death takes place at the end of the Tribulation. We know the casting of Antichrist is at the end, so how is it that, if this is true...we still have the events described in the parenthetical and the remaining judgments? This would demand that the remainder of the judgments all happen basically on the last day of the Tribulation, which we would never suggest. The order of events is chronological in Revelation, and when we create our timeline we have nothing to reconcile: the Tribulation begins with the Seal judgments which are a time of wars and rumors of wars, pestilence, famine and death. The Two Witnesses minister forty two months, the span of the first half, and are killed in the middle, at which time the Temple comes under Antichrist's control, affording him opportunity to make it, and the Covenant of Law...desolate. This is the time he is empowered for forty two months, and declares himself god. Israel flees and is provided shelter in the wilderness. Antichrist is described as emerging with wrath, because he knows his time is short, not over. To tell someone that Revelation is not chronological is the absolute worst advice someone can give someone else in regards to understanding Revelation. I would just suggest that in your future studies, you at least consider this, and see if it does not resolve a few issues, also making a few issues disappear. To finish up the first point, consider the death, resurrection, and rapture of the Two Witnesses: Revelation 11:11-14 King James Version (KJV) 11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. 12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. 13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. 14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly. Again, it is finished before the Third Woe begins. And the question to ask yourself is this: can we deny this is a resurrection? Can we deny this is a rapture? They are physically dead, their life is restored, and they are called up to Heaven. That doesn't sound similar to Paul's description of the Rapture...it is identical. The second thing to remember in regards to the First Resurrection, which is equally important, is...what does it mean when it is called the first resurrection? I would suggest to you that it is a reference to the type of resurrection the Tribulation Martyrs receive, not the timing. The word "first" can be seen not to represent sequential order, and we see this in the following verses: Matthew 20:27 King James Version (KJV) 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Mark 6:21 King James Version (KJV) 21 And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee; Mark 12:28-29 King James Version (KJV) 28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Luke 19:47 King James Version (KJV) 47 And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him, Now we have prōtos used in these verses as well, giving an eminent, rather than a sequential meaning in it's use. Consider that and consider what that means when we read... Revelation 20:4-5 King James Version (KJV) 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. That this cannot possibly be the first resurrection in regards to sequence according to the resurrection which the Body of Christ will receive should be fairly obvious to us...because the First Resurrection unto glorification is none other than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. Right? Not only that, but we would have to deny the Two Witnesses are either not resurrected or raptured or...their rapture occurs at the end of the Tribulation and takes place at the resurrection described in ch.20. This would fit in regards to who is raised at that time, because only Tribulation Martyrs are said to be raised, but that only leads to the dilemma of what do we do with the fact that only Tribulation Martyrs are said to be raised and we are specifically told that there is a thousand year reign of Christ between their resurrection and the resurrection of the dead? Then, if that isn't enough, if the First Resurrection is the Rapture...who populates the Millennial Kingdom? And because some bad advice has been given and received, historically, these dilemmas brought about the a-millennial view, because the only way to remove these unanswerable dilemmas is to remove the thousand year reign of Christ specifically mentioned there and making there be only one general resurrection at the end of the days. When all that needs to be done is accurately identify the meaning of the word "first" and keep the order of events... ...exactly as they were given to us. God did not give us revelation in a manner that cannot be understood, for then it would not be revelation from God, but oracles meant to be confusing, such as the babblings of the Oracle of Delphi. But God not only gave us this revelation to be understood, but has built in blessing for seeking that understanding: Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV) 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Three verses in and we already know that understanding is possible, which is true of every revelation God has provided men. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is not given shrouded in mystery, as the Gospel of Christ and the teaching of the Rapture was in the Old Testament, but understanding is both possible and expected, and I can testify that understanding is a blessing which comforts the soul in regards to end-time events, even as our beloved brother Paul wrote of to the Thessalonians. So let's look at your objection again: In Revelation, the First Resurrection is actually the second that is clearly given to us in the Book, however, if we place a sequential order of events in regards to resurrection in the glorified body spoken of by Paul they would be listed thus: 1. Christ...the first-fruits and Firstborn of the dead; 2. The Church; 3. The Two witnesses; 4. The Tribulation Martyrs. ...and 5. would be the resurrection which takes place after the thousand years are ended, which could be debated as only pertaining to the "dead," or, those that do not have the life of Christ, or, have not been born again. I lean heavily towards the fact that at this time the believing dead will be raised with those called out of Sheol/Hades, hence the division of those who are or are not in the Book of Life. The final comments I would make in regards to the first resurrection and this being descriptive of type rather than a having a sequential meaning would be first, we see resurrections under the Old Testament Economies, such as the child raised during Elijah's ministry and Lazarus, as well as resurrections under the New Covenant Economy such as Dorcas (Acts 9:37-42) and our poor sleepy student Eutychus (Acts 20:9-11) which could be debated as to whether he was dead or not, I take the view he was. All of these we view as physical bodily resurrection because we know that Christ is the first to be raised again in glorified form, but, they are resurrections, which would be, in meaning of sequence, before the First Resurrection. So we know when we limit resurrection in glorified form at the very least we can say Christ's is the first. Secondly, and lastly, to address further that the First Resurrection speaks of type, how do we do that? Simply by noting that in Scripture there are only Two Resurrections ever taught, both in the Old Testament, as well as the New. Consider: Daniel 12:1-2 King James Version (KJV) 1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. John 5:29 King James Version (KJV) 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. The resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs, as well as the resurrection of the Church and the Two Witnesses...are the First Resurrection, the resurrection unto life. The argument that the First Resurrection is the "first" resurrection (in sequence) is an untenable view. But, that it is the First Resurrection is inarguable. The problems that arise from making this the first in the sequence of resurrection unto life in the glorified body begins first in the Tomb, where the First Resurrection of Christ took place. That, in sequence, is inarguably the first resurrection, leaving us to understand Revelation 20 differently. And when we do, we see that a number of dilemmas that arise for the Post-Tribulation view are no longer relevant. Continued...

Amen Beloved~! And Eternal Security Has A Name My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. John 10:27-29 And It's Spelled Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Galatians 4:7 J-E-S-U-S Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 1:24-25 ~ Stand Fast Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; Philippians 1:26 Love, Your Brother Joe

Happy Birthday, Lord! And Merry Christmas KPaulG! God bless.

Think back to when you were saved: did you understand Christ's death as you do now? Now ask yourself concerning what you understand better today than when you were first saved: do you think it is important that you understand them better, and, does that make you any more saved than when you first turned to the Savior? Now let's really ask a tough one: are you doctrinally flawless now, or do you still have a lot to learn? If the former, how does that change the fact you were saved without being flawless in doctrine, and if the latter, how does it impact your salvation? Doctrine does not save. Understanding the Bible does not save. Only the Savior saves, and it is He that teaches us and imparts truth as we grow, and as we are able to digest those truths. You don't give a baby steak, and if we find grown men eating out of Gerber jars we know there's a problem, right? Salvation is a growth process just as much as physically growing is. We take in and process according to the ability we have, which ability, I might add, is contributed to by our Teacher the Holy Spirit (just as mom and dad feeds us as a baby), as well as by our selves (mom and dad might help us walk but they do not walk for us). Neither ignorance nor knowledge contribute to salvation itself, but like learning the ability to walk or getting teeth impacts our physical lives, even so our gain of both knowledge and ability impact our walk with the Lord and the relationships we have with others. God bless.

I look at it like this: we can call ourselves whatever we want but what we designate ourselves as, in many cases, is not always the reality. When we look at the varying denominations we can see that each one has doctrinal distinctives which set that group apart from others, to where one states "I am a Baptist, I am a Methodist, I am a Catholic," et cetera. This same division is addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1, in which sectarian division is rebuked by Paul who simply makes the case..."Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" That's the bottom line: trusting Christ, rather than a system of theology of doctrinal distinctions. If we went through many of the fellowships we have today, and took the Statement of Faith of each, and the distinctives taught by those groups, I would, if I were a betting fellow, lay money that at the very least...80% of each of the members of those fellowships would fail the test. What I mean by that is that most people that attend a fellowship probably are not aware, beyond what they have heard from the pulpit or Sunday School, what their fellowship/church/denomination even teaches. Some people, if they were aware, would likely find somewhere else to worship. When it comes to groups like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, I think it would be foolish to assume that no-one involved in those groups could possibly be saved, because when we look at the doctrine of some people who attend what we might consider more orthodox Christian groups, and see the confusion that translates from pulpit and Sunday School lessons...we have to account that there may be some people who do not know enough about their fellowship's doctrine to be either saved or damned. Salvation is never a matter of doctrinal flawlessness, and in fact is not really a matter of doctrine period. Most people, when they turn to Christ, do so for one reason: they have heard the Gospel combined with the Ministry of the Comforter, Who enlightens the natural mind that man might understand, believe, repent, and turn to the Savior. And there are likely many Mormons who are no different than the Charismatic that has not embraced ecstatic speech, the Catholic that has not embraced infant baptism, the Calvinist that has not embraced TULIP, and the Baptist that has not embraced numerous buffets. Just kidding about that TULIP thing. Most groups have a set Doctrine, but, that does not mean that those who sit under that teaching understand it the way it is taught, nor does it mean every Preacher, Pastor, Minister, what have you...teaches it the same way or identical to the written statement or declaration of faith. So we should be careful in our dealings with those of other beliefs, and very careful not to condemn followers of a particular faith or group, though I do think we have a responsibility in love and truth to address the doctrine itself. If we think that it is necessary that one embrace anything outside of faith in Christ for salvation, then we are ourselves adding to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And how one conducts themselves in their daily conduct and in particular in efforts of knowing God better is a process within the framework of growth that belongs in and under God's control. If we show mercy to those that we feel are in error, and instead of condemning them seek to help them understand better, the likely outcome is that we ourselves will learn and grow in the process. I myself owe a debt of gratitude to a number of people openly confessing faiths and non-faiths (atheists), because as I have talked with them I have come to better understand (or at least like I think I have) how people can end up professing certain beliefs that I may have originally considered outlandish, ignorant, or downright heretical. Doesn't mean I don't try to speak to them about what I feel is error, it just means I can look back at the beliefs I entertained when I was first saved and see how some of what I thought was true was ignorant, outlandish, and downright heretical, lol. The fact is that the Gospel is at times going to offend those that do not understand the Gospel, but if we are inclined to follow God's example and seek to minister in mercy, rather than judgment, then we will also keep in mind we will never minister to those we offend based on our own judgments, rather than the judgments of God presented in His Word. So long story short, I believe there are Mormons who are saved, and in large part because they don't know or understand enough about the differences Mormon doctrine presents with a Biblical view. There are a number of groups that embrace "new revelation" and feel it is inspired and authoritative, yet when the rubber meets the road, I think there are among them those that are trusting in Christ because God has enlightened them, not the group, which never had that power to begin with, regardless of what group it is. There is a story about a man that specialized in recognizing counterfeit money, and he was asked, "I guess you spend a lot of time study fake currency, right?" the man replied, "No, I spend a lot of time studying the real thing!" The same is true in Theology, if we keep our focus on the Books of the Bible rather than books about the Bible, when something comes up which is counterfeit, because we are familiar with the genuine, we will be better able to recognize and thus deal with what is counterfeit. Could we convince ourselves that there are no Mormons who are like many that come to Christian Doctrinal Discussion forums to minister and be ministered to? Who don't study the Bible itself? I have to think that there are, and have talked with some on forums. It is when they promote the distinctives that debate ensues, and just like I would debate with a Catholic, Baptist, or Calvinist over issues we disagree in, so too I will debate with a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness. And it isn't much different than debating with someone you actually fellowship with regularly in a local fellowship (that happens, and may be why not many people discuss doctrine when they fellowship, lol), where you would not pass judgment on someone because they disagree with you. When it comes to the plurality they teach concerning God and gods, this is serious error, but, I would suggest that there are Christians who view Trinitarians such as myself as a member of a cult because I embrace the Deity of Christ. Does their view determine whether I am saved or not? Not at all. And if I were a Christian that did not embrace the Deity of Christ, would that negate a possibility of being saved? I don't think so, because again, usually when someone is saved...they start out pretty ignorant to begin with, So if doctrinal flawlessness were a requirement, no-one would stand a chance. And if being in error negated salvation... ...most would not stand a chance, if not all. So best if we focus first on ourselves, and be available when the Lord has need of us to speak to someone. Our part in it is minimal, His part in it being the true aspect which leads to salvation. Apart from the Comforter's ministry, we can preach until we are blue in the face, and nothing will change, because we cannot either give or transfer the understanding that only the Holy Spirit can impart to either natural or even saved men or women. God bless.

Merry Christmas, brother Joe! It is true that most believers do not let their eschatology interfere with what we consider to take precedence, that is, a sound soteriological view, but our eschatological views do play a part in our soteriology. I use to think this was irrelevant, but do not take that view anymore, because the Rapture and resurrection in general, and what we understand about them, play a significant role in forming our eschatological views. Many that deny a pre-trib view also deny Eternal Security (and this is not true of everyone, just as it is not true that all pre-tribbers embrace Eternal Security), and I can't help but notice that many of these I speak to (pre-tribbers) feel that one is worthy to enter into God's presence through their own efforts of endurance (and this is seen as pictured in enduring through the Tribulation). It all boils down to being able to show from Scripture that basis of belief, then in our own understanding. It is just my view that a pre-trib view is similar to a belief in Eternal Security, one cannot learn that from an intellectual approach, but it must be shown the believer by God Himself. But again, Merry Christmas! I hope you and yours will be blessed on this day. God bless.

Looks like a `get out of jail free, card,` to me. (Lol) It doesn't look like I am getting a pass, lol. So the card isn't working, apparently. And I think there is good reason for it, based on the terminology used to speak of believers, as well as the wicked, in Scripture. What someone calls the Church when speaking about the Church collectively doesn't mean that this makes the gender definitive individually: Galatians 3:28 King James Version (KJV) 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Again, speaking collectively, "her" is just something that most people use. And again, I do not see it as something that impacts theology to a degree you seem to think it does, but, it's not something I have given a great deal of emphasis on, so I'll just respond and see where it goes, lol. To me, this is like debating whether God is a "He" or not. The masculine is used, but God is Spirit and is said not to be a man, but to try to support the opposite by using the feminine would conflict with how God is presented in Scripture. In other words, it is doubtful, when speaking of the Church, that someone would designate the Church "he," such as, "In the Millennial Kingdom, I believe he will reside in the dwelling place prepared for him of Christ." Just as an illustration of using the feminine, consider: Revelation 6:13 King James Version (KJV) 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. Here a tree is designated "her," and it has nothing to do with gender, it is just something that is done. It doesn't impact the statement made in the verse, nor define the gender of the tree. "She," by the way, is not autos, as "her" is. This could have been translated "it," but it wasn't. This would probably reflect that using the feminine in description is something that has been done by many for quite a while, at least in the case of the KJV. I have consulted four other newer versions, all of which change her to "it's." And keep in mind that I am a long-time KJV user, so this translation has impacted me on this issue, where they use a feminine designation, even as someone might say of their car, "She has been running good lately." But again, when we look at the use of terms like wife and bride, I think the KJV translators and editors were justified in their use of the feminine. In the next example... Revelation 12:3-6 King James Version (KJV) 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. The feminine designation is unquestionably justified, because in view is Israel designated as a woman. The same four translations which changed "her" to "it's" all maintain "she" and "her" by reason of necessity. One more example: Revelation 19:7-9 King James Version (KJV) 7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. 9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. Here, and this is just my opinion, but due to the context "herself, her," and "she" are justified. Again, as I said in the first response (I believe, lol), it is the imagery which justifies the feminine designation. The Bride is never going to be pictured as a "he," and while I would agree that if one chooses they could translate these as itself and it, but in the four other translation I consulted, which are the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and the ESV, the feminine is used in all of them. Again, not sure why this would be an important point to you, but will be glad to find out. I would agree the content of these passages are important, but not sure why the designation, or I should say, not sure how the designation could impact them that we lose the teaching itself. In regards to New Jerusalem I would say up front that when a city is considered, including New Jerusalem, we should keep in mind that in view we remember that a city is not just a physical building, but a city can also refer to the people. As in, "New York was enraged by the terrorist attacks. That rage was felt by the entire nation." On this I would agree. It should be remembered that in the Eternal State there will be one People of God. John 10:16 King James Version (KJV) 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 If you are thinking that I distinguish those saved in this Age from the eternal people of God, no worries there, lol. But, when it comes to distinguishing the Church in this Age with those prior to the Age of Grace, as well as the period that follows the Rapture, this has to be maintained. There were, prior to the Church Age, two peoples in the world: Jews and Gentiles. In the world right now, there are three peoples: Jews, Gentiles, and the Church, the Body of Christ. Israel has not lost her heritage as a Nation, and only when a Jew becomes a member of the Body does that Jew become part of the third group, but, they do not cease being a Jew, and their heritage is not cast off, just like I do not cease being an Irish American because I was saved (though my temper is considerably better than once it was, lol). When the Rapture occurs, there will only be two peoples in this world again, Jew and Gentile. Those that are born again in this period will be members of that One Fold, and members of the Church in that sense, because they will be saved like as we are today. The same is true in the Millennial Kingdom. But in the Tribulation events, those that are saved are from the same two groups people are saved from today. The 144,000, when they are sealed, will be Christians. The Gentiles that are saved in that period will also be Christians. But, they are distinguished from the Church primarily based on what period they are saved in. In the Tribulation, I believe there is a reversion of sorts to the Age of Law. I say this because that period is the final Week, and just as the first 69 Weeks were under the Law, so too will this final Week be a period where people will be saved...under the Law (which is not to say the Law itself saves them, just as it did not before). What is different in this period, I believe, is that the heritage of the Jew, what the Law (both the Word and the Covenant) should have created in the heart of the Jew will be created in the heart of the Jew, just like the Gentiles Paul spoke of who kept the Law in their heart. That doesn't mean they will not be born again, because that was the promise of the New Covenant to Israel...to begin with. This is what will be fulfilled in that day in Israel: Ezekiel 36:24-27 King James Version (KJV) 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. Just as the New Birth begins for us in our lifetimes, before the culmination of salvation (which is the Eternal State) arrives, even so their salvation begins within the Tribulation. The promises of God to Israel will not go unfulfilled, yet many think that some of these promises won't be, because they believe it conflicts with the Gospel. For example, the idea of sacrifice in the Millennial Kingdom for some is absurd, but, I look at it this way: Jews in the Church were offering up sacrifice in the early Church, and even Paul took place in the custom of his people (Acts 21:17-26), and participated in a ritual (which some believe was the Nazirite Vow) which would have ended with a sacrifice. The point is that here we have James, a writer of Scripture, maintaining his heritage as a Jew. Paul himself participates. So as I look at that and wonder how this can be reconciled to the writer of Hebrews' warnings not to offer up sacrifice, the conclusion, I believe, is that just as we remember Christ through Communion, and are not again "crucifying Christ again," even so the sacrifices that may have been offered by the early Church as well as sacrifice in the Kingdom were and will be memorial (meaning that like the Law, no salvific value is attributed, just as we do not attribute salvific value to Communion). And again, the whole point being that Israel, is nowhere in Scripture...is commanded to relinquish or cast off their heritage. In Romans 11 we see that it is Israel brought back (into relationship with God) through belief (even as we come into relationship with Him), and this is speaking collectively about Israel, as opposed to the individual nature of the salvation of a Jew (who believes on Christ)today who becomes a branch in the True Vine, Who is Christ. So to sum it up, when Israel is, by trial and judgment which takes place in the Last Week even as it did in the first 69 Weeks (this judgment brought about repentance), she will still be Israel despite the fact that she becomes a part of the collective people of God, part of that One Fold that will exist in the Eternal State. And I hope I haven't opened a can of worms, lol. Not really, no. Anyone that confuses the teaching of Scripture to the point where they believe the Church is a people more special than other groups of believers...have not read the end of the story. It is the Eternal State where salvation culminates, and we look at the collective People of God there. In the Millennial Kingdom there is still a distinction, because Israel had and still has a purpose in this physical creation, which will, at the end of the Millennial Kingdom, pass away and yield to the Eternal State. If that is the point of focusing on a feminine designation for the Church, I hope what I have said here will help you understand I do not view the Church as an eternally distinct people set above all others. And even those who do, for the most part, while they may hold a belief of this nature, can still internally recognize that salvation is through Christ and that the Gospel only places eminence on the Person of Christ Who is the Head of the Church. It is like the argument offered by some that "believing a pre-trib Rapture is harmful," it is just not the case. Some people think that all pre-trib believers have a central focus on the Rapture, when while we know it is a vital part of understanding Scripture and eschatology, it is just one facet of a multifaceted jewel. I am still not sure what "doctrine" you speak of. You will have to be more clear as to how calling the Church "her" drastically impacts one's doctrinal position. If you are referring to placing the Church as a distinct group of redeemed, I can understand that, but I am not sure that those who do so "corrupt" doctrine to the point where they become of no use or harmful. There are more important errors we can deal with than someone embracing a view that makes a distinction of the Church in that manner, such as soteriological and Christological errors. Someone can be accurate in their understanding in large part, and be in error about a distinctive group of redeemed, and not let it corrupt the Gospel. Not like denying Christ's Deity or teaching works-based salvation will. I don't. lol. Someone calling the Church "her" is, in my view, proper based on the fact that numerous translators, if not all...have done the same thing. Again, if one sees this as error and wants to say "it, itself, them," what have you, I don't have a problem with that either, except it will create some confusion in certain texts when someone tries to maintain that neutral position. In describing Israel as a woman, for example, you would not translate gynē as woman and then proceed to designate her as "it." I hope you don't think I was saying that the verses themselves were theologically unimportant. I was referring to my own designation within our conversation, not the verses. Agreed, but the imagery supports a feminine designation. The difference that we need to see is that in your first example Paul is speaking individually, and in the latter he is speaking collectively. Collectively, we know there is neither male nor female, and that would apply to the former, whereas it has no bearing on the latter, because most of us, despite how nutty the world has become (particularly in my country, lol), when we think of a bride...we think feminine. Right? And again the terminology supports the feminine in both passages: Hosea 2 King James Version (KJV) 1 Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. 2 Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts; 18 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. 19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord. 21 And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; 22 And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. 23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God. The use of feminine nouns justifies the translators' feminine designation which while "her" may not be in the Hebrew, the feminine nouns are, forcing a use of the feminine designations used by the translators. We see the same thing in Revelation 12. And when we include the unveiling of the Mystery of the Gospel, we understand Gentile Inclusion that culminates in the One Fold in the Eternal State. I see, lol. We have to keep in mind that we cannot exclude Gentile Inclusion based on this text, and that the twain have been made "one man". God will not change his mind about bringing Israel to repentance, for every promise of God will be fulfilled, and this is true of Israel as well. However, just as we do not make the Church a distinct group of redeemed outside of their contextual distinctions (which cannot be ignored), even so we don't negate the promises of the New Covenant, which are revealed in the New Covenant, which do not distinguish two separate groups (the wife/Israel and the bride/Church), but the opposite, One People of God: Ephesians 2:11-16 King James Version (KJV) 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Temporally speaking, that distinctions has and will continue to be significant for differing reasons, but eternally speaking there is and will ever only be One Body. The promises of God to Israel have been bestowed upon Gentiles as well as Jews, where rather than establishing two distinct groups, Scripture makes it clear that in Christ there is only One Body. Hope I have made my position clear, and looking forward to question #2. God bless.

So are you saying that besides being harmful, besides being religious, that pre-trib rapturists are to be equated with the wicked Christ rejecting false teachers of error and they wrest the Scriptures? I would be careful throwing around accusations like that. Especially when such a poor treatment of the Rapture, which you subtly hint is not even a doctrine...is all that you have to offer. Glad to see you can still call me a friend, despite my believing and teaching a Pre-Tribulation Rapture. As to what you have presented being truth, I am not sure I would go around calling contrived arguments that one has to create so they can have an answer for...truth. Nor would I consider it truth to bear false witness against people you do not even know, do not know their doctrine, especially when you have such a hard time expressing and understanding what it is you yourself are teaching. But I guess, seeing that it is likely you will have learned you are implying that you are a mid-tribulation believer without even knowing that, it might be good cause to make sure we examine your doctrine closely, even as our beloved brother Paul, as well as Peter...has warned us to do. You have illustrated that perfectly, Thanks for the lesson. I think you mean ch.25. Seeing that the Rapture is the Resurrection of both dead and living saints, I would think this would be a no-brainer. Perhaps another mystery you have uncovered? But as far as the two gatherings spoken of in Scripture, lol, one involves the Lord personally gathering only the Church, and the other involves the Angels gathering everyone from every nation. As far as the third resurrection in Revelation, if one discounts ch.4 being a veiled reference to the Rapture (and I seldom bring this up because we have so much more that can be seen as conclusive to a pre-tribulation Rapture), that is, we see a thousand year span between that resurrection and the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs (which specifically excludes the rest of the dead, i.e., the unbelieving who are killed in the Tribulation (as well as the unbelieving that died before then)). On the contrary: Paul specifically states that only the Church is resurrected and raptured and he is specific that it includes both the living and dead in the Church. No longer a mystery, by the way. Sorry, the only ones resurrected in Revelation 11 are the Two Witnesses. Whatever commentary you have been reading from...throw it out at your soonest convenience. Mostly? I am assuming you refer to Elijah? I do not take a view that Elijah went into the presence of God in Heaven, but that the heaven in view is likely the sky, which is evident in the text. However, there are always exceptions to the rule, so I am not dogmatic about it. Not in Revelation 11. That is not the time of Christ's Return, for one, and secondly there is no mention of resurrection at the Sheep and Goat Judgment. Only in the Rapture, in regards to Paul's teaching in 1 Thessalonians 4. At the end of the Tribulation there is only mention of Tribulation Martyrs, and the resurrection one thousand years later is debatable, because we are only told that the dead are raised, which, if believers were part of that resurrection, they would not be called "dead" because they would have the Life which Christ came to bring which is bestowed at the time of the new birth. Christ, John, Paul, James, and Peter are all in agreement on that point as well. God bless.