OldCoot

No, it is the words of the translators that translated the original, not the the words used by the HS. A lexicon or concordance is not inspired cannon. It is simply a translation based on the view of the person putting it together. Irregardless of the what Strong's, Young's or whomever is writing a concordance, many translators of scripture prior to them all saw the translation as simple the departure, not a falling away. And given that they were far closer to the original and more familiar with the nuances of the Greek, especially so in the case of the Latin Vulgate which was done in the 4th century, it is more than a reasonable assumption that the earlier translations got the passage right and the KJV folks and many translations to follow got the passage wrong. And when one factors in that OT which goes to some length to show that the righteous are kept from this major time of trouble / God's wrath coming upon the earth, simply "departure" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 fits. After all, the Bereans were commended for searching the scripture daily to see if what Paul was teaching them was true. The OT was all they had. If one is going to promote a idea that the righteous at the time the Great Tribulation shows up are required to go thru this climactic event of Daniel's 70th week, then one has to prove it from the OT as well as the NT. The Mosaic Law required that any issue can only be determined on the testimony of two or more witnesses. Those two witnesses for us in regards to theology is the OT and NT. And given that Isaiah 26, Psalm 27, Zephaniah 2, etc all describe the righteous being hidden and protected from the wrath of God, either God didn't mean what He said and is a liar, or some folks screwed up in translating scripture. The latter seems more appropriate.

Did a little research. Always a wise thing to do when discussing a particular point. Until the KJV Bible came out, most major translations used departure for apostasia. it was not until the KJV came on the scene did anyone consider that apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 meant falling away. With all deference to James Strong, Robert Young, et al who based much of their work on the KJV writers assertions of the meanings. Tyndale Bible (cir 1526/1534) "a departynge fyrst" Coverdale Bible (Cir 1539) "a departynge come firft" Cranmer Bible (1539) "a departynge fyrst" Geneva Bible (1557 / 1608) "a departing first" And many others: The Wycliff Bible (1384), The Breches Bible (1576), The Beza Bible (1583) The Latin Vulgate uses the word discessio, which also has departure in view. Considering the LV came on the scene roughly the 4th century, one would think they might have had a pretty firm grasp on the Greek NT and Greek word meanings and their application, being that the LV writers were 1000 years earlier than our english translations. Notice how they are all before Darby, whom many attribute the founder of the pre-trib position. Even though Isaac Newton a century before held the view. As did several of the writings of 2nd/3rd century. It would seem that "departure" was not the wishful thinking of a bunch of pre-trib nuts. So it just might be the Greek Scholar Kenneth Wuest who I mentioned in an earlier post might actually be more on target than not. Based on this, the evidence would suggest that "falling away" is a relatively recent invention of the proper meaning of apostasia.

So was it a ruse that God had the writers of 2 Chronicles say that all of those of Israel that remained faithful migrated south with the Levites and joined with the southern kingdom? I guess just to throw us off the real truth, eh? And what could Ezra and Nehemiah been thinking? Were they taking hallucinogens, or was it just wishful thinking passed off as scripture? Ezra called the returning remnant from the captivity in Babylon, Jews 8 times and Israel 40 times. Nehemiah called those he brought with him, Jews 11 times and Israel 22 times. And in Nehemiah 12:47, he mentions "all Israel". Not a whisper that the 12 tribes were unaccounted for. And people from 4 of the tribes are mentioned in the NT. That is beyond dispute. So even with that alone, the 10 tribes are not lost somewhere. The writer of Hebrews and James both had a firm grasp on who they were writing to. And the 144,000 are form 12 of the 13 tribes. Yes, 13. Joseph can be counted as a tribe or his two sons can be counted as tribes. Jacob adopted Joseph's sons. This is why in some locations where the tribes are mentioned, Joseph is mentioned or Ephraim and Mannasah are mentioned if Joseph isn't. Why that is done is yet another study we don't have time for in this thread. No matter who gets left out (like Dan in the Revelation) you still have 12 tribes to pick from. To be fair, those that did remain in Babylon and didn't return, more than likely they are the ones who drifted off and became the Ashkenazi Jews. After all, most of the Ashkenazi Jews recognize the Babylonian Talmud while the Sephardic Jews primarily use the Jerusalem Talmud. But just because they drifted off does not take away from the fact that scripture shows in multiple places that all Israel is accounted for. Also, even though they drifted off, they never lost their identity. A large portion of them have returned to modern Israel. It does beg the question then, if true Israel is who you say they are, then why are they staying in rebellion and not migrating back to The Land? After all, it was promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So you need to pack up and leave NZ and head to Israel to remain faithful! But it was because the majority did not return with either Ezra or Nehemiah, that Israel never really became a nation again until 1948. They were under the thumb of Greece, Rome, and then dispersed after 135 AD, though there still were some in the land over the centuries. That comports with the 360 years of punishment left after the Babylonian captivity and multiplied 7 times per Leviticus 26.

That is true about no separation.... in the church. But Israel is elect because of the promises made by God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. True, that not all Israel will believe and be saved, but Israel is still in view as far as God is concerned. Those of Israel that do come to faith, then they are one with all the believers in the body where there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. While we're on this, that passage that says there is no Jew or Gentile also says there is no male or female. Now I defy anyone to grab a bunch of males and females and put them in front of the congregation and strip and then try to argue the case there is no male or female in the body. In the real world, there is Jew, there is Gentile, and there is the Church. The Jews are beloved because of the patriarchs. Romans 11:28-29 (NKJV) Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. I never assumed you said anyone would become Jewish or that I did. But by you saying that now the church is Israel, you are. And I sure didn't see batches of western civilization people, or Christians for that matter, clamoring to get to Israel when the country was founded. I guess then that all the Christians who are now literally Israel are in rebellion of God and they therefore get to enjoy the curses given to Israel for rebellion. Come on. The gentiles in the church are grafted in. They make up spiritual Israel, which is based of the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets. Not grafted in to physical Israel. You are getting your kingdoms confused. The kingdom of Yeshua is not of this world. Israel as a nation is of this physical world. You want them both, but you are not allowed to have them both. And just because a few Jews migrated to Europe and got in the wood pile, does not make western civilization any more Israel than the man in the moon. I have some Native American in my blood. Does that now mean I am an official member of the Sioux nation? Of course not. I defy anyone to fly into Tel Aviv and show them that since you have 10% Ashkenazi DNA that now you want to make Aliyah to Israel and join the nation. They will escort you back to the terminal gate to get your fight home. If I am careless about my research on the tribes, prove it only from scripture. That is all I used. Prove that there is no way that any of the 10 tribes ever joined with the southern kingdom or were ever heard from again in scripture. Prove that Leviticus 26 and the years Israel would be punished according to Ezekiel is incorrect. My assertions are only faulty because they contradict your assertions. Yeshua did tell His disciples to only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but they were lost only in the sense of needing salvation. They were lost in their sin. Not because they didn't know where they were or living on another continent. To imply anything else is purely fantasy. Just using scripture to justify an already preconceived idea. It is allegorizing scripture to the extreme. Frankly this stuff western civilization and/or the church is now the true Israel that is based on British Israelism or other such nonsense is just that. It led to offensive works like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and other trash. And it led straight to the gas chambers at Auschwitz and Dachau. This mindset has caused the death or more Jews than almost anything else. You might want to take a closer look at Matthew 25 regarding Yeshua and His brethren. And since that was before the beginning of the church, it can only mean His brethren in the flesh... the physical Hebrews that He was standing in the midst of.

It was brought up elsewhere, maybe I am thinking of another thread, that Israel is driven to the wall to finally accept the Messiah. Hosea 5:15. Thus they will the saints that Daniel references. After all, if we have the numbers right, 2/3 of the Jewish people will be slaughtered during this time. And Yeshua said that the gates of hell would never prevail against the church, yet the false messiah prevails against the saints. Get the idea there just might be two groups in view? One group that was removed prior and another group that came to faith during the time of trouble? What I fail to understand is how or why anyone would even want to claim Jewish ancestry if their life depended on it. I am glad I am grafted into the root thru the Messiah, but to actually be Jewish is not a desire. And you made bold claims about a pre-trib rapture being of satanic origin, this western nations are really the true Israel stuff comes pretty close. I am not sure it was you or someone else, but it was already shown in another thread that there are no 10 lost tribes and other falsehoods that lead to what you suggest. 2 Chronicles is the source material for showing that all those that remained faithful to God migrated south from Israel to Judah and joined with the southern kingdom. And after the Babylonian captivity, Nehemiah and Ezra both refer to all those that returned as both Judah and Israel collectively. People from 4 of the tribes specifically are mentioned in the NT as being in Israel when Messiah was there, so that alone deflates the 10 lost tribes balloon. Those that were captured and taken prisoner by Assyria from the northern kingdom were then taken any the Babylonians when they conquered Assryia. Slaves are valuable property and it seems unreasonable that the Babylonians would just let them go wander off somewhere. Those that remained in the northern kingdom land area were commingled with foreigners planted there by Assyria and became the Samaritans we read about in the NT. Half Jews, if you will. No doubt, just like people migrate around today, some Jews did migrate to north, and elsewhere for that matter. And some did commingle with others. But that is a stretch to say that the western nations are derived from Jewish blood. Sure modern DNA testing can break down the 23 chromosomes and come up with a small percentage of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, but that doesn't prove a theory of mass migration of 10 tribes en masse. One would expect a commingling to occur of those that didn't remain faithful and left the ancestral land of Israel for other parts of the world. And the majority of both Judah and Israel did not return from Babylon after the captivity. So they remained in rebellion. Ezekiel showed 430 years of punishment for both Judah and Israel. 70 of those ticked off during the Babylonian adventure. That left 360 years. Leviticus 26 shows that if the people remained rebellious, their punishment would increase 7 times. 360 x 7 is 2520 years. 2520 x 360 day prophetic calendar is 907200 days. That divided by a 365 day solar calendar is 2485.5 years. Given the decree to return to Jerusalem was issued in early fall of 538 BC, add the 2485.5 years and we come pretty darn close to May 1948 when Israel was declared a nation again. Remember, there is no "0" year. It goes from 1BC to 1 AD. Now either you are correct in what happened to the those tribes, or scripture is correct. I bank on scripture.

Interesting. How is it that Isaiah 26, Psalm 27, and Zephaniah 2 all speak of the righteous being hidden away during the time of trouble that is to come upon the whole earth? Isaiah includes a resurrection of the righteous dead and that both they and those righteous who are alive are protected until the indignation of God has passed. Isaiah states for those (both the alive and the resurrected dead) to enter their chambers and shut the doors behind them until the indignation is passed. Yeshua said that he would go and prepare a place for us. Why would that be necessary if we are going thru Daniel's 70th week / Time of Trouble / Great Tribulation? Just an overnight stay or weekend getaway and then come back to be with the Lord who has conquered and is ruling from David's Throne? Was not Noah locked into the Ark and protected from the wrath of God that came upon the earth? God is one who shut the door and sealed Noah, his family, and the animals inside. Or was not Lot saved from the destruction that came on Sodom? Those angels couldn't even do the job until Lot was taken out of there. Yes, they took him out of the city, it wasn't just a choice matter for him. One could even argue that Lot was, at best, a mediocre example of an elect individual, but he was nonetheless. Why is it now that those made righteous by the Messiah must endure the wrath of God? Wrath of Satan, yes. Wrath of God, no. Was not Joash hidden above the temple for seven years and protected from harm or death while Athaliah (a picture of the end times false messiah) did all of her mischief? Prophecy is pattern along with prediction. I should add, it is quite a stretch to say that Malachi is talking about "Christian Isrealites". That is taking liberties with the text. Israel is the primary focus of both Malachi and the 70th week of Danial. Not gentiles. The angel made it clear to Daniel... 70 weeks are determined for your people. Daniel's people were of physical Israel.

Give me a break. Good folks can discuss the merits of eschatology without resorting to satanic deception stuff. That is the same tactic that goes on in politics.. demonize your opponent in trying to make them lack credibility. It is a Communist tactic used for decades to shut down reasonable discussion. Just like throwing around Racist or Bigot. It is purely inflammatory and meant to demean someone else and shut them down. That we should be like the world and do what they do is a sad state. The institutional churches got into this kind of nonsense and led to the Inquisiton, witch trials, and all sorts of blights on the Christian faith. The dark ages were all about this kind of inflammatory nonsense. If it were on the core principles of the faith, such comments would be apropos, and I would be the first to applaud and back you up. But eschatology is not a condition that justifies us before the Lord. There are true members of the body who are all over the place regarding eschatological issues. None of us can foresee the future and know with absolute certainty of what will transpire as if it already happened. We can disagree, vigorously, but do so with the purpose of edification, not tearing down. I could do likewise, that holding a position that the church body must go thru the Tribulation is of satanic origin. Doesn't make it so, and I would never do that to anyone. I may strongly disagree with their position on this part of eschatology, but not demonize them. Frankly, I expected better from you and am disappointed. But, I have been disappointed in some folks before. As the scripture states, there is nothing new under the sun.

With all deference to Strong's or Young's or whoever you are posting numbers and definitions from, there are many Greek scholars who hold to what I stated on Apostasia. You don't accept that, that's cool. I am not concerned if what I stated you don't accept. I am aware of many scholars standing in academic circles that do hold to what I stated. Not sure I am aware of your standing as one who is in the same arena as they are, so I have no basis to know if you are as learned in the Greek nuances as they are, I don't accept your position. So I guess we have a stalemate. The word of God does indeed stand triumphant. But that doesn't mean your interpretation does. Try and keep in mind, you are not the author of the text.

Actually, Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are two fold prophecies in that they describe events that did occur in AD 70, and end times. And one needs to keep in mind, part of it was done at the temple mount area and part at the Mt. of Olives. I agree with Rick, that much of it centers around Jews living in Jerusalem at the 70th week of Daniel, or Great Tribulation as many put it. Just look at the plain sense.... how would worrying about the Abomination of Desolation of the temple occurring in winter or on the Sabbath mean anything to a Gentile mindset? But it would to a Jew living in Jerusalem at that time. And elsewhere, the gathering of the righteous is show to be at a time when Yeshua is coming "as a thief in the night". That implies no one is expecting Him and could happen at any moment. Whereas, once the events of Daniel's 70th week get rolling, it will be quite clear the time frame of Yeshua's coming to conquer and rule. In the "thief" occurrence, what does a thief do? He steals. Paul made it quite clear that when this thief event happens, there will be a forceable snatching up (harpazo) of the righteous. Translated as Rapturo in the Latin Vulgate, from which we get our transliterated word, Rapture. In the conquering to rule return of Messiah, every eye will see him and be expecting him. After all, the false messiah will have gathered armies to take up arms against that event. Sounds stupid, but when folks are given a strong delusion to believe "the lie", it will not be out of character. And Psalm 2 expounds on it. When Yeshua returned to heaven after His accomplishments here, He left terre firma. He does not return to terre firma at the removal of the righteous. We are caught up to go be with Him. He only returns to terre firma when He returns to conquer His enemies and establish His reign later. Those that trust in Him have already been with Him and will return with Him as He takes hold of that which the Father has given to him to rule over. The "armies" that return with Him do no fighting. He does it all. Those armies are generally thought to be the believers returning with Him.

Only twice in the NT is Apostasia used. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and Acts 21:21. For Apostasia to mean a "falling away", there has to be a definite article that supports that assumption. In the Acts 21:21 account, what is referenced is a departure from Moses or Torah (the Law). So in that case, you would be correct that it is a defection or departing from a previous stand, as the previous stand is mentioned in the text to support what is being departed from. In the 2 Thessalonians account, there is no reference to what is being departed from. In that case, the word stands on its own as simply departure. Kenneth Wuest expounded upon this in his multi volume work on the Greek NT and said the same thing, though more eloquently than I have. There are many other scholars that support Kenneth Wuest's view on the word and textual application. So for one to hold that a physical departure is in view in the 2 Thessalonians 2:3 text is not out of line. It may not jive with some folk's presuppositions, but that is a personal opinion. It is disingenuous to impose a personal view on the text rather than letting the text stand on its own. And given the text simply says a departure must occur before the Man of Sin, or false Messiah, is revealed, it is not taking liberties with the text to imply that a departure or removal of the righteous before the revealing is in view. Later on in v6, the implication is that the HS is the one restraining. The HS indwells the believers. Once the believers are delivered to the Messiah, which is one of the HS jobs, He then sidesteps and allows the revealing and all hell to break loose. A casual reading of 1 Thessalonians amplifies this position. Coming as a thief in the night can only occur if no one is expecting the thief. Just about any time during the 70th week of Daniel, the False Messiah will be setting the stage for a conflict with the coming Messiah. Armies are drawn together to repel the coming of the Messiah. No one is caught off guard as like a surprise from a thief in the night. All will be expecting Him (albeit in a negative way) and all eyes will see Him. This comports well with Psalm 2 and many other passages in scripture. Literally, the False Messiah is going to have people gather and bring arms to fight against the Messiah. But as the scripture says, God will laugh. I will to. Thus, it is reasonable to hold a position that there is the coming to gather His own early on, then a later full coming and actually coming to the land to conquer and reign on the earth. The thief in the night reference does not even remotely suggest that the Lord is going to touch down on the earth like the full coming to conquer and to reign. Likewise, a early removal of the righteous, along with a resurrection of the dead in Christ comports with Isaiah 26 and Psalm 27. Always keep in mind that all the Bereans had to check out Paul to see what he said was true, was the OT scriptures. And they were commended for doing that. It can be very beneficial to compare any concept that Paul mentions in his letters to what the OT has to say on the issue.

Ok.

Relatively new? Like Ephraim the Syrian in the 4th Century? Or how about in Shepherd of Hermes document of roughly 110 AD. I admit the Isaac Newton in the 17th century is newer. But these are older than what many presume to be the originator of the idea in the 19th century. I would contend that it has the most posts in its defense in this present time because early on in the institutional church that became unified with the state it was not "politically correct" to teach that the Messiah would come reclaim the earth from its evil rulers. Amillennialism and Post Tribulation positions became the norm in that environment. And since the institutional church was the primary organization, it was not until the scriptures started being available to more and more of the masses that the teaching pre-trib resurfaced as a theological position.

But Paul also did tell the Thessalonians that the False Messiah could not be revealed until there was a departure. The translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3, falling away is inaccurate. The word literally means departure and can only mean a departure from the faith if that was included in the sentence. The only other time the word is used is in Acts 21:21 where departing from Moses and the Law is stated and in view. Without a definite article to expound on it, the word simply means departure. Falling away has been going on almost since the first century and is too general to apply to the text. The Thessalonians thought they were in the Great Tribulation based on letter(s) they had received, claiming to be written by Paul. Paul clarifies and assures them they are NOT in the Great Tribulation because the departure must happen first before the Man of Sin can be revealed. 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 elaborates further. The restrainer seems to refer only to the HS. The HS indwells the believers. Once the believers are departed, then the HS can side step and allow all hell to break loose, including the False Messiah to be revealed.

We have run into a conundrum. You earlier said that both OT and NT saints are the one body. From the Ephesians passage you posted, it would seem to suggest that, at first glance. Using your argument that Yeshua is in view regarding the least in the kingdom, and He said that the least in the Kingdom was greater than JB, so would that make JB less than the least? Seems like a non sequitur. And if JB is less than the least, that must mean he isn't in the kingdom. And since he was the greatest born of woman, then that must mean that all those preceding him are not in the kingdom either. Saved unto eternal life, for sure, but not in the kingdom. And if Yeshua the greatest because He is the least, then whomever is the greatest. are they then now the least? And if they are least because they are the greatest, does that now make them the greatest because now they are the least? Classic case of circular reasoning if there ever was one. But what is it that is required to be in the kingdom? To be born again, per John 3:3. And how is one born again? 1 Peter 1:18-23 tells us. By the blood of Yeshua. Since JB died before the Messiah was crucified and resurrected, he therefore is not part of the Kingdom that is made up of those that have trusted in the finished work of Yeshua. Doesn't mean that JB, Moses, David, Isaiah, et al are not saved to eternal life, it just means they are not of the same kingdom of those that came to faith after Yeshua's sacrifice and resurrection. So my initial contention remains... there are delineations between NT saints and OT saints. Just as there will be between NT saints now and those that come to faith during the 70th week of Daniel. But that is another topic altogether. I contend that the Ephesians reference has more in view the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile and God and gentile. Sure the foundation has been laid by the Prophets and Patriarchs, with the cornerstone being Yeshua. But that doesn't imply the same as the kingdom. Jew and Gentile that believe and trust in the finished work of Yeshua are one body in the Messiah. The foundation of the faith is more in view. Hebrews elaborates extensively on that. An analogy: The slowest broadband communication is faster than the fastest dial up communication. Now, XYZ company may have the greatest dial up of any company that has ever provided dial up. But even then, the slowest broadband is still faster than the fastest dial up. So to be least in the NT kingdom is always going to be greater than the greatest of the OT that preceded it.

Then how is it that the least person in the kingdom is greater than the greatest OT prophet?

I wasn't talking about God's view of scripture either. Simply about the concept of the elect. Not quite sure how you deduced the idea that I was talking about scripture. Try reading the post without interjecting your preconceptions into it. But the definition is not quite that simple is where I went with it.

I would agree with the elect were chosen from the foundation of the world. It is a matter of time domain. God can see the end from the beginning. He knew before the foundations of the world were laid who would accept and reject Messiah. He can call those that accept His foreknown elect. It all is a matter of which side of the time domain you are looking at things. I can't recall the author, but I read one time a description of this that seems apropos. A man is standing in a hall and sees a door, that written above it says "whosoever will". He enters the door and finds a banquet hall set up. And on a table is a place setting for him. He turns around and above the door he just entered, it says "Known from the foundation of the world". We live in a universe that is multidimensional several magnitudes above what we visibly experience. According to the Jewish sages AND modern particle physics, 10 dimensions. There could in fact even be more than one dimension of time. Yes, time is a dimension. It can vary by mass, acceleration, and gravity. We tend to pigeon hole God into our 4 dimensions we deal with instead of realizing that He is several dimensions more than even the 10 we know of. It is not too outlandish to even fathom that all we know of is actually a holographic simulation in a plasma universe which is in reality merely a thought in the mind of God. I don't quite go that far, but I do know that we tend to limit in our thinking who God is. Just a quick look at the reality of the Zero Point Energy of the universe can dramatize the magnitude of God.

JB was the last prophet of the OT era. He, like Abraham, Isaiah, David, et al believed in the Messiah. But JB was still OT. Only after the resurrection do those that believe make up "body". There is a definite delineation between OT saints and those that believe after the resurrection. Likewise, it is not unrealistic to see there is a delineation between the body of believers as we know it now and those that come to faith during the great tribulation period that the church does not go thru. JB was indeed considered righteous, but... Luke 7:28 (NKJV) For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” Read that as JB is greater than Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, etc. JB was considered the greatest prophet of all time by Yeshua, probably because JB was the one who actually got to reveal the Messiah to the world. But JB was still an OT prophet. Not a part of the body of believers that make up the church after the resurrection.

Oh, boy. Go ahead and hold onto those ideas if you want. We will all find out one day. If one is holding that Jesus is actually the Archangel Michael or some such thing, that could indeed be called Heretical. Discussions within the body about eschatology perspectives is not really in the same league. Be careful that your making the claim that others who do not see things the way you do are heretical, as that can lead to a sense of pride, which is sin. In the literal sense, Heresy means not holding to orthodox religious views. In that, I indeed fall into that camp. Much of what the institutional church has held over the centuries is counter to scripture. So to say that a position I hold is heretical doesn't phase me a bit. I take the scripture seriously as opposed to allegorizing the text to extremes. When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. I would contend that holding a pre-trib position does not mean we "love our lives too much". I actually hate this life and, like the Apostle Paul stated, would rather be with the Lord than here. I am more than ready to shed this carcass and move on. But I will stay here as long as God sees fit.

Well It is not really out of line to bring up Jesus and His character and also then bring up God and His character. After all, they are the same God. Kinda like The Father created the heavens and the earth, the Son created the heavens and the earth, and the Holy Spirit created the heavens and the earth. Yes, you can find verses throughout scripture that attribute the creation to each individually. But the part you conveniently left out is the verse just before that part in Isaiah 26 that also says the dead are resurrected along with those that are hidden. Isaiah 26:19-20 (NKJV) Your dead shall live; Together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in dust; For your dew is like the dew of herbs, And the earth shall cast out the dead. 20 Come, my people, enter your chambers, And shut your doors behind you; Hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment, Until the indignation is past. I'll tell ya what... you stick around in your chambers that you believe are here on earth with a bunch of resurrected carcasses who hold the same idea that we remain on this earth while this stuff is going on and I will hide in those chambers that Messiah is preparing for both the living and resurrected and we will both be living out what we hold true. Notice in this passage from John that He is returning to receive us to Himself and taking us to where He is residing, not the time when He is returning to conquer and rule as in other passages. There is a difference. John 14:2-3 (NKJV) In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. What constitutes the saving faith of Abraham that characterizes those who are justified in God's sight, is believing what He has said and relying on His promises. Romans 4:3 (NKJV) For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” So, I suppose that those who do not believe what He has said, will indeed be those that get their wishes to live things out on the earth during that cataclysmic time. I would prefer to watch it all from the balcony with Him.

The only problem in using the Rich Man and Lazarus story to support a position that is antithetical to what Paul wrote is that the story was based on a pre-resurrection of the Messiah presentation. After the resurrection, those that die who are believers are then with the Lord per Paul. The prior concept of dying and then going to Abraham's bosom to wait no longer is a factor after the resurrection of the Messiah. For those that reject Messiah, there is Hades. For those that place their trust in Messiah, they are with Him after death. Ephesians 4:8-10 (LITV) Because of this, He says, "Having gone up on high, He led captivity captive," and gave "gifts to men." (Psalm 68:18) 9 But that He went up, what is it except that He also first came down into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that came down is the same who also went up above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.

If you read the passage closer, the armies that are with Him do not do any fighting either. Jesus is the one who fights and overcomes these enemies. Zechariah 14 is a supporting reference to Rev 19:14, and Zechariah says that the Lord comes with His saints, and the context is clearly the that great "day of the Lord". In Jude 14, we see that again, also with the "day of the Lord" in the context. And Rev 17:14, when the people of the earth give authority to the Beast to make war against the Lamb of God, those that are with Jesus are "chosen and faithful". Seems like a saint reference to me. And if He comes with His saints, they had to have been gathered to Him at some point previous to His coming. None of the passages allows for gathering to him after He is already in route. How I am going to know is the same way anyone is going to know if their position is correct... how it plays out in reality. That has to do more with knowing that I am justified. I am very comfortable in knowing what the Gospel is and what it means to be sealed to the day of redemption because of my belief in Messiah, His death, burial, and resurrection, and trusting in Him to be faithful and true. Nothing personal, just a statement of fact. It is an inherent flaw in every person that they feel they need to have some measure of claim in guaranteeing their salvation. It is the basis of just about every religion in history, and especially so today. We can work our way to God has been the cornerstone of virtually every religion and cult in mankind's history. And it is a pride issue, there is something in all of us that likes to hold our head up and say to ourselves that we have the exclusive truth, we are on a higher spiritual plane than others, it was tied to our efforts, etc. And it is not just in religion. It is a character flaw that most people carry with them in all their daily dealings. Even in the workplace or driving down the road in heavy traffic. They like to think they are better than the guy next to them in one degree or another. it is a flaw that can only be controlled by the power of the HS. And it is a work in progress. Nothing personal about folks having a sin nature either, if I would have said that. Just a statement of fact. Those actually support a doctrine of imminence, that it could happen at any time with no preconditions met. It also has strong allusion to what is typified in the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah). This Feast is called the "day that no man knows" simply because it cannot be determined when it starts since it falls on the first of Tishri and the first of the month cannot be determined until the new moon has been established, as according to the Mosaic Law. And in tradition, this feast has references to the removal of the righteous, the wedding of the Messiah to His bride, and His coronation as King. And the parable of the 10 virgins also supports an imminence position also.

I do not confuse trials, persecution, and general tribulations with the period of time that the majority of scripture makes reference to, the final climatic events coming upon the earth, both by the hand of Satan and God's wrath. It was a little melodramatic, but that was to emphasize the point. It is essentially what would be the case in a post trib actuality. Up and right back down in one event would be similar to a yo-yo. And placing the bride of Christ as having to endure the wrath of God is not much different than an abusive husband or boyfriend. It just doesn't fit well with a God who has gone to such great lengths to justify people who have placed their eternity in His hands, that they are now to undergo the wrath of God intended for those that have rejected Him. It doesn't fit well with the picture of God throughout scripture. Sounds more like Allah of Islam. As I stated, we can have disagreements about timing before the wrath of God comes upon the earth, and each position will argue that the others use poor rhetoric , bad exegesis, etc. We need to watch out that we don't take such things to the point of using them as a measuring line to test one's justification before the Lord. Also, that we don't let pride and personal prejudice tint our analysis of these issues. It is quite probable that we all are in error to one degree or another. One of the problems I see of positions other than pre-trib, is that a removal of the righteous is an event that is a day that no man can know when it is to happen. Jesus Himself said as much. The parable of the 10 virgins expounds on it. It is commonly referred to as the Doctrine of Imminence, that this removal could happen at any time with no preconditions. Once the false messiah is revealed, and enforces a covenant with national Israel that he later violates, then one would be able to do a countdown to the events that transpire. A removal time could then be determined after that. I still contend that what lies behind some of these ideas that we are destined to endure this time that is coming upon the earth is a common flaw in our character, that we must have something to do with our salvation, that some effort is needed on our part above placing our trust in Him. Either to earn our salvation, prove it, or maintain it. It suggests that the sacrifice of Jesus isn't sufficient to reconcile to the Father, those of us who trust in Him. To many, those of us that do not allow this flaw we all have to tint our view of things, it would seem like we have a false hope, wishful thinking, etc to hold a pre-trib position. That's ok. I know in whom I have placed my trust. And like the Hebrews that were cast into the fire in the book of Daniel who wouldn't bow down to Nebuchadnezer's statue and reject God even if they would not be spared though they believed God would protect them, even if I am wrong and not removed prior to these future events, I will in no way stop trusting Him. Isaiah 55:9. But if I am correct in a pre-trib position, I will not gloat over it. I will be more than happy to see all those who trust in Messiah gathered together. Those of us who hold this position will gladly explain it on the way up!

Since it implies that God does not keep His promises or keep His word. The one thing that God delights in most is making and keeping His promises. And He holds HIs word higher than anything else. There are many passages in both OT and NT that claim the righteous will be hid from the time that God brings forth His anger upon the earth before the Messiah returns. Either those are true, or God is a liar. The father is the one who executes the wrath upon the earth, not the Messiah..... Psalms 110:1 (NKJV) The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” Zephaniah 2:1-3 (NKJV) Gather yourselves together, yes, gather together, O undesirable nation, (literal: gentiles) 2 Before the decree is issued, Or the day passes like chaff, Before the Lord's fierce anger comes upon you, Before the day of the Lord's anger comes upon you! 3 Seek the Lord, all you meek of the earth, Who have upheld His justice. Seek righteousness, seek humility. It may be that you will be hidden In the day of the Lord's anger. Isaiah 26:19-21 (NKJV) Your dead shall live; Together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in dust; For your dew is like the dew of herbs, And the earth shall cast out the dead. Take Refuge from the Coming Judgment 20 Come, my people, enter your chambers, And shut your doors behind you; Hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment, Until the indignation is past. 21 For behold, the Lord comes out of His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; The earth will also disclose her blood, And will no more cover her slain. And meanwhile, when the righteous are hidden, Messiah cannot return until national Israel calls out to Him in their despair, in the Day of Trouble and Calamity, the time in which the Father is executing His wrath upon the earth: Hosea 5:15 - 6:1 (NKJV) I will return again to My place Till they acknowledge their offense. Then they will seek My face; In their affliction they will earnestly seek Me.” Chapter 6 1 Come, and let us return to the Lord; For He has torn, but He will heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up. Matthew 23:37-39 (NKJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

I mentioned Jeremiah as only a side note, that Daniel could have had Jeremiah in view, since Daniel said he had been reading Jeremiah early in Chapter 9. I didn't reference Jeremiah, Daniel did in his book. Daniel was reading Jeremiah in Chapter 9 and seeing that the years in Babylon were near an end. Considering that Chapter 9 also is the one that lays out the 70 weeks prophecy, it was merely an assumption on my part that Daniel probably had Jeremiah in view when he was given the 70 week prophecy. The passages I specifically referenced were the ones in Isaiah, Psalms, and Zephaniah. One thing that seems goofy to me, but then ask my wife, I am a goofy person.... for those that hold to a post trib position, but why would Jesus catch us up in the air when on His way down to the earth, if the catching up is when He returns to rule? Why not just show up and set things up and rule? Seems like a yo-yo rapture. And it really seems strange regarding a post-trib rapture. The church is the bride of Christ. So imagine it this way.... "I betroth you to be my bride. Then I am going to beat the snot out of you for many months and won't protect you from harm when the world is collapsing around you, then I will come for you and we will go have dinner." And then read Paul in 1 Thes 4:18 where he wrote, in context of last days events, "comfort one another with these words." Can you imagine how those outside the church would picture this and say "no thanks" to the Gospel? Good believers can differ and offer positions for pre or mid trib, pre-wrath, etc, and we can banter these concepts around. But post trib and amillenial really seems to fly in the face of who Jesus is and His character, as well as the totality of scripture. And if we really cut thru to the truth, many of these concepts of the church having to deal with this Great Tribulaiton / 70th week of Daniel / Day of the Lord / etc stems from our base human nature that we have to "earn" or "prove" ourselves worthy. That is the basis of just about every religion on the planet and totally against the plain message of the Gospel.