Defense of the Pre Trib Rapture

[Uriah]

On 6/8/2019 at 7:46 AM, Diaste said:

Correct. The 1st resurrection is not a martyrs only resurrection. It is the dead in Christ and those who are alive an remain. So all of the dead in Jesus from the Ascension to moment of the resurrection are raised, and then the living in Christ are translated to be forever with the Lord, as it is written. (No need for GWT judgement for these people, though it may be they appear there as a formality. I don't know but either way the people in the 1st resurrection are ONLY those in Christ)

So then we have the dead not in Christ from the time of the Ascension to the end of the 1000 years, who were not raised at the time of our Lord's coming. Scripture only records the dead in Christ and the living, the elect, are raised or translated at His return. So when scripture says, "the rest of the dead lived not again till the 1000 years were finished" this has to be the dead not in Christ from the Ascension to the end of the Millennium.

 

That's true. But this only accounts for the dead in Christ, not the dead 'not in Christ'. Those not in Christ from whatever point in history long past are awaiting the 2nd resurrection which will resurrect all the dead apart from Christ from ages past to the end of the Millennium.

Now whether this means that the OT souls in Christ are awaiting resurrection or Paul meant that their perfection and ours are homogeneous is, I suppose, debatable. I rest on the latter.

I would say then this, "It clearly shows they CANNOT be raised without us." is not correct and Paul was speaking to a universal salvation and perfection applied equally to all. The Greek speaks to a holistic perfection excluding any separation of groups by time or revelation.

 

Hello Diaste

                  Thanks, bro. So we have differing conclusions on this. Here are some of the portions of scripture I relied upon:

Dan. 12:2- Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

John 5:28-29-  Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Rev.  11:18- And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Rev. 6:10-11- And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Also:

Jesus' teaching about the sheep and goats - all are gathered before Him

Jesus teaching about the net-all the fish are taken in, then sorted

Jesus teaching about wheat and tares- all are brought in, then separated

These things are at the "end of the age".

I am comfortable with this view.

As for Heb. 11:40- I think I got it accurately. Even the NIV says, "since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."

 

[Diaste]

On 6/9/2019 at 8:07 AM, Uriah said:

Hello Diaste

                  Thanks, bro. So we have differing conclusions on this. Here are some of the portions of scripture I relied upon:

Dan. 12:2- Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

John 5:28-29-  Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Rev.  11:18- And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Rev. 6:10-11- And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Also:

Jesus' teaching about the sheep and goats - all are gathered before Him

Jesus teaching about the net-all the fish are taken in, then sorted

Jesus teaching about wheat and tares- all are brought in, then separated

These things are at the "end of the age".

I am comfortable with this view.

As for Heb. 11:40- I think I got it accurately. Even the NIV says, "since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."

 

Just to get this right in my mind, if I understand, and maybe I do not; are you saying that everyone that is in the grave from when mankind was created is raised in the 1st resurrection? 

Is it reasonable to conclude that a prophecy such as, 

Dan. 12:2- Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

is required to occur at the same moment, or could "some to everlasting life" happen before, years before, "others to shame and everlasting contempt"? An idea which would hold true for all the evidence you quoted above.

This is a bit we cannot ignore;

Matt 27, "51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

Here we have people risen from sleep in the graves that would not be a part of the either the 1st or 2nd resurrection. I think this speaks more to the perfection, of which Paul notes, which is not apart form us, rather than the resurrection itself.

 

 

[Uriah]

28 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Just to get this right in my mind, if I understand, and maybe I do not; are you saying that everyone that is in the grave from when mankind was created is raised in the 1st resurrection? 

Is it reasonable to conclude that a prophecy such as, 

Dan. 12:2- Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

is required to occur at the same moment, or could "some to everlasting life" happen before, years before, "others to shame and everlasting contempt"? An idea which would hold true for all the evidence you quoted above.

This is a bit we cannot ignore;

Matt 27, "51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

Here we have people risen from sleep in the graves that would not be a part of the either the 1st or 2nd resurrection. I think this speaks more to the perfection, of which Paul notes, which is not apart form us, rather than the resurrection itself.

 

 

Hello Diaste

        Yes, to your first question. Rev. 20:4 undeniably declares, "THIS is the first resurrection."  The one that includes those mentioned as resisting the mark, etc. I cannot at all conclude that Daniel is relaying something that contradicts those things that Jesus taught. It would be wedging something in that goes against the rest of scripture.

        As for Matt. 27, nobody was resurrected from the dead in that passage. Once again, a translation deficiency gets in the way as in a few other crucial verses. So here, as in Rev 20, there should be parentheses. 

        Firstly, the veil was torn while Jesus was on the cross, due to the ground being shaken. The centurion could not look into the future and see the events that took place "after His resurrection". THAT is when the tombs were opened. It is also when there was another quake, splitting the rocks. Now the scripture says that, "bodies" arose. The word "arose is NOT the word for resurrection but indicates a change of body position. Let me pause to ask, is there any place in the entire bible where someone who was dead and then lived again is referred to as a body? No, either their name is used or, a boy, girl, or man etc. 

        So putting the parentheses where they belong, (because there were no punctuation used in the manuscripts) you will see that it was the cracks in the stones that went into the city and were seen by many. And the bodies were ejected form their tombs to more upright positions, making it very likely that Matthew was using a euphemism or other literary device, or simply  that WE automatically put it through OUR current form of communicating structures.

 

[Diaste]

37 minutes ago, Uriah said:

Hello Diaste

        Yes, to your first question. Rev. 20:4 undeniably declares, "THIS is the first resurrection."  The one that includes those mentioned as resisting the mark, etc. I cannot at all conclude that Daniel is relaying something that contradicts those things that Jesus taught. It would be wedging something in that goes against the rest of scripture.

There is no contradiction in the scenario I described. It's possible that the two events in Daniel's prophecy, the resurrection of everlasting life, and the resurrection of everlasting contempt, do not happen at the same time/space moment. They could, but if there was a separation of time, say 1000 years, the prophecy would not be invalid as long as both occurred. The prophecy would only be invalid if only one or neither occurred, not if one occurred before the other, or later than the other. It looks very much to me like Daniel's prophecy parallels Rev 20 in that in both there is a resurrection to life and a resurrection to death. If that is the case then Daniel's prophecy includes a separation of 1000 years.

Forgive me if you already answered this. I know I missed some things you have said, been out of town and since I've been back it been hectic, so I apologize if it looks like I'm beating a dead horse.

If the 1st resurrection includes all the dead in Christ from 1 Thess 4, Matt 24 and those from Rev 20, does it exclude any not in those groups?

If there is no mention of others not included in the above, what evidence tells us they are included?

If it does exclude those not mentioned (the dead 'not in Christ'), when are they resurrected?

What is the timing of Matt 25? After the 1000 years? Before?

37 minutes ago, Uriah said:

        As for Matt. 27, nobody was resurrected from the dead in that passage. 

Well, that's just not accurate, is it? 

37 minutes ago, Uriah said:

        Firstly, the veil was torn while Jesus was on the cross, due to the ground being shaken. The centurion could not look into the future and see the events that took place "after His resurrection". THAT is when the tombs were opened.

Yes, that's accurate

37 minutes ago, Uriah said:

     Now the scripture says that, "bodies" arose. The word "arose is NOT the word for resurrection but indicates a change of body position. 

But this is not. The verse. Matt 27:52, "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose," Now we may dispute the definition of a term if you like but the entire thought here is the dead saints rose after the grave were opened. The word 'arose' is defined as:

egeiró: to waken, to raise up
Definition: to waken, to raise up
Usage: (a) I wake, arouse, (b) I raise up."

So, if the word 'resurrection' is not used specifically, then no resurrection is possible? There would be no other way to describe the concept of 'being dead then coming back to life' unless it's called resurrection? 

 

37 minutes ago, Uriah said:

Let me pause to ask, is there any place in the entire bible where someone who was dead and then lived again is referred to as a body? No, either their name is used or, a boy, girl, or man etc. 

A few places. Paul refers to the resurrected as 'the dead in Christ', which we know is the 'the Body of Christ'.  Paul also refers to the resurrected as 'we who are alive and remain', again a part of the Body of Christ. But I see your point and I'm not convinced as the criteria for the fact of a resurrection isn't a noun, a proper noun or a pronoun.

37 minutes ago, Uriah said:

        So putting the parentheses where they belong, (because there were no punctuation used in the manuscripts) you will see that it was the cracks in the stones that went into the city and were seen by many. And the bodies were ejected form their tombs to more upright positions, making it very likely that Matthew was using a euphemism or other literary device, or simply  that WE automatically put it through OUR current form of communicating structures.

May be...but the antecedent to v 53 is the 'bodies of the saints which slept arose', therefore it's the bodies that went to the city and appeared to many, not cracks in rocks. It cannot be proven that 'cracks in rocks' went into the city. Further, because cracks in rocks did go into the city it does not follow that bodies would have popped out of the cracks anywhere but in the vicinity of the graves, which were outside the city. Unless of course the dead bodies walked, but then they would be alive, and we would have the dead come to life, the very concept of resurrection.

[Montana Marv]

These Jewish saints of Matthew 27 arose, then later died. They were not Resurrectioned. For Christ had not yet been Resurrected. He was the first fruit.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Uriah]

6 hours ago, Diaste said:

There is no contradiction in the scenario I described. It's possible that the two events in Daniel's prophecy, the resurrection of everlasting life, and the resurrection of everlasting contempt, do not happen at the same time/space moment. They could, but if there was a separation of time, say 1000 years, the prophecy would not be invalid as long as both occurred. The prophecy would only be invalid if only one or neither occurred, not if one occurred before the other, or later than the other. It looks very much to me like Daniel's prophecy parallels Rev 20 in that in both there is a resurrection to life and a resurrection to death. If that is the case then Daniel's prophecy includes a separation of 1000 years.

Forgive me if you already answered this. I know I missed some things you have said, been out of town and since I've been back it been hectic, so I apologize if it looks like I'm beating a dead horse.

If the 1st resurrection includes all the dead in Christ from 1 Thess 4, Matt 24 and those from Rev 20, does it exclude any not in those groups?

If there is no mention of others not included in the above, what evidence tells us they are included?

If it does exclude those not mentioned (the dead 'not in Christ'), when are they resurrected?

What is the timing of Matt 25? After the 1000 years? Before?

Well, that's just not accurate, is it? 

Yes, that's accurate

But this is not. The verse. Matt 27:52, "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose," Now we may dispute the definition of a term if you like but the entire thought here is the dead saints rose after the grave were opened. The word 'arose' is defined as:

egeiró: to waken, to raise up
Definition: to waken, to raise up
Usage: (a) I wake, arouse, (b) I raise up."

So, if the word 'resurrection' is not used specifically, then no resurrection is possible? There would be no other way to describe the concept of 'being dead then coming back to life' unless it's called resurrection? 

 

A few places. Paul refers to the resurrected as 'the dead in Christ', which we know is the 'the Body of Christ'.  Paul also refers to the resurrected as 'we who are alive and remain', again a part of the Body of Christ. But I see your point and I'm not convinced as the criteria for the fact of a resurrection isn't a noun, a proper noun or a pronoun.

May be...but the antecedent to v 53 is the 'bodies of the saints which slept arose', therefore it's the bodies that went to the city and appeared to many, not cracks in rocks. It cannot be proven that 'cracks in rocks' went into the city. Further, because cracks in rocks did go into the city it does not follow that bodies would have popped out of the cracks anywhere but in the vicinity of the graves, which were outside the city. Unless of course the dead bodies walked, but then they would be alive, and we would have the dead come to life, the very concept of resurrection.

Hi Diaste,

The evidence you ask for is in the previous info I provided (you left it out) about Jesus teaching on the sheep and goats, the fish in the net, and the wheat and tares. So the point you make is really an argument from silence. Such a tool is to be used sparingly and with caution. We don't want to rely on what something doesn't say to prove what it does say. But with Jesus' teachings clearing it up it is no longer an isolated concept. So it would perhaps for me to us an argument from silence in a sense too. One that scholars and theologians have asked. Where is support for this translation? No place in scripture or outside of it is there any reference of this event! One would think such a historic occurrence would be would be well documented. That is, unless it didn't happen and these things have been mis-read for a long time, being repeated by translators who will duplicate the work of others who so far as to find a corresponding word in Greek to use. Not seeming to care for the consequences of creating a broadside collision of biblical teachings.  

I am sure that could be said about my position on Matt 27. However there comes a point when we need to go beyond the first steps of translating a word or providing a definition as important as that is. For example the usage. This  can be seen in your reference to Paul regarding to the Body of Christ. It is actually plain to see in its context he means a collective sense of a group.

And yes, I see Matt. 25 as before the 1,000 yrs. As I have said earlier, there should be parentheses in Rev. 20 making John's digression clearer.

Matthew glaringly uses picturesque methodology in this same chapter saying that thieves "cast the same in His teeth". Also the definition above is partial. It can be used for a simple change of body position, like to become upright. Which is what would when bodies are shaken out of their tombs. Making it a second time in a few sentences that Matthew is employing some colorful emphasis.

Then if you DO add the parentheses, which I have no doubt you will see the digression involved, to the place that is now in the middle of a sentence, you can see my point and the controversy of distorted doctrines goes away.

 

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; ( and many bodies which slept arose And came out of the graves after his resurrection) , and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 

Logically you must refer to what is stated before the parentheses to explain what it is being said after the parentheses because the "after the resurrection" content is a digression to a different time period.

 

 

 

[OldCoot]

I just happened upon another little nugget that was recently presented by a Messianic Believer. I had seen part of it, but not the entirety until he laid this out.

In Daniel 8:23-26, it is clearly speaking of the final world ruler which we would call the antichrist.

What is sometimes overlooked is when this guy actually comes on the scene.  In Daniel 8:19....

Daniel 8:19 (NASB) He said, “Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end.

The Hebrew for indignation is za'am which also is the word for wrath.  So at the final period of the wrath is when this character is revealed.  So the wrath has to begin before he is revealed.  That would suggest that the wrath actually starts at seal one in Revelation since Yeshua is the one opening the seals and getting the ball rolling.

Now... let's take a look at Isaiah....

Isaiah 26:20-21 (NASB) Come, my people, enter into your rooms
And close your doors behind you;
Hide for a little while
Until indignation runs its course.
21 For behold, the Lord is about to come out from His place
To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity;
And the earth will reveal her bloodshed
And will no longer cover her slain.

The Hebrew word za'am is also used here for indignation.  The wrath is is view. 

So it lends support that the redeemed are gathered to their rooms (See John 14) prior to the wrath beginning, and the wrath is well under way before the antichrist is revealed since he doesn't show up till later in the wrath per Gabriel to Daniel.  And it lends support to the idea that the antichrist really doesn't become the main focus until the final 3.5 years of that period after he nullifies the covenant and the abomination of desolation of the temple occurs.

Sure smacks of pre-trib to me.

Edited June 22, 2019 by OldCoot
spelling. Stupid spell checker!

[OldCoot]

On 6/15/2019 at 11:55 AM, Montana Marv said:

These Jewish saints of Matthew 27 arose, then later died. They were not Resurrectioned. For Christ had not yet been Resurrected. He was the first fruit.

In Christ

Montana Marv

That is a position held by many, but there is no scripture support of it.  I concede that there is not detailed scripture "proof" that they were taken to the Father, but there is circumstantial evidence of it when we see how Yeshua, our High Priest, told Mary to not touch Him since He had not yet ascended to the Father and had to remain ceremonially pure to present the first fruits in accordance with Leviticus 23, then there is more support for them being taken to the Father than there is that they died again.  And the day of this event is the Day of First Fruits in the biblical calendar.  

And if you read the text closely, they arose AFTER Yeshua arose.

Matthew 27:53 (NASB) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Nowhere in scripture does it say they continued to hang out and party with those in Jerusalem and then took another dirt nap.  

Edited June 22, 2019 by OldCoot

[Uriah]

10 hours ago, OldCoot said:

I just happened upon another little nugget that was recently presented by a Messianic Believer. I had seen part of it, but not the entirety until he laid this out.

In Daniel 8:23-26, it is clearly speaking of the final world ruler which we would call the antichrist.

What is sometimes overlooked is when this guy actually comes on the scene.  In Daniel 8:19....

Daniel 8:19 (NASB) He said, “Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end.

The Hebrew for indignation is za'am which also is the word for wrath.  So at the final period of the wrath is when this character is revealed.  So the wrath has to begin before he is revealed.  That would suggest that the wrath actually starts at seal one in Revelation since Yeshua is the one opening the seals and getting the ball rolling.

Now... let's take a look at Isaiah....

Isaiah 26:20-21 (NASB) Come, my people, enter into your rooms
And close your doors behind you;
Hide for a little while
Until indignation runs its course.
21 For behold, the Lord is about to come out from His place
To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity;
And the earth will reveal her bloodshed
And will no longer cover her slain.

The Hebrew word za'am is also used here for indignation.  The wrath is is view. 

So it lends support that the redeemed are gathered to their rooms (See John 14) prior to the wrath beginning, and the wrath is well under way before the antichrist is revealed since he doesn't show up till later in the wrath per Gabriel to Daniel.  And it lends support to the idea that the antichrist really doesn't become the main focus until the final 3.5 years of that period after he nullifies the covenant and the abomination of desolation of the temple occurs.

Sure smacks of pre-trib to me.

Hello, OldCoot

There is support for ongoing wrath in Rev. 17:1- (NLT) Then I saw in heaven another marvelous event of great significance. Seven angels were holding the seven last plagues, which would bring God’s wrath to completion.

As for the reference to indignation in Isaiah, it is not disconnected from the next chapter (2 verses away) where it says, "In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea"

In fact if you look to the end of that chapter, you will also see, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem..

So in Isaiah we have dead men living again, the serpent being punished and the trumpet blown. An absolute bulls-eye for the post trib scenario.

[OldCoot]

26 minutes ago, Uriah said:

An absolute bulls-eye for the post trib scenario.

I see it as an absolute bulls-eye for the pre-trib position.  Those righteous dead and living in Isaiah 26 are hidden prior to the indignation or wrath.  Daniel 8 says that the man of sin / antichrist / lawless one is not revealed until the final period of the indignation or wrath.  So I see a pre not post trib removal.

There are a number of other issues I have with post trib also that do not fit much of the scripture.  About the only one of these positions that I can even entertain to some degree is mid trib.  Everything else doesn't measure up.

If the righteous are changed and removed at the end of the tribulation period, then who is left that is righteous to enter into the kingdom and repopulate the earth under Messiah?  And the scripture does say, in both OT and NT, that there will be sin, death, etc even in the kingdom.  So much so that when Satan is released at the end of the 1000 years, he is able to foment a  world rebellion against Messiah one last time.   Messiah will have to rule with a rod of iron which implies some will get out of line and have to be dealt with.  What then, do the righteous even after being changed and raptured go on sinning and rebelling against Yeshua?  On these things the post trib position fails miserably.

Edited June 22, 2019 by OldCoot