S.T. Ranger

The specific things we need to get to are the passages that deal with the Rapture. Just thought I would throw that in there for discussion's sake. It is irrelevant whether they were Jew or Gentile believers. lol If you read it you will see that Peter has a central focus on false teachers and false doctrine. Not to be specific or anything. Again, it is not really the mystery of mysteries that it seems to be for you. Not many people are confused about the Apostles...all of them...preaching the same Gospel. You equate their unity on the Gospel with the false argument that they taught the same things concerning Return of Christ so your conclusion, based on this false premise, makes that in turn to mean that they taught the same thing concerning the resurrection of the Church. We call that syllogism, my friend. No, it is a mystery, not a secret. lol You could have saved yourself a little time by simply using what Peter concludes with: 2 Peter 3:17-18 King James Version (KJV) 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. What that means, my friend, is that Peter makes it clear he has been speaking about the error of the wicked. You should read it sometime. Continued...

You seriously think you have offered anything that detracts from a pre-trib view? Seriously? lol Because he is an Apostle, lol. They do that kind of thing. This one is a little easier to speculate about: probably to straighten out any confusion Peter may have created, lol. False argument: Rapture Theology does not teach two Gospels. This is a false argument and tantamount to false witness. Don't ever kid yourself that God is leading you in your commentary when you false charge your brothers and sisters. That is not of God. Quite simple, actually...there is only one Gospel. And while Peter needed to have a talking to a couple of times by the Lord, and at least once by Paul concerning his denial of the Gospel and playing the hypocrite, Paul maintained a consistent record of teaching a clear presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that is probably why he was entrusted with the mystery of the Gospel. As far as Paul ministering, he said himself: Romans 15:15-16 King James Version (KJV) 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. ...who he ministered to was God's decision. And I would suggest to you that a case can be made for Paul going first to the synagogues before preaching to the Gentiles anywhere he went. We see that here... Acts 13:45-47 King James Version (KJV) 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. Again, have these debates with yourself often? Nothing I have said justifies the charges you have levied. Nothing. Contriving an argument is about the poorest form of debating tactic there is, next to levying false witness against people one has never bothered to find out their views on. Continued...

That is true. You cold have saved yourself a lot of trouble by understanding that the Pre-Trib view does not teach two Second Comings. It is only when Christ returns to the earth that we consider it a Second Coming. The Rapture does not necessitate a physical return to the earth, because in view is the resurrection and catching away of the Church, rather than the Lord's Return to establish the Millennial Kingdom. I think it can be established that when He returns...we will already be with Him. And again, the only resurrection associated with the Lord's Return is that of the Tribulation Martyrs. Two primary reasons to see only those who die in the Tribulation raised at this time is 1) because they did not receive the mark of the beast nor worship the beast (which is specific to Tribulation events, and cannot be confused with the general spirit of antichrist which is already in the world) and 2) because it is necessary that there be physical believers who have descendants to fulfill the rebellion of men against God at the end of the Millennial Kingdom. Thanks for making this so easy, really. And what your denigration of other believers has to do with anything Paul has written...I don't know. Consider more than two resurrections (in regards to event, not type): 1.Revelation 11:11-12 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. 2. 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. 3. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. As far as... ...still more false argument to try to impress people with many words that have no substance. Kind of a "well without water thing," don't you think? At the very least nothing I said implied your charge here. Never said there were two different saints, but have consistently said that everyone in the Church is raised, living or dead. And I don't know how the Lord can return a second time...twice. Again, failure to recognize that the Lord does not return at the Rapture leads to false arguments like this. Sometimes Peter and Paul, as well as Christ and Peter...were at odds. And both Christ and Paul rebuked Peter for his error. Let's not forget that. As far as in regards to the Second Coming, it is likely Paul may have had to straighten Peter out on that as well, lol. Again, you wasted your time, because when it comes to the Second Coming, by the time Peter writes his Epistles he would have surely understood the mystery of the Rapture. However...he does not teach about it. Only Paul and Christ make specific mention of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. All of the New Testament writers refer to Christ's return, however, Paul was the only one which spoke of this Mystery, and in fact, the only one that went into detail concerning the resurrection of the Church. And you make it sound like a great coincidence in similarity when Paul and Peter are talking about the same Christ. Amazing. And the one thing you could not put in your list was Peter speaking about the resurrection of the saints in correlation with the Return of Christ. Here, to prove a false premise, you string, without context, anything that might refer to Christ's Return. It will not be until you learn the dissimilarities that you will understand why your list is not reliable. It's difficult for you to believe a false argument you have created? Now that is hard to believe. You want to quote me where any of this is relevant to anything I said? Glad you understand that. What contradicts is trying to equate the resurrection Paul teaches about that is followed by the catching away...to the Lord's Return. And by the way, see the "B, I, U" just above? Those are for emphasis. When you capitalize IT IS EQUIVALENT TO YELLING, lol. Just letting you know if you're not aware of this, and if you are aware...shame shame, lol. Continued...

I agree, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 is definitely Biblical. God bless.

Seriously? You are going to try to define Biblical language...with Webster's? Here is the usage according to Strong's: The KJV translates Strongs G1722 in the following manner: in (1,902x), by (163x), with (140x), among (117x), at (113x), on (62x), through (39x), misc (264x). Consider: 1 Peter 1:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: This has nothing to do with persevering through the Tribulation, but extends to the believers faith throughout the course of his walk with the Lord. Understand? So to use it in a context which is specific to Rapture timing is not accurate. Peter does not have the rapture in view, but the faith of the believer. As far as the believer is concerned, regardless of tribulation or Tribulation, he makes clear... 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. Now what salvation do we look for? The redemption of our bodies...that's it. Being delivered from a cursed world and cursed flesh. Because we are born again, our inheritance is sure, incorruptible, undefiled, it will not fade away and it is reserved in Heaven for us. We are kept by the power of God through...faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Your proof text for a resurrection when Christ returns... 1 Peter 1:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: ...speaks about our faith...not our resurrection. So you feel pre-trib rapturists are harmful and religious, yet you call them friends. Amazing. So if one is teaching a doctrine that cannot be supported and comes into conflict with other teachings of Scripture which are really very simple and basic concepts, then they are harmful and religious. I, and I think both Peter and Paul would agree with you wholeheartedly, lol. Try this: Paul does not teach that the Church will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord in the Clouds. If doctrine can be twisted like that then maybe there is no Rapture. So let's see: Pre-Trib believers are harmful, religious, and twists Scripture. But they can/cannot still be called "friends." lol What revelation in 1 Corinthians 12 are you referring to? I am not sure I would agree with that, because while no one person may understand all things, collectively I do not believe there is anything in the revelation God gave us that is not meant to be understood. Unless it is a mystery. So because you find last trump in Paul's statement here you make that the Seventh Trumpet Judgment. Let me illustrate how adopting someone else's argument can get you in trouble: the Seventh Trumpet Judgment occurs within the tribulation, lol...which means that if you try to make this the time of the Rapture you are... ...a Mid-tribulation believer. Is that the position you want to maintain in this conversation? I hope so, this just makes it easier for me, perhaps not to get through to you, but for those that might read this it will help them understand why they don't want to adopt the view of someone else rather than carefully examining Scripture so they don't present an argument that reveals a person doesn't even know what kind of believer they are. This is one of the funniest arguments post-tribbers offer, lol. Now, understand that that after the "Last Trumpet Judgment there still remains the Seven Vial Judgments. You can argue that this... Revelation 11:15 King James Version (KJV) 15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. ...though thought to herald the end of the Tribulation, can be seen that it does not because we still have the rest of the Judgments to go. This... Revelation 16:17 King James Version (KJV) 17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. ...heralds the end of the Tribulation. If you notice in Revelation 11, we see the Two Witnesses Raptured which marks the beginning of the beasts assault on the earth. Basically...the middle of the Tribulation, for their ministry is forty two months, and Antichrist is given forty two months. This happens within the Second Woe, the Third Woe (I believe) is the Seventh Trumpet Judgment. I believe that the Seventh Trumpet contains the Seven Vials, just as the Seventh Seal contains the Seven Trumpet Judgments. Regardless of one's personal views about that, what we can say is that... ...this is not the end of the Tribulation, thus to place the Rapture here requires one to convert to the Mid-Trib view. Continued...

We will indeed be at rest from people troubling at that point, lol, but we still have to deal with end time events as Scripture reveals it. And the problems that arise out of even a well presented Post-Trib or a-millennial view are enough to be sure that they are untenable. Your magic bullet doesn't reconcile the problems we will discuss concerning a Post-Tribulation Rapture. So where is the Rapture said to take place when He returns? The only resurrection mentioned at allis the First Resurrection of Revelation 20. That's it. Repeating an argument doesn't reinforce it. You have a long ways to go to discredit a pre-tribulation Rapture and to support a post-tribulation Rapture. You haven't presented anything to deny a pre-tribulation rapture, so your victory dance is just a little premature. Of course, lol. Why do you think we point out the fact that Paul teaches the Church will be caught up in 1 Thessalonians 4? But it's a weak argument. This is like saying "Don't you think that those who believe in eternal security would use (fill in any verse that mentions salvation) if they said eternal salvation?" lol And again, it seems as though you question that there is a Rapture at all, which discredits you from a serious engagement in a discussion about the Rapture, as far as I am concerned: no-one can deny Paul teaches that the Church will be caught up. And we see the same thing occur with the Two Witnesses. You may deny that Paul saying the Church will be resurrected as a whole, whether alive or dead, and that the Church will be caught up in the air to meet Christ in the clouds, but you cannot deny the actual description of the same thing occurring with the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11. And you will be hard pressed to make the Rapture occur at the First Resurrection, because this is a thousand years before the resurrection of the dead which takes place after this world passes out of existence. Well, if that is sufficient for you, that's great, but I myself could not accept such "proof" as reasonable, but see it as quite a bit of false argument, Scripture stringing, and neglectful of dealing with the problems that arise from the views that would have to be embraced if the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is denied. Great. Now where is the Scripture? Where is there ever a mention of a resurrection when Christ Returns which is not the First Resurrection of Revelation 20? Continued...

If you don't mind. please show what translation you are using. Like many passages, it is a given that the Lord will preserve His Saints to the end. Is Paul telling that they need to do this, or the Lord does this? And again, this is not a Rapture passage. Notice, rather, that it is already taking place, and that it is the Lord that is confirming us, not something we do so we can make it to the end of the Tribulation. I am not in the Tribulation and I am AWAITING the Lord. lol Not much in the way of proving the Rapture takes place at the end of the Tribulation. And we haven't even gotten to anything very specific yet. That's funny, because when I read Matthew 24-25 (and parallel passages) as well as Revelation...there is no resurrection mentioned at the time of the Lord's Return, apart from the Tribulation Martyrs. Secondly, as already mentioned...this would mean everyone left alive (because no unbeliever (Tare, Chaff, evil tree) will enter the Kingdom, any Kingdom Scripture teaches about, whether spiritual or physical) would be glorified, which leaves no-one to account for those that rebel against God. It can't be the redeemed themselves, this would cause to much conflict with eternal security, nullifies the promises of God which have not yet been fuffilled, and is not a serious consideration for anyone that embraces the millennial view. Third, we see in Revelation that only Jews and Gentiles are mentioned. Fourth, we have the Lord's Word that we will not go through the Tribulation: Revelation 3:10 King James Version (KJV) 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. And unless you know of another hour of trial that will come upon all the world, then it is pretty safe to say that the Lord is speaking about the Tribulation that the rest of this Book goes on to describe in detail. You just do not have any specific Scripture that deals with the Lord's Return that includes the Resurrection/Rapture of the Church. Continued...

That doesn't negate the fact that Paul teaches about the Rapture, lol. His encouragement is "Don't be fearful that the dead in Christ will miss this resurrection" in the first Epistle, and "Don't be fearful that the Day of the Lord has come" in the second. He distinguishes between the two by telling them "I have already told you that you will go through tribulation, so relax," and, "the coming of Christ and our gathering to Him cannot possibly have happened because I told you there would be a falling away and Antichrist revealed, which has to take place before the Day of the Lord occurs." In other words, if the Day of the Lord had occurred...so too would these things have occurred: the coming of Christ and our gathering to Him, the falling away, and the removal of the Restrainer and the revealing of Antichrist. That should be fairly clear when we see the timeline of events he then proceeds to give. A popular argument thought to be a "magic bullet" is that it is at Christ's Coming that we receive rest. That is in error for at least one good reason: 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 King James Version (KJV) 1 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. Now when do unbelievers receive their punishment of everlasting destruction? At the Return of Christ? Or at the Great White Throne? The latter. Secondly, when do you think Paul is going to "rest" concerning tribulation caused by unbelievers? When Christ returns? Or does he and his writing companions already have peace concerning the tribulation they are going through? That is the purpose of his teaching, my friend. If? So you doubt Paul's teaching that the Church is going to be caught up? This is something I hope you clarify in the first response. As to when it would have to take place, what we can say with confidence is that it cannot take place at His Return...because this leaves no physical believers. Furthermore, we see that Paul comforts them by stating they are not appointed to wrath (contrasted with the tribulation they are going through), and tells them that the coming of Christ and our gathering to Him had not happened, because when it does happen...both dead and living believers in Christ will be resurrected. Again, you will only waste your time quoting a series of proof-texts outside of their respected context. Here are a few you use to teach that the Rapture happens when the Lord returns: 1 Thessalonians 3:13 King James Version (KJV) 13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. Matthew 24:30 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. Revelation 19:11 King James Version (KJV) 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 King James Version (KJV) 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: ...and only the last is a Rapture quote. Now show me in the context from which these others were pulled...the resurrection of the Body of Christ? I can already tell you...no such passage exists in Scripture. To say that passages like Matthew 24-25, or the Gospel teachings of Christ teach a resurrection at His Return cannot be shown. But you are welcome to try. Sorry, Paul is simply stating the same thing he states through both Epistles..."Relax." Sorry, but unbelievers, those left behind (as opposed to those taken as described in regards to passages actually dealing with the Second Coming) at the Rapture...will know nothing about what actually happens, because 1) they cannot understand the spiritual things of God and 2) they will have already refused relationship with God and will come under strong delusion, which means, in other words...it will be a secret to them. lol Continued...

Sorry, but this is works-based error: their tribulations did not make them worthy to enter into the Kingdom of God, Christ made them worthy to enter into the Kingdom of God. Colossians 1:12-14 King James Version (KJV) 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Hmm, they just had Paul, eh? lol Wish I had that "disadvantage." An Apostle that penned inspired Scripture? Sure. Are you forgetting that they had the Epistles Paul sent? Not just one...but two. And are you forgetting that they had the indwelling Spirit of God? Amazing. Stringing verses together apart from their context is going to be a waste of time for both of us. Each will have to be viewed in their separate context. Who is we? And I will pause there because I would greatly desire to know the answer. Continued...

Hello inchrist, just a few questions before I get into responding to your post: 1) do you believe there is a Rapture taught in Scripture, or are you amillennial? 2) will you agree to respond to my posts in detail, answering every point, rather than cherry-picking? You do not directly quote me (or if you do, it's not apparent in your post), but rather choose to lecture me on your views, which, while I do not mind, I will ask that you be detailed in response so as to avoid having to travel the same ground twice. 3) lastly, this isn't Mitchell, is it? I doubt it, based on what is said here, but just want to make sure it isn't. If not, disregard this last question, lol. And I apologize for taking so long to get to this, but wasn't aware there was a response to me. When you quote using the code from the quote itself, it will alert the poster that someone has responded to one of their posts. Also, I will break this up into smaller posts to make responding easier. Much of what you argue against in this post begins with a false premise which makes it easier for you to bring about a desirous conclusion. In detailed response, we can clarify who believes what and much of the irrelevant discussion you provide here can be dispensed with...and we can actually debate the Rapture of the Church. First, the Rapture is not a Second Coming, it is the Lord resurrecting the Body of Christ, at which time we join Him in the air. While this could be construed as taking place at the time of the Second Coming, the primary problem you will have, unless you are a-millennial and spiritualize the thousand year reign of Christ in this existing universe, is that if the Rapture takes place upon His Return...this leaves no-one to populate the Kingdom whereby Old Testament prophecies do not have to be discarded to suit the view. Secondly, the false argument that is presented by both a-millennials as well Post-Tribulation rapturists (the Mid-Tribbers get a pass on this for the most part) that a Pre-Tribulation Rapture is "harmful" is simply ludicrous. We view the Lord's Return as imminent even as Paul did, thus try to live according to that. Third: you presume to have the correct view before there has been any discussion at all. Fourth... ...not sure who exactly you're debating, but I have not suggested anything that even alludes to this, thus showing this to be a false argument. This illustrates, my friend, why it is not a good idea to assume. The Body of Christ is made up of both Jew and Gentile, and few fail to understand that. When the Church is Raptured, it will not be selective, but it will be every born again believer in the Body whether alive or dead. Both are resurrected at this time, which again speaks about the weakness and futility of trying to impose the Rapture...at the end of the Tribulation. Lastly... ...again another false argument that I, and unlikely anyone...has suggested. Not at all, and I wish you had not wasted your time giving the following examples. How we distinguish the difference between the Rapture of the Church and other resurrections that take place is through the very context of the passages that the references are found in. For example, no-one, well almost no-one (let the reader understand (personal joke)), would confuse the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs with the resurrection of the dead one thousand years later. So before creating arguments you can answer, it might be better to look at the details of another's views. I would suggest that they do not conflict: They did not see the Lord nor hear what He said in either version. That they saw the light and heard a sound does not equate to seeing the Lord and hearing the express statements of the Lord as Paul did. So not a good example. I see no difference in that example. However, non-reference is not conclusive, in that we agree. But we do not agree that there are "many more differences in the accounts of our Lord's crucifixion," and by the way, don't bother to educate me on how the Word of God conflicts, let's stick to the topic. And again, your premise is false, because I, as one pre-tribber, do not teach that the Rapture is a Coming at all. And the reason why millions believe in the pre-tribulation Rapture has two reasons: first, they believe this because they have adopted the views of others rather than studying the issue for themselves (which can be said of any doctrine), or, for the same reason that millions believe that Scripture teaches eternal security of the believer...because that is what the Scripture teaches. And the is the point of a debate like this, to test our beliefs and determine if God has revealed truth to us, or whether our beliefs are simply parroted responses of adopted views that agree with what we want to believe. I will assume you are referring to my mention of this. Mystery, as defined by Scripture... 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, 1 Corinthians 2:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: ...is not itself a...mystery. It is a previously unrevealed truth which is at a certain point in time...revealed. The Gospel of Christ was a mystery as well, so we would expect that when Paul speaks about a mystery, there is some consistency to his teaching. It is not a matter of "Well, that's a different kind of mystery," lol. And while I would agree it does not suggest "new," what we can be sure of is that it was not...revealed. And that is where we distinguish between Paul's teaching specifically about the Rapture and the resurrection body which we will be raised in, and the many various verses and passages you have strung together to make your point. Let's also be sure we are clear about word meaning, and the best way to define them. Falsely created argument, no-one said it was. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was a mystery which was not revealed until Pentecost. Yet it was spoken of in prophecy as well as directly spoken of by Christ. But I challenge you to find one person in the Gospels or prior to Acts 2 that actually had understanding of this mystery. You can look, but you will not find one person. But if you would like to try, that has relevance to understanding a Biblical view of Resurrection, particularly the Resurrection of those who are born again, whether alive or dead. Continued...

As long as you separate the Church being Raptured (which I view as taking place before the tribulation begins) and the rapture of the Two Witnesses (which I see taking place at the mid-point of the Tribulation). But yes, in that order. God bless.

The Millennial Kingdom is, by the Old Testament prophecies...shown to be a physical Kingdom. But because of a desperate attempt to support your doctrine, you are ignoring some very basic details. Which have been discussed repeatedly. Right. Stringing passages and concepts together to the neglect of context is how cults arise. Unless we distinguish the events as they are given, such as the Lord's Return having judgment of physical people, which is evidenced by the fact that those taken die, then we will end up with doctrine like that which you are expressing here. The fact remains: if the Rapture takes place at the end of the Tribulation...that leaves no physical believers to populate the Kingdom, which means there is no group to rebel against God in the second destruction we see in Revelation 19-20. And that is it for me in discussing the Rapture with you, my friend. The teaching that everyone is glorified, both believing and unbelieving, and live in the Millennial Kingdom is just off the rails, and I cannot seriously respond to doctrine like that, particularly when so much time has been spent in providing you with a detailed response to the issues brought up. God bless.

The enemies of God are destroyed twice, which means two events. You can find this in that Revelation whatchamacallit. You have two events as one...and I am missing something? lol Amazing. Like I said, I can no longer take part in discussion like this. Well, not to confuse you any more, but I do not look at man as having a soul, spirit, and body, but as man was created, he was formed (his body) and the breath of life breathed into him (spirit) and he became a living soul. Or in other words, man is a soul, not man has a soul. We do see soul at times used to represent the immaterial aspect of man's existence, however, if you check the context of most of the uses of this word, you will see that it refers to the man in totality. Paul did not, for example, give a tally of how many immaterial people were on board ship, but how many people were on it. As far as what Life means, as I said before, you need to understand that man, apart from Christ, does not have life. Only He Who is Eternal can give eternal life to men, and this He does through His eternal indwelling. Whether you see a "need" for a Great White Throne Judgment at the end of the Millennial Kingdom is irrelevant, that is simply when it is said to take place. You will not change that fact. You are teaching a universal heresy which is easily dispelled with even a casual reading of Scripture. Continued...

No, Salty...no-one is confused about the dead not living again until the thousand years are over, because it is not something difficult to understand. You erroneously make the Eternal State part of the Millennial Kingdom. And sorry, there is nothing in Revelation 20 about "the spiritually dead on earth dwelling outside the 'camp of the saints' on earth, and that DURING Christ's thousand years reign with His elect," because halfway through ch.20 this universe passes away. Because you are cherry=-picking the posts and not addressing the obvious errors of your doctrine, they are continually getting worse as you try to support your doctrine, and it seems pretty clear that there is a desperation in trying...not to be wrong. And it's just not working. Sorry, no, but the elements will be burned up when this universe passes out of existence and the new heavens and earth arrive. You need to distinguish the events, and if you will simply follow the chronological order of Revelation and correlate it as well as harmonize it with Old Testament Prophecy, much of this confusion will abate. And again we go back to the OP. Your doctrine makes everyone to be glorified which means that there is no-one to populate the Kingdom that have offspring that rebel against God. The unbelieving dead clearly do not receive bodies suited for eternal punishment until the end of the Millennial Kingdom. Not sure how you could misunderstand something as simple as this. Continued...

Since you believe that everyone is raised at the end of the Tribulation and that the wicked receive glorified bodies at that time as well, I am going to have to let you go in this discussion. This is just ridiculous. Laugh it up: again...everyone knew about the resurrection of the dead, yet, like you, they all expected it to be on one day. You nullify the mystery Paul teaches and worse...extend that to unbelievers as well. This is a universal view and it is heresy, and in conflict with the events as described in Revelation 20. What is interesting is that, in your attempt to defend your doctrine, you completely throw out what Scripture teaches, even after several pages of having the distinction between the resurrection of Tribulation Martyrs and the dead mentioned repeatedly. A colon doesn't separate two subjects, Salty. Maybe this will help you to understand the function of a colon (from Wikipedia): (notice my use of a colon back there? lol) The colon is a punctuation mark consisting of two equally sized dots centered on the same vertical line. A colon is used to explain or start an enumeration. A colon is also used with ratios, titles and subtitles of books, city and publisher in bibliographies, business letter salutation, hours and minutes, and formal letters.[1] The most common use of the colon is to inform the reader that what follows the colon proves, explains, defines, describes, or lists elements of what preceded it. In modern American English usage, a complete sentence precedes a colon, while a list, description, explanation, or definition follows it. The elements which follow the colon may or may not be a complete sentence: since the colon is preceded by a sentence, it is a complete sentence whether what follows the colon is another sentence or not. Some writers prefer to capitalize the first letter after the colon; others do not. Both are correct in American English usage. Now go back to your commentary and see how understanding what a colon is used for impacts what you say. Continued...

Furthermore, since you endorse Darby's 'Pre-trib secret Rapture' theory per your post on another thread, accepting that theory means accepting Darby's dream of Christ gathering His saints to live in Heaven during the tribulation, and then returning after the tribulation, an idea which is not written in God's Word. Jesus returns one time, on the Day of The Lord. That's the timing Apostle Paul gave in 1 Thess.5 and 2 Thess.2, which also agrees with the timing given at the beginning of Zech.14. Again, this is not Darby's invention, simply a teaching directly from the First Century, revealed by Paul. Salty: it is an invention by Darby, because none in the early Church ever... taught Christ comes to gather His saints PRIOR to the "great tribulation". Yet that is exactly the pre-trib teaching by Darby in 1830's Britain, and the first time any Church held to that kind of pre-trib idea, even as you have already admitted in other posts here. This is getting a little ridiculous. I will have to insist that you be a little more detailed instead of cherry-picking through the responses, and ask that you refrain from poorly quoting and writing within the quotes. That only confuses things for those that read. Again with the Darby Argument. I notice that you have not mentioned the quote I gave from Irinaeus. Why is that, Salty? You seem to completely miss the fact that we return with Christ, or in other words...we are already with Him. So show me where the Church is resurrected and then caught up in any passage concerning the Second Coming? No, Salty, you are going off the rails here: You have everyone in glorified bodies in the Kingdom...including the wicked. And this is the express purpose of the OP: to show how untenable a Post-Trib view is because of this one simple fact. It is doubtful you will learn anything from this unless you are willing to start being honest about this. No-one, I mean no-one...thinks that the dead are raised and live in the Kingdom. That is contrary to every teaching we have concerning both the Kingdom and the Great White Throne Judgment. Continued...

That is not a mystery, lol. And they are to be doing this in the here and now. Doesn't impact the Rapture at all. And we can see your error here, because Paul was not talking about the Tribulation or the Return of Christ, but the tribulation they were experiencing at that time, which he makes clear is neither the Tribulation or the Return of Christ. It's not even the Rapture. Paul made it clear that the Day of the Lord had not come by saying in the first Epistle that they would be raptured, and in the second, because he had to once again comfort them because of false teachers, that there must first be a falling away and the coming of Antichrist, who could not come until the restraint was taken out of the way. And no-one is neglecting Old Testament Prophecy, it's just that some of us can distinguish between the Rapture and the Second Coming. Salty: I've already covered how Christ's Message to His elect of the Church of Philadelphia is about their being kept from temptation by the coming Antichrist, Read it again, Salty, it is not temptation that we are kept from, but the hour... Revelation 3:10 King James Version (KJV) 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. It is the hour of temptation that the Lord will keep us from. Understand that, and recognize your failure to properly identify what the Lord keeps us from here. Sorry, no. No mention of the Church in the events for the specific reason that the Lord will keep us from that hour. Read it again, Salty: Revelation 3:10 King James Version (KJV) 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Where do you see they will not be deceived? Revelation 3:9-10 King James Version (KJV) 9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Those that overcome are contrasted with falsely professing "Jews." The Hour in view will come upon all the world. Not some of the world, not part of the world, but the whole world. Now, in light of the fact that this precedes the very events of the Tribulation... ...what hour do you think is in view, and will you admit that it is the hour, not temptation, which the Lord keeps overcomers from? If you cannot do that, even to yourself, then you are denying what is evident in the Word of God. It is the Hour, not temptation...the Church does not go through. God bless.

And the point Paul is making? "You are not in the Tribulation, this is just temporal tribulation which you have already been told you would go through." There is, you simply refuse to consider Paul's teaching in the fuller context of the entire Epistle, as well as with the teaching in 2 Thessalonians. Paul speaks about the same event the Lord speaks of in Matthew 24, all of which is Tribulation, distinguished at the mid-point, when the Abomination of Desolation takes place, as being great tribulation from that point on. Those who distinguish the first half as Tribulation and the second half as The Great Tribulation do so based on the Lord's words here. But all of it refers to the same seven year period. If you won't see the fuller context and how it applies to chs.4-5, there is nothing I can do about that. There is a clear distinction between what they are going through and the events that will take place at a future date. (Insert missing verses 5-8 here, instead of taking away from God's Holy Writ) Nice attempt to deflect, but I am going to have to insist on the point: you cannot make the tribulation Paul refers to (that they are going through) be the same tribulation he speaks about here. And that is what you are doing by insisting that the Church does go through that wrath. And you can dispense with comments like this. If you cannot understand a point being made and specific passages used to make that point, much less address them, then at the very least don't accuse me of "taking away" from God's Word. Again...dead or alive, we will be with the Lord, rather than in the Tribulation. He makes this point twice. Salty: we are agreed that those in Christ are not appointed to God's cup of wrath poured out upon the wicked, Which is one thing that is so amazing about people who think the Church will go through the Tribulation: if that is true, then we have been appointed to that wrath, because in the Tribulation, both believing and unbelieving will die, hence the raising of the Tribulation Martyrs. So no...we don't agree, you don't actually believe this. If you try to say that the Church will be protected from this wrath then you have missed this fact. Call it what you like, you still have not given one passage that has a resurrection of the entire Church at the Return of Christ. Which day? Are you forgetting that the Tribulation is a seven year period? It is not I that separate the coming of Christ and our gathering to Him and...the day of the Lord. It is Scripture that does that. The Rapture is a resurrection, Salty. lol There is no wrath to escape from. We are not appointed to wrath which Paul speaks of as the Day of the Lord. It's really very simple. And you have no Scripture that places a resurrection at Christ's return...except the First Resurrection of Revelation 20, which has been repeated over and over. Continued...

In point of fact he does, he distinguishes the Lord's coming and our gathering to Him (first statement) with what cannot have happened...the Day of the Lord. Pointing out that many manuscripts have kurios does not help your argument, but hinders it, because that is where the distinction you deny is made. I agree, then he distinguishes it from...the Day of the Lord. Check it, you will see. Correct...and this is the evidence he gives for the Tribulation not being in process. Understand? He is saying "You are not in the Tribulation, the Day of the Lord has not come, because, if it were occurring now...there would have been a falling away and the Antichrist would be on the scene." And none of that had happened yet. You have reversed the order. The coming of Christ and our gathering to Him...comes first, then...the Day of the Lord. You have Paul saying "Concerning the Day of the Lord and the coming of Christ and our gathering unto Him." You can't change what is written. Correct: they believed that they had missed the Rapture and were in the Tribulation, which was impossible because there had been no falling away and no Antichrist at that point. Salty: let's not back up, No let's do...again. Because this is where we establish the distinction between the wrath of the Tribulation and the tribulation we have been appointed to: 1 Thessalonians 3 King James Version (KJV) 1 Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone; 2 And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith: 3 That no man should be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto. 4 For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know. 5 For this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labour be in vain. And when Paul makes it clear that the wrath to come is the Day of the Lord, we again see he is telling them..."You're not in the Tribulation." It absolutely does: it makes it clear that because we are all, note that, all of us, alive or dead, going to be raised at the same time, and, because he is telling them that they are not going through the Tribulation...we know it has to be before the Tribulation. Both alive and dead are resurrected on the earth: the bodies of the dead saints are here on earth, Salty, not in Heaven. When the Lord comes again...we will already be with Him. Well the Revelation thingy denies that. And even in that John whatchamacallit we could see reference to Christ personally gathering the Church. Actually, everything Paul wrote he received from God. He did not, like some people, just string a bunch of vague quotes together to build doctrine. Salty: your argument there is moot, It is to those that do not want to test their doctrine according to Scripture. And again, it must have gotten through to some extent, because you incorporate this point into your own comments. Continued...

Salty: one must take what Paul said there in full context, which you left part of that out. No, Salty, this portion of the passage was relevant to the point made, which apparently got through because you incorporate it into your comments after this. When Christ Returns, He will deal with those that are still physically alive. The Rapture is found nowhere in any of those passages. Even the First Resurrection of Revelation 20 does not clearly define a Rapture, it simply speaks of the Tribulation Martyrs being raised and reigning with Christ. Your doctrine lacks Scripture. So when do they need to put on their Armor? In the Tribulation? Or in the day he wrote to them? The latter of course, which places this, not in the wrath we are not appointed to, but in the here and now. Now are we to be sober, now are we to put on the Armor of God. This was not "left out," lol, it was simply irrelevant to the point being made. Please refrain from the absurdity. I agree, but that does not negate the fact that he has just taught them they will be Raptured. Amazing, really. So you disagree with Paul and believe the Church is appointed to that wrath. You disagree with Christ that we will be kept from that hour (not temptation)? Paul is not talking about what they are doing in the Tribulation, but what they, and we...are to be doing every day. That is why the fact that Paul speaks to them about the tribulation they are going through is not the Tribulation itself is so significant. Not at all, simply reiterated what Paul teaches here. The Pre-Trib Rapture is actually in ch.4, and in this chapter what was in view is the fact that they, and we who are alive at this point...are not appointed to wrath that is to come, which the Thessalonians thought they were going through. Paul will deal with this same error in his second Epistle to them. Incorrect, the Day of the Lord properly refers not just to the coming of Christ, but to the events themselves. I would suggest a study of "the Day of the Lord," which can be accomplished by going to Strong's Online Concordance and typing in that phrase. Why the Pre-Trib view is the most tenable is that in order for a post-trib view to work, there would have to be physical believers who are not caught up to populate the Kingdom. And that isn't there. Only those born again will enter into that Kingdom, and all unbelievers will be destroyed. Nothing that offends will enter into that Kingdom. The Tribulation is God's cup of wrath, Salty. Sorry, no. Again, look at the fact that they thought they were in it, and Paul saying, "No, you're not. You are only experiencing the tribulation I already told you to expect. The two are distinguished from each other. First, understand that there are two events spoken of, Christ's coming and our gathering to Him (which Paul taught in the First Epistle), and the Day of the Lord. Secondly, again Paul is saying "You're not in the Tribulation." Third, it is absurd to think that the Thessalonians are thinking...that Christ has physically returned. Think about that, Salty, because that is what you are making the text to say. That the Thessalonians think Christ has already returned...while also thinking that the Tribulation is in process. Do you understand how that can't work? What they are concerned about is that they have missed the Rapture. I agree, however, I do not limit the Day of the Lord to the Return only, even as it is not limited in the Old Testament. Consider: 2 Thessalonians 2 King James Version (KJV) 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? In other words, in view in their concern is that they have missed the Rapture, because if Christ had physically returned...they wouldn't need Paul to say "Hey, by the way, those guys telling you the Lord returned...it's not true." We know the Lord's Return, the Second Coming, will be known by everyone. So what is Paul addressing? Their fear that the Rapture had taken place, the same issue he deals with in the first Epistle. If you read the above passage and consider that the proof given is not the Lord's Return, but the coming of Antichrist...you will be forced to admit this. Continued...

You take passages which are not related and merge them into a fanciful doctrine. Here is you vague reference: Revelation 16:15 King James Version (KJV) 15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. ...and here it is within it's context: Revelation 16:12-16 King James Version (KJV) 12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. 13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. 15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. 16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. This refers specifically to those...within the Tribulation. But as previously stated, this... 1 Thessalonians 5 King James Version (KJV) 1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. ...is Paul telling them, directly answering their fears about the tribulation they are going through at that time...that they are not going through the Tribulation itself, because... 9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Understand? We are not appointed to the wrath that they think they are going through, and the wrath they think they are going through is the Day of the Lord. Now, let's see what he says next: 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. In other words...the same thing that he just told them: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 King James Version (KJV) 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Now look at it again: 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. Both times he makes it clear that it will not matter if we are dead or alive, we will be with the Lord. In all of the passages dealing with the Lord's Return, He comes to Earth...and we are with Him. That is just a fact. You will go on to reiterate that with a proof-text of your own and you do not even understand it denies your position. As I said in the previous post, which you conveniently incorporate into your own, lol, is that Paul distinguishes between temporal tribulation which they are already going through...and the wrath to come. Now think about this Salty, do you not see that it is impossible for Paul to be telling them not to fear the wrath that is to come... ...if they are going to experience that wrath? The events that unfold are not caused by Satan...but God. Satan did not impose Seventy Weeks of Judgment...God did. And we are not appointed unto that wrath. And when you get to the commentaries that try to argue the difference between orge and thumos wrath, I will suggest in advance that you not try to argue that, lol, because that too is a weak argument that can be dismantled through the context where these are found. It's neither mine nor a theory, simply the only tenable conclusion which reconciles Scripture on all points, including resurrection in eschatological passages. I have dealt with the context a number of times yet because you cherry-pick the posts you are leaving out a great deal of the issues which have to be discussed. If you keep doing this I will stop responding to your posts. Either address it all, or you disqualify yourself as a worthy antagonist. Continued...

Salty: still not a valid point to support your rapture theory, even if you want to call Jesus' raising of Lazarus a resurrection. And your last statement has their event timing out of order. The true order is the tribulation time with God's two witnesses along with the Church here on earth with some of them being martyred, and then Jesus' only coming (parousia) with the harpazo event. That you are raising false arguments is not a valid point? lol It is. So I reiterate the point: I never said the raising of Lazarus was the resurrection, but a resurrection. Here you are denying that Lazarus was resurrected. You are also placing the Rapture in the Middle of the Week with the Two Witnesses. And while I am at it...quit cherry-picking the responses. If you would address all of it you would be forced to admit your doctrine has serious error. Salty: you are only denying those Scriptures which show the coming of our Lord Jesus along with the the gathering of His saints, I deny that you can place a resurrection at the time of Christ's Return. To keep saying "I already proved this and that with that 1 Thessalonians verse," or "that 1 Corinthians verse" is not exactly what I call showing anything. Those that are gathered at the Lord's Return are those that are still physically alive. That is the one fact that you cannot change, and you cannot show a resurrection at His Return other than the Tribulation Martyrs. Splendid. Maybe we should look at that Revelation thingy, or perhaps examine that Luke thingamajigger, lol. There is no resurrection in either of these two passages, and I challenge you to show there is. That is why you have to be so vague in what Scripture you present as support for your doctrine. So let's look at your especially: Mark 13:26-27 King James Version (KJV) 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Now let's look at Paul's teaching of the Rapture: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 King James Version (KJV) 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. The resurrection of the Church, both living and alive...is clear. Yet in Mark, as in all teachings about His physical Return, it is the Angels that gather the Elect. So where is your Biblical Basis for a resurrection at the Lord's Return? That is what you have been, and always will be...lacking. Continued...

Hi S.T.Ranger, Now I have a few questions & comments for you in regard to your post #14. 1. The Body of Christ is the New Man - however you said ` the church will have her home....` thus female. Where is the doctrine for this? This is going to be brief, Marilyn, Let me know if the answers need expansion. It's just something I say, not something that has to be theologically astute, lol. But just as Israel stood in the role of "wife," even so the Church is cast in the role of bride, so it is just a matter of designating the Church "her" in relationship with the Lord. A few verses to consider: Ephesians 5:25 King James Version (KJV) 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Romans 9:25 King James Version (KJV) 25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. The Greek autos in Ephesians 5:25 can be translated "her" as well, and some translation do that, based on the context. 2. The 144,000 were sealed but not exempt from death - Rev. 14: 1. They have a special purpose in God. Not sure what the question is here. In the Tribulation both Jew and Gentile will be saved, though we see distinctive events such as the sealing and the preservation in the Wilderness during the last half of the Week centered on Israel, which is fitting since this time of judgment was originally laid upon her, er, it...lol. Them? Matt. 8: 11 Remember the Lord is talking to the Jews concerning their inheritance. (re: `...many shall come from the east & west, & shall sit down with Abraham, & Isaac, & Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.` Gentiles were included eg. Rahab, Ruth & others. Also `the kings of the earth bring their glory & honour into it.` (Rev.. 21: 24 - The New Jerusalem) Agreed, but we have to keep in mind that New Jerusalem doesn't appear in the Millennial Kingdom. This current universe passes out of existence in ch.20; by the time we get to ch.21 this is the first thing we are told: Revelation 21 King James Version (KJV) 21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. We also have to keep in mind that in regards to salvation, culmination is the Eternal State. We can properly say we are saved (born again thus resurrected spiritually, having the Life Christ came to bring), are being saved (in the temporal, as we are cleansed of sin and made holy), and will be saved (to wit...the redemption of our bodies). So when we speak of the inheritance of Israel, we have to keep that within the broader framework of Redemption, which is not exclusive to Israel, for it has been God's intention to save mankind as a whole. The Gift of God goes out to all. However, when we look at the specific promises made to Israel, we do not take those upon ourselves unless they themselves fit into the broader framework. For example, Israel was promised the new birth when they are brought back into their land (which corresponds to "Ye must be born again" (to see/enter the Kingdom of God (which was the only Kingdom known to Israel at that time))), and so far that has not happened yet, and will not happen until Israel turns to Christ, which takes place at the end of the judgment laid upon her. That is...the last Week being fulfilled. Within that promise, though, we see that the new heart, the new spirit, cleansing, and indwelling of God...are not held back from Gentiles. Gentile Inclusion was a mystery, according to Paul, and in fact a source of turmoil in the early Church, because in the Jewish mind, I am sure that Israel expected for God to bless all families of the earth (per His promise to Abraham)...through them. But this is what the Lord meant when He said "I am the True Vine," because the source of provision and relationship, Israel, was replaced by the true source, God Himself. So too with the "tree" of Romans 11, which rather than Israel being the tree, they did not understand they were just branches. Anyway, going back to the inheritance, truly the promises of God are for Israel, however, the Redemptive Plan of God has always been for all families of the earth. The Law did not nullify God's promises, but was given for a time, until Christ should come. This promise reaches back into the Garden itself, as I am sure you are aware of. And this is exactly what the writer teaches in Hebrews, as he contrasts the image, the parable...with the true. He contrasts the Law with the New Covenant, which now allows men (and ladies, lol) to enter into the True, which is Heaven itself. And while the Old Testament Saints looked for this...they never reached it. For example, we see the temporal and physical nature of the Old Testament contrasted with the spiritual and eternal of the New Testament and New Covenant Economy. In the Old, there was manna, in the New...there is the True Bread. The first provided physical sustenance, the second is spiritual and eternal provision. Now notice: Hebrews 11 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. They all died not having received the promise. That promise has been God's intention, even under Old Testament Economies, for every person that will be saved. What was necessary was to make the incompletion complete, and this is done through Christ. The Law could not make perfect/complete, but Christ does. And I will stop there because I see I have a number of posts to address, lol. Thanks for the questions, hope these answers are relevant to your questions. God bless.