Could there be Multiple Raptures?

[FreeGrace]

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

This is just a statement of fact. There is no timing information given. If we add information from Revelation 20, we know that the resurrection of the just will be separated from the resurrection of the unjust by 1000 years. 

So?  What's the problem?  We KNOW when the FIRST resurrection will be from Rev 20:4-6, which also locates WHEN the second resurrection will occur.  That's the timing.  And there are 3 verses that "state the facts" about a singular resurrection of the saved and a singular of the unsaved.

The Holy Spirit never intended to lay out everything for spoon feeding.  One must study the Scriptures to see all the connections.  But they are there, in plain sight.

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

If we add Jesus' resurrection, we can add 2000 more years. His was the firstfruits of the resurrection of the just. Then around 2000 years later the church will be the secondfriuts, the thirdfruits, etc. Then around 7 years after that the OT saints will rise, along with the Two Witnesses and the martyrs from the Beast. In other words, you only imagine it is a singular resurrection where all the righteous will be resurrection at once. Other scriptures prove differently. 

No reason at all to "add the 2,000 years" from Jesus' resurrection.   Why do you think that is necessary or helpful?  Everyone knows when Jesus was resurrected.  And it has nothing to do with the end times timeline.

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Yes, when He comes NEXT, which will be His 1 Thes 4 coming, which will be before wrath, which will also be before the Week. (This is scripture rightly divided and correctly understood.) In 1 Cor. Paul was agreeing with what He wrote in 1 Thes. 4 & 5.  Jesus comes (but only to the air): calls up His church, they are gathered to Him in the clouds and in the air. From there, we need only to look at John 14 to find out where we go from the air. 

I reject all this "talk" about "the wrath".  I believe ALL of the judgments; seals, trumpets, and bowls, are about God's wrath.  Don't get all wrapped up in details that don't make any difference.  All of the Great Tribulation is from God's wrath.

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

It's all there in scripture. All we need to do is believe it. Paul wrote that the rapture would come before wrath. John wrote that wrath will start before the tribulation starts. 

Please show me the verse where Paul "wrote that the rapture would come before wrath".  I don't believe you.  Quote the verse or passage where that is made very clear.

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Are you going to attempt to MOVE the start of wrath to Revelation 19 that shows His coming to Armageddon?

What a silly idea!  I'm not attempting to move or do anything, other than point out the FACTS of the end times.

1.  one resurrection of believers and one resurrection of unbelievers.  Dan 12:2, John 5:29, Acts 24:15.

2. These two resurrections are 1,000 years apart.

3.  The resurrection of the saved will be "when He comes", which is the Second Advent.  1 Cor 15:23

4.  Rev 20:4-6 proves that the two resurrections are 1,000 years apart, and that the FIRST resurrection is for the saved, by the mention of tribulation martyrs.

Everything else is just detail that can be argued.  Until it all unfolds, we won't fully understand these details.  We just need to know the timeline, which I have outlined above.

[FreeGrace]

2 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

Not sure how to toss of 'of then that slept' and 'every man in his own order'.  

Please put your words in verses with citations so I can follow (hopefully) your point and see the context.  The first phrase isn't in the same verse as the second phrase.

That may explain why you remain confused.  You are trying to conflate verses that don't go together.

[DeighAnn]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What you don't have is any verse that describes Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven.  Which is exactly what you need to prove your theory.

WHAT VERSE SAYS THOSE BROUGHT BACK WITH JESUS ARE THEN RESURRECTED OUT FROM THE DEAD?  





RAISED UP IN A GLORIFIED BODY AT THE DEATH OF THE FLESH


IS WRITTEN RIGHT HERE  

42So also is the resurrection of the dead.

It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory:

it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.



Flesh dies, quickens bare grain, God gives a body, Follow HIM to be where He is RETURN.  

No body from the 'corruption' MAKES a glorified spiritual immortal body.  








 

[DeighAnn]

6 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Please put your words in verses with citations so I can follow (hopefully) your point and see the context.  The first phrase isn't in the same verse as the second phrase.

That may explain why you remain confused.  You are trying to conflate verses that don't go together.

 

12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
 

13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits


of them that slept.

 

[DeighAnn]

10 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Please put your words in verses with citations so I can follow (hopefully) your point and see the context.

lUKE 4
17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

MATT 27
51And, 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;

52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
 

Ephesians 4
But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

 

Not in the right order?  Missing a Chapter and verse?  Too hard to follow? 

What will be the excuse this time for

NOT PUTTING FORTH WHAT YOU BELIEVE THESE VERSES TO MEAN and/or showing where/how I am wrong

IN WHAT EVER CONTEXT YOU FIND THEIR MEANING,

I WONDER.

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

So?  What's the problem?  We KNOW when the FIRST resurrection will be from Rev 20:4-6, which also locates WHEN the second resurrection will occur.  That's the timing.  And there are 3 verses that "state the facts" about a singular resurrection of the saved and a singular of the unsaved.

You said there was a single resurrection for the just, and another for the unjust.

I would say, Revelation 20 agrees with you. There is written:

Latin Vulgate
20:5 ceteri mortuorum non vixerunt donec consummentur mille anni haec est resurrectio prima

You will notice that this is the PRIMARY resurrection.
(NOT first in sequence, but first in honor and importance.)

The Greek word is Protos. Strong's concordance tells us this:

1 first in time or place
...a  in any succession of things or persons
...b  first in rank

2  influence, honour
...a  chief
...b  principal

Here is a verse using this same Greek word.

Mat. 20:27  And whosoever will be chief (G4413) among you, let him be your servant:

So we have, for all eternity, only TWO resurrections by type : the primary or most honorable or chief of resurrections, the resurrection for all the righteous for all time.

Then we have the "second death" resurrection that is for all those who have rejected God for all time.

It goes without saying that Jesus' resurrection MUST be a part of one or the other. NO one would EVER classify Christ's resurrection with the second death resurrection. That leaves only one choice: Jesus was the firstfruits of this primary or mot honorable resurrection.

This alone proves this is not just a single moment in time when the righteous are resurrected at the end of time. Jesus took place in this most honorable resurrections as the FIRSTfruits.

When someone says "first" that means there will be a second, and that can mean a third and a fourth. In other words, Jesus was only the first of MANY to take part in this primary of the two resurrections. Therefore, if we believe Paul, there will be another wave when the dead in Christ rise up. WHEN? Of course, before the start of wrath.

In short, we should never form doctrine from isolated verses, but rather from EVERY verse on a given subject in the bible. When talking about resurrections, one should never exclude Paul's rapture passages.

[DeighAnn]

24 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

 And there are 3 verses that "state the facts" about a singular resurrection of the saved and a singular of the unsaved.

The Holy Spirit never intended to lay out everything for spoon feeding.  One must study the Scriptures to see all the connections.  But they are there, in plain sight.

3195 méllō – properly, at the very point of acting; ready, "about to happen." 3195 (méllō) is used "in general of what is sure to happen" (J. Thayer).
 

5037 té (a conjunction) – "and both" ("both and"). 5037 /té ("and both") occurs 204 times in the NT and unfortunately is often not translated.

[When translated, 5037 (té) is usually rendered "and," "both and," or "and both."]

Acts 24:15

 a hope having in God which also they themselves await,

a resurrection THERE IS ABOUT to be of just BOTH and unjust.  
 

HOW does one come to conclude that THERE IS ABOUT and BOTH

means 1000 years apart and separated from one another?  
 

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

No reason at all to "add the 2,000 years" from Jesus' resurrection.   Why do you think that is necessary or helpful?  Everyone knows when Jesus was resurrected.  And it has nothing to do with the end times timeline.

You said there were only TWO resurrections: one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous.

Which one then, will you place Jesus' resurrection in. His MUST fit on one or the other, else you must admit to more than two.

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

I reject all this "talk" about "the wrath".  I believe ALL of the judgments; seals, trumpets, and bowls, are about God's wrath.  Don't get all wrapped up in details that don't make any difference.  All of the Great Tribulation is from God's wrath.

Anyone can make the bible say most anything if they reject scriptures that oppose their point of view.

Why would you reject the talk about wrath when Paul included it in His famous rapture passage? Don't miss details that show a challenge to your point of view.

Please define what you mean by "great tribulation."

Jesus spoke of days of GT, then John wrote GT to the church of Thyatira. Then John said the great crowd seen in heaven in Rev. 7 came out of GT - at a time in His narrative before he (John) even started the 70th week. Why GT then are you referring to?

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Please show me the verse where Paul "wrote that the rapture would come before wrath".  I don't believe you.  Quote the verse or passage where that is made very clear.

What you are saying is, you don't believe Paul, because he disagrees with you. I find that very interesting. Paul included by the Day of the Lord and the wrath of God in his rapture passage, but you wish to ignore the wrath part.

As you said, the Holy Spirit does not spoon feed us. Paul never wrote "rapture before wrath" in those words. But we don't NEED it written out. Paul wrote of the Day of the Lord (Which is also the Day of His wrath [which is also the start of "wrath"]) only three verses after He wrote of the Lord descending. Why would Paul write that  - unless the DAY had something to do with the rapture? The answer is, he wouldn't.  

Then Paul mentioned sudden destruction coming upon those left behind. Then Paul wrote of God's wrath, hinting strongly that this sudden destruction would have something to do with God's wrath. It makes sense, if God is going to destroy people, He will do it with wrath.

Did you ever notice in Mat 27, he wrote, "the earth did quake...and the graves were opened...?  It would seem, from that verse, that when God resurrects people long dead, it will cause an earthquake. Did you notice also there will be an earthquake when God resurrects the Two Witnesses? Why would a resurrection cause an earthquake?

No one tells us why in the bible, but we can guess. Dead bodies turn to dust. The dust changes locations. Most especially those whose graves were in the ground in a wooden casket. Imagine graves of people before the flood. The dust of just one of their bodies could have scatted for thousands of miles in any direction. I believe in one moment of time, God will pull all that dust together that once made up those bodies, and that will cause an earthquake. 

I find an earthquake at the 6th seal, right where I believe the rapture of the church will take place. I find the world's worst earthquake "on the last day" at the 7th vial, where God will raise up the OT saints, even those from before the flood.

I believe Paul's "sudden destruction" will be the earthquake caused by God raising the dead in Christ. What Paul is teaching in chapter 5 is, a moment after the dead in Christ rise, two different groups of people with get two very different results. Those alive and in Christ will get salvation—they will be raptured and get to live together with Him.

But the other group, those NOT living in Christ, they get sudden destruction. So two groups of people with two very different results. All this is absolute proof Paul is still talking about the rapture.

God will NOT make reservations for US, His children with His wrath. But the flip side is, God WILL make reservations with His wrath for those NOT in Christ. While WE get raptured, THEY get wrath. 

It is very difficult to separate the rapture from God's wrath: the rapture will be the trigger for God's wrath.

Romans 5:9  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Again, salvation tied with wrath.

1 Thessalonians 1:10  And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

How are we to be delivered from wrath? By way of the rapture.