Yes salvation is explained quite well in John 3:16. But it's too commonly talked about like a finish line. It's just the beginning.

Some of us are going to become instruments of the Holy Spirit in the times ahead. The world is going to be needing strong spiritual leaders like no time before. But just for a time, times and half a time, if you know what I mean.

The issue really isn't the individual word. The false doctrine is placing rapture events wherever you feel like in the timeline. Jesus seems to want you to know important signs so that you understand the timeline and recognize his actual return.

Hmmm, I wonder why he thought we might need some strong hints.... Could it be because we didn't know the scripture well enough the first time he came to live with us?

I think we agree. I'm just applying that concern to doctrine that the devil seeds into the field. Some of it has taken root.

I think the times ahead will really test faith. And some of us boast a little in our faith. We say we're forgiven and yet we carry guilt. Jesus wasn't very impressed with anyone's faith except for a few who simply believed in Him.

Some think of the rapture as an escape from any test of their faith. I'm just cautioning people, hold fast to Jesus. Things are going to get bumpy.

Know them by their fruit.

I love the KJV and the NKJV. But I think you can still find certain items that can be debated about. For example I think the word Easter is used instead of Passover in one or both of them.

I lost count of first resurrections there. But I think Jesus was pretty simple and clear. Plus he explained the wheat and tares. So, I think we should be putting on the full armor of God and preparing to fully trust in God to comfort us and feed us and protect us while he deals with the beast.

Thank you. I honestly have never put much thought into it because I never saw it as any sort of inference about their relationship to each other.

It's just odd to me how it has been translated.

This is interesting insight. I just don't see how you get past the direct teachings from Jesus when telling his disciples about his second coming. He's very clear about the timeline. So yes Jesus will protect us through the fire according to His sovereign will, but ultimately our life here is already due a fleshly death. There's no point, no reason to spare this tiny fraction of humanity from some hard times. You may suffer and you may die in exactly the kind of world that God destroyed with a flood. Actually it's a worse world judging by how powerful the beast is described. I just think people are more likely to lose faith and turn to false gods (like the Israelites did in Exodus) if they were misinformed about a secret magical extraction which serves no actual purpose to the Kingdom.

I appreciate these and when I have time I will read through them. But I'm not seeking commentary or reaching speculations from people who have not addressed the plain and simple problems with the rapture being contrary to what Jesus plainly says.

I'm saying this before reading their statements. I just want you to understand my position is not that rapture is hard to see in scripture. My position is that scripture directly rejects this pre-trib rapture theory.

Well if you accept the rapture in the timeline as Jesus taught them we are in total agreement. But that means you also don't buy into the rapture doctrine which teaches people that before the fourth beast of Daniel's prophecy is forcing people to worship the Antichrist, they will be abducted to some other realm to watch from a comfortable distance.

Yes Jesus made sure we pay attention to Noah. The rapturists think the ones that are taken are being saved. But the verses where Jesus calls attention to the flood focus on the people who are swept away by the flood as being taken. And for more clarity in Luke, he says "Remember Lot's wife". This is in the same conversation (if we reference Matthew) where he says the whole bit about fleeing to the mountains, those in Judea. Or the man on the roof top who doesn't have time to go pack. He sounds like he's telling us we need to be ready to live in the wilderness and rely on Him totally. Lot's wife thought she could go back an grab her smart phone... Nope.

I called them zombies to my dad when I was a kid. I guess I stand by that. But they are not ascended to heaven and they aren't hanging around with uncorruptible bodies. We know nothing about them.

Pre-trib rapture doesn't work if you believe Jesus when he says "immediately after the tribulations". Or Paul "The dead in Christ shall rise first". I guess I get stuck on simple words like "first" and "after". Maybe I'm not ready for the real advanced stuff. (Heavy sarcasm)

We who are alive when Jesus returns will be changed, you could call it resurrected and "gathered into the barn" as the wheat. In other words we will be collected and enter the Kingdom. Right after the first resurrection.

I know you referred to a resurrection about 2000 years ago and yes one of the gospels mentioned people rising from graves when Jesus rose. But it does not say that they get new living bodies. I don't know much more about that but I'm not inclined to create doctrine from it.

After the 1000 years is the second resurrection. Those who were dead in Christ or alive at the time of his return will have no need for further resurrection.

Thanks. Interesting. I was just being kinda facetious. I know there are many innocent reason two men might be in the same bed.

Two men in the bed is in Luke as I said. Some translate it as two people. But I notice you didn't address the issues I pointed to. But since you bring up the churches in revelations, how do modern rapturists know they are not the ones who are told to persevere to the end? That they are the church of Philadelphia... Have they so faithfully kept the commandments? Really? It still doesn't say they are being taken away from the earth, just kept from the trials. Kinda like the woman in the wilderness.

I think it's Rev 20, 4-6. It calls the resurrection which includes people who refuse the beast in the "first resurrection". This is a problem for your theology.

Ah. Ok I'm familiar with this angle. Doesn't work. Who is Paul talking about rising first? Who is taking part in the first resurrection in Rev 20? That clearly includes people who are killed for refusing the mark of the beast.

Are you defending rapture doctrine? If so, can you address the issues that I raised? Tell me, does the rapture happen before the first resurrection?

I agree. But if Jesus made such an effort to warn about false prophets, maybe we should not get complacent during the rise of the beast.

I know I may sound crazy to some Christians but as I read the prophecy and study, it looks to me that we're about to head into the wilderness. And if we remember the recently, miraculously freed Israelites in the wilderness, they were losing their faith quickly when things got tough. Some chose to create idols. We should not be surprised if such things happen again from within the church. Let's face it, the church has adopted pegan rituals and false doctrines which will have to be forgotten before the Kingdom. (See Joel). Actually I think I should have said see Hosea. But both make references to the wilderness time before the Kingdom.

This has nothing to do my my intelligence. Your insecurity is showing though.

If you're too smart for the bible why are you responding to this post?

Jesus also carefully taught about the Wheat and the Tares. Rapturists totally ignore this parable. If anyone goes 'poof' first its the tares.

Recently I've been drawn to the prophets Daniel, Hosea and Joel and others plus Revelations and other scriptures. Meanwhile, this Zelenski character has been rising up. I won't go on too much here, but that fourth beast may be giving rise to a character personified by Zelenski who plays an important role in Revelations.

68? Hmmm you mean 17 × 4 ?

I will resume at some point but not until all of this covid nonsense is behind us.