The dead in Christ. Per Pretrib, who all are they meaning?

[Douggg]

Ultimately, I think the East will not appreciate European dominance in the Middle East and in the world. The result will be WW3. All of this is pure speculation. My views could change tomorrow! ;)

The Muslims are going to be in a state of shock and disbelief following Gog/Magog, with their armies supernaturally destroyed. I don't see much resistance from them following Gog/Magog.

I think most people envision the Antichrist a Hitler type, rising up in similar fashion to overthrow the current political regime from where-ever he emerges. But I don't think it is going to happen like that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Muslims are going to be in a state of shock and disbelief following Gog/Magog, with their armies supernaturally destroyed. I don't see much resistance from them following Gog/Magog.

I think most people envision the Antichrist a Hitler type, rising up in similar fashion to overthrow the current political regime from where-ever he emerges. But I don't think it is going to happen like that.

I actually do. I think Hitler was God's way of establishing a precedent for the coming of Antichrist. Out of Europe was to come the Antichrist. Europe = Rome. Rome was the 4th Beast from which the Little Horn would emerge. He would come to dominate 10 nations, and overpower 3 of the leaders of those nations to take complete control.

I think 5 of the nations will come from Eastern Europe and 5 from Western Europe. This is because in Nebuchadnezzar's Dream (Dan 2), the legs represented the 4th Kingdom, and the feet represented the final stage of this Kingdom. There were, of course, 5 toes on each foot. That is, Eastern Europe will have 5 nations, and Western Europe will have 5 nations in this confederation under Antichrist.

Europe developed towards the north from Latin and Greek origins. That's why, I think, the great dictators have emerged in equivalent regions north of their origins. In the West, France developed before Germany. And so, we had Napoleon before Hitler. In the East, Russia inherited rule for its "czars," meaning "caesars." And ultimately, Stalin emerged, and now Putin.

I personally think the Antichrist will emerge out of the West, but he could emerge out of Russia, as far as I know. The old Eastern power of Rome developed after the Western branch. This could be "Gog."

The role Muslims play in all this has been to oppose the Christian tradition within European Civilization. But under Antichrist European Civilization will abandon Christianity entirely, and may oppose Islam, as well. This would create havoc in the Middle East and in Africa, and could bring Asia into the conflict, since it has its own brand of atheism, as well as Islamic minorities.

Again, we are just engaging in personal speculation, which is okay by me. We just have to be willing to recognize what God is doing as history unfolds. And we have to make sure we stick to the Christian side of things, regardless of popular sentiment.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Douggg]

Again, we are just engaging in personal speculation, which is okay by me.

I think it is good to have a friendly exchange even though we have some different thoughts on how things will turn out.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

John 5:28 appears to me to be talking about the resurrection for the Great White Throne Judgement.

The rapture/resurrection event is specific for Christians, before the great tribulation begins.

The Revelation 20:4-6 resurrection is for the great tribulation martyrs who become Christians after the great tribulation begins.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Jesus said an hour or time is coming when ALL who are in the graves will be resurrected. Your doctrine says that not all will be resurrected at that time, but rather some will be resurrected one time, others will be resurrected another time and others will be resurrected yet another time. So, your belief clearly does not line up with what Jesus taught. Jesus taught that there will be one mass resurrection event, not three.

And, coming back to Daniel 12:2, that resurrection event will occur AFTER the great tribulation. And Daniel, like Jesus, did not teach that there would be multiple mass resurrections.

Paul only taught about the resurrection of believers and didn't talk about the resurrection of unbelievers like Daniel and Jesus did, but, like them, he taught that all of the dead in Christ would be resurrected at the same time.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Paul did not teach that anyone, besides Christ Himself, would be resurrected at any other time except when Jesus comes again. Scripture passages like John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:2 and 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 are very straightforward. We should base our doctrine on these straightforward passages and interpret more difficult passages like Revelation 20 accordingly so that we don't create contradictions in scripture.

 

[Zao is life]

No, not presently bodily in heaven.


No, they do not possess a glorified immortal body yet. Their bodies will be redeemed from the earth at the rapture/resurrection event.

The "last" trumpet does not mean the last trumpet as being that of the 7th angel third woe judgment sounding. Revelation had not yet been given for Paul's statement.

Trumpets were made at the beginning of the children of Israel's journey through the wilderness in the Exodus, to perform different functions that everyone in the camps could hear. Those functions were explained to each group of the twelve tribes, so that they would know what to do according to the way the trumpets were blown.

One of the functions of the trumpets was to prepare the groups to move to the next camp site, in a orderly fashion. Once the last trumpet was sounded, they all moved forward as a group, to go to the next camp site.

That is what the last trumpet is referring to in similitude. i.e. the heavenly sounding of a group of trumpets there in heaven. At which signaling, at the sound of the last trump of those trumpets, Jesus comes from heaven, with the souls of the dead in Christ, to redeem their bodies asleep in the dust of the earth to everlasting eternal bodies, reuniting with their souls with the glorified eternal life bodies redeemed from the dust of the earth -when the rapture/resurrection event takes place..

Jesus said something about what follows "tribulation".

In the New Testament the words tribulation / affliction are found in a verse or passage that is speaking about the tribulation of the saints at the hand of the unbelieving authorities and peoples of this world every single time the word appears, except where Paul states that God will repay the world with tribulation for the tribulation the world brought upon the saints, and where he states that there will be tribulation and anguish upon every person who does evil - of the Jew and also of the Gentile.

Jesus told His disciples that the gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations, and at that time the end shall come. He also told them that at that time (the time of the end) "they" will deliver His disciples up to tribulation and will kill them, and that His disciples will be hated of all nations for His name's sake.

Jesus also said that immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sign of the Son of man shall appear in the heavens. And then all the tribes of the earth shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

.. For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall ever be with the Lord.

Since with the exception of the two statements of Paul already mentioned, the words tribulation / affliction etc are always referring to the experience of the saints at the hand of unbelievers in the New Testament, only (a) ignorance of the scriptures due to a lack of even reading the Bible; or (b) willful ignorance, can produce a "pre-tribulation" rapture of the saints, IMO.

.. but most of the church seems to have the coming wrath of God conflated with the words "great tribulation" or "the tribulation" (even though nowhere in Revelation 16 are the bowls of wrath called "tribulation", and nowhere else in the New Testament is the wrath of God called "tribulation" except where Paul states that God will repay the world with tribulation for the tribulation it had brought upon the saints).

When the disciples asked Jesus when the Jerusalem temple would be destroyed, and what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the age, the first thing He began speaking to them about was the tribulation that the living stones of the New Testament temple were going to endure.

The tribulation of the saints at the hand of the authorities and peoples of this world culminating in their tribulation at the hand of the beast was so obviously at the forefront of the Lord's mind, as evidenced by His reply to the saints on the Mount of Olives, and in His Revelation.

IMO the conflating of tribulation with the wrath of God (Pre-tribulationism) is one of those horrible doctrines that keeps a great part of the church completely blind as to what Jesus was actually warning the churches about in the Revelation, and in the Olivet Discourse. Therefore among the very last groups of people qualified to comment on the Revelation or any part of eschatology are Pre-tribulationists. Preterists and Partial Preterists being another two prominent groups that are unqualified to comment on eschatology.​

 

[Zao is life]

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Regardless when one thinks the rapture occurs, no one disputes that the dead in Christ rise first. It is then a matter of who all the dead in Christ involve. Obviously, it involves dead saints awaiting a bodily resurrection unto immortality.


But who do Pretribbers assume is part of the dead in Christ that rise first? Only some saints, thus not all saints? Or all saints? For example, Adam. Obviously he is dead, and obviously, unlike Cain for example, Adam is a saint. Does that make him of the dead in Christ, or does that make him something else? If the latter, what is it that it makes him? If he is in heaven with Stephen, for example, keeping in mind that Stephen lived after Christ was born, Adam didn't, does that then mean the following?

even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

But not Adam, though? He gets left behind since he lived and died before Jesus was born, therefore, he is not among those which sleep in Jesus? Only someone that lives and dies after Christ was born can sleep in Jesus? No one born before Jesus was, including Noah, Abraham, etc, can be among those that sleep in Jesus? Therefore, when the dead in Christ rise first, OT saints, such as Adam, Noah, etc, get left behind in heaven rather than being among the dead in Christ that rise first?

I simply want to know, per their view of things, who the dead in Christ include, the fact Pretrib has them rising before great tribulation rather than after. For one thing, it seems rather silly that if Adam is currently in heaven with Stephen, for example, that when the dead in Christ rise first, which involves this---them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him, that Adam gets left behind in heaven rather than being among those that God will bring with Him. Which begs another question. Bring with Him to go to where? Back to heaven where they just were moments earlier? That's messed up if it means that. It couldn't possibly mean that.

I have more to add but not wanting to do that just yet.

I don't know whether it's because I'm slow or not but I'm struggling to follow your reasoning here because I don't see how Moses and all Old Testament believers in the Word of God rising from the dead on the Day of the Resurrection of all saints can have anything to do with whether or not Pretrib is valid or invalid. The Old Testament saints will not be on the earth so the timing of their resurrection has nothing to do with whether or not some who are on the earth will be taken to heaven bodily before the tribulation.

I think it's probably because I'm just slow and maybe even slower this morning than on other days.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't know whether it's because I'm slow or not but I'm struggling to follow your reasoning here because I don't see how Moses and all Old Testament believers in the Word of God rising from the dead on the Day of the Resurrection of all saints can have anything to do with whether or not Pretrib is valid or invalid. The Old Testament saints will not be on the earth so the timing of their resurrection has nothing to do with whether or not some who are on the earth will be taken to heaven bodily before the tribulation.

I think it's probably because I'm just slow and maybe even slower this morning than on other days.

He explained this in post #20 and I expanded on what he said in post #21. Here is what I said in post #21:

"Doug believes the OT saints, which includes Daniel, are included among the dead in Christ and will all be resurrected when Jesus comes (supposedly) before the great tribulation. Yet, Daniel 12:1-2 and Daniel 12:13 indicate that Daniel's people will be delivered and the dead will be resurrected after the great tribulation is over. Obviously, this would include Daniel himself as well as his fellow OT saints. So, that is a clear contradiction. Doug's interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 does not line up with what is indicated in Daniel 12:1-2."

So, both 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 and Daniel 12:2 refer to the bodily resurrection of believers. Agree? Is there any reason to think they are speaking of different events? I don't believe so. So, if they are speaking of the same event, the mass bodily resurrection of believers, then we should see that Daniel 12:1-2 indicates that this will occur AFTER the tribulation and not before.

Daniel 12:1 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Assuming that Daniel 12:1 is talking about the great tribulation that pre-tribbers say will happen after 1 Thess 4:14-17 is fulfilled, then Daniel 12:1-2 contradicts the pre-trib belief since that passage has the resurrection of the dead in Christ occurring AFTER the great tribulation.

Does the argument that is being made in this thread make sense to you now? So far, I am not seeing that Doug or anyone else who believes 1 Thess 4:14-17 will occur before the great tribulation has done anything to show how they can reconcile their view with what is written in Daniel 12:1-2.

 

[Davidpt]

I don't know whether it's because I'm slow or not but I'm struggling to follow your reasoning here because I don't see how Moses and all Old Testament believers in the Word of God rising from the dead on the Day of the Resurrection of all saints can have anything to do with whether or not Pretrib is valid or invalid. The Old Testament saints will not be on the earth so the timing of their resurrection has nothing to do with whether or not some who are on the earth will be taken to heaven bodily before the tribulation.

I think it's probably because I'm just slow and maybe even slower this morning than on other days.

Post # 20 is where I basically prove my point since Daniel 12:13 tells us exactly when OT saints initially rise from the dead.

Daniel 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days


Per Pretrib, the fact they have the rapture prior to the beginning of great tribulation, and that a rapture can't occur unless the dead in Christ rise first, and that if the dead in Christ include OT saints, when does Daniel 12:13 indicate Daniel, an OT saint, rises? It tells us right here---when the end be. Obviously, the end being at the end of the days.

The end of the days, even per Pretrib can't possibly be meaning prior to great tribulation. How can the end of the days be prior to great tribulation, when it is these same days involving great tribulation that need to be ended before Daniel can rise?

For the life of me I don't know how you ended up getting yourself convinced A4E is in the text in Daniel 12, when it is plainly obviously that the days that need to end before Daniel can rise can only be meaning the following.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

These are the days that have to pass first, which then equals when the end be at the end of the days.

IOW, before the end be, the end meaning at the end of the following days---there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days---Daniel continues to rest in the meantime, therefore, can not rise until 1335 days are fulfilled which begin with this---from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up--and involve 1290 days. It is impossible to reach 1335 days without it involving 1290 days first, though.

This is where we should be using Matthew 24 to help us interpret Daniel 12:11-12. Clearly, Jesus projected the AOD into the future. Even though 70 AD would be the future per that scenario, that's not the time period Jesus had in mind. WE can know this from Daniel 12 alone, because at the end of these days involving the AOD, that is when Daniel rises from the dead. Clearly, if we place the time of the AOD in the past involving 70 AD, at the end of those days Daniel 12:13 was not fulfilled. Therefore, it is not remotely reasonable that the AOD per Matthew 24 can involve 70 AD since it contradicts what is recorded in Daniel 12:11-13.

Your A4E view of Daniel 12:11-12 is not rendering the text sensical, because per verse 13 the end of the days meant can only be meaning the ones involving verses 11 and 12 in this particular context. Except you don't have those days involving the AOD Jesus projected into the final days of this age in Matthew 24, you instead have those days involving the time of A4E. Therefore, nothing in Daniel 12 explaining what end of what days per verse 13 are being meant? It's plainly obvious to some of us, and it's too bad that doesn't include you, that it has to be the days pertaining to verse 11 and 12.

Does not the AOD in Matthew 24 involve great tribulation? Is it not sometime after great tribulation that the dead in Christ rise first followed by a rapture of the living? Why wouldn't what's recorded in Daniel 12 be the exact same timeline of events recorded in Matthew 24? But how can it be if some of you are insisting that verse 11 and 12 has zero to do with the AOD Jesus projected into the final days of this age, but is involving the days of A4E instead?

Has it ever dawned on you, especially how you interpret Matthew 24:15, that that is not to be understood in a literal sense involving a literal temple involving animal sacrificing taking place in it, that neither is Daniel 12:11 to be understood in a literal sense, since it is involving the very same AOD Matthew 24:15-21 is involving?

Trust me, I get your point about types and anti-types, except none of that is relevant in Daniel 12 since the days that need to end before Daniel can rise have to be meaning the days involving verse 11 and 12. It is then day 1335 being when the end of these days have arrived, thus Daniel then rises from the dead.

In the book of Revelation great tribulation appears to be involving 1260 days, thus the 42 month reign of the beast, yet Daniel 12:11 speaks of 1290 days then verse 12 speaks of of a 1335th day. If we use Matthew 24 here, maybe 1260 days of that are involving the time period pertaining to verses 15-26, and the remaining 75 days are pertaining to Matthew 24:29, with the 1335th day meaning Matthew 24:30-31.

IMO, having Daniel 12:11-12 involving the time of A4E is not interpreting Scripture with Scripture in this particular case. Having Daniel 12:11-12 involving the same time period Jesus is pertaining to in Matthew 24:15-31 is interpreting Scripture with Scripture in this particular case. And that Daniel 12:13 proves that the AOD cannot be involving the days of A4E nor 70 AD, because clearly, verse 13 was not fulfilled at the end of those days. Neither of those scenarios are meaning when the end be.

 

[Zao is life]

The ones in Revelation 6:9-11 are the future great tribulation martyred saints.

Daniel was not slain. And also lived 2500 years ago.

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 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?

11 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.

Pointing out that Daniel was not slain is a valid point because the text is talking about those who were slain for the word of God and the testimony which they held.

It's not a valid point however to say that it refers only to those slain during the tribulation (which refers to the tribulation of the saints) during the final 3.5 years of the age - because the text does not say that, or imply that.

You've inserted that into the text to make the text comply with what you are saying - an illegitimate way of dealing with scripture.​

 

[Zao is life]

Does the argument that is being made in this thread make sense to you now? So far, I am not seeing that Doug or anyone else who believes 1 Thess 4:14-17 will occur before the great tribulation has done anything to show how they can reconcile their view with what is written in Daniel 12:1-2.

Not really because the text of Daniel 12:1 is ambiguous enough to leave it open to interpret it as the saints will be delivered FROM the tribulation being mentioned, rather than AFTER:

"At that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."

Firstly I believe that the period that the Jews faced during the time of Antiochus IV was a time of trouble, such as had never been since there was a nation even to that same time, and I believe that what Daniel was being told was talking about that time but is also deliberately meant to project forward to the time of the end of the age and the resurrection from the dead / return of Christ.

Secondly I believe that Daniel is being promised that he will have part in the resurrection that will take place at the end of the days.

Thirdly I believe that what Jesus said in Matthew 24:21 is MEANT to make the reader think about what was said in Daniel 12:1 and to 'remember' what happened to the Jews under Antiochus IV, and the apostasy and lawlessness of the Jews that took place at that time, but what is said in Matthew 24:21 is about the end of the age before the return of Christ.

- and what Jesus said in Matthew 24:22 tells us everything we need to know about whether the resurrection will take place before or after what is written in Matthew 24:21.

But to show honesty and fairness and consistency in the way we handle the scriptures, we need to admit that Daniel 12:1 is ambiguous enough to leave it open to interpret it either as the saints will be delivered FROM the tribulation being mentioned, rather than AFTER, or to interpret it as the saints will be delivered AFTER the tribulation being spoken of.

Daniel 12:13 is also ambiguous enough to argue either way, IMO.

So I don't see the fairness of using these arguments against Pre-trib beliefs.

Matthew 24:22, on the other hand, makes it clear for those (like myself) who interpret Mat.24:21-22 as referring to the same end-of-the-age tribulation mentioned in Daniel 12:1, that the saints will be in the world until the very end of the days, and this would cause the same interpretation to be made with respect to Daniel 12:13 and Daniel 12:1.

But using Daniel alone like that does not suffice for an argument against Pretrib - because Daniel 12:1 and Daniel 12:13 on its own is too ambiguously put to force such an interpretation, IMO.​

 

[Douggg]

It's not a valid point however to say that it refers only to those slain during the tribulation (which refers to the tribulation of the saints) during the final 3.5 years of the age - because the text does not say that, or imply that.

It does when considering the 7 seals as a complete group.

The seals begin with the rider on the white horse given a crown. He is riding a white horse because he is a messianic figure. Given a crown because he had just been anointed the King of Israel. And initiates the 7 years. He is the Antichrist.

The four horsemen (of the first four seals) ride as the sequence of events of the 7 years advance.

The fifth seal are martyred saints during the great tribulation.

 

[Zao is life]

Post # 20 is where I basically prove my point since Daniel 12:13 tells us exactly when OT saints initially rise from the dead.

Daniel 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days


Per Pretrib, the fact they have the rapture prior to the beginning of great tribulation, and that a rapture can't occur unless the dead in Christ rise first, and that if the dead in Christ include OT saints, when does Daniel 12:13 indicate Daniel, an OT saint, rises? It tells us right here---when the end be. Obviously, the end being at the end of the days.

The end of the days, even per Pretrib can't possibly be meaning prior to great tribulation. How can the end of the days be prior to great tribulation, when it is these same days involving great tribulation that need to be ended before Daniel can rise?

For the life of me I don't know how you ended up getting yourself convinced A4E is in the text in Daniel 12, when it is plainly obviously that the days that need to end before Daniel can rise can only be meaning the following.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

These are the days that have to pass first, which then equals when the end be at the end of the days.

IOW, before the end be, the end meaning at the end of the following days---there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days---Daniel continues to rest in the meantime, therefore, can not rise until 1335 days are fulfilled which begin with this---from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up--and involve 1290 days. It is impossible to reach 1335 days without it involving 1290 days first, though.

This is where we should be using Matthew 24 to help us interpret Daniel 12:11-12. Clearly, Jesus projected the AOD into the future. Even though 70 AD would be the future per that scenario, that's not the time period Jesus had in mind. WE can know this from Daniel 12 alone, because at the end of these days involving the AOD, that is when Daniel rises from the dead. Clearly, if we place the time of the AOD in the past involving 70 AD, at the end of those days Daniel 12:13 was not fulfilled. Therefore, it is not remotely reasonable that the AOD per Matthew 24 can involve 70 AD since it contradicts what is recorded in Daniel 12:11-13.

Your A4E view of Daniel 12:11-12 is not rendering the text sensical, because per verse 13 the end of the days meant can only be meaning the ones involving verses 11 and 12 in this particular context. Except you don't have those days involving the AOD Jesus projected into the final days of this age in Matthew 24, you instead have those days involving the time of A4E. Therefore, nothing in Daniel 12 explaining what end of what days per verse 13 are being meant? It's plainly obvious to some of us, and it's too bad that doesn't include you, that it has to be the days pertaining to verse 11 and 12.

Does not the AOD in Matthew 24 involve great tribulation? Is it not sometime after great tribulation that the dead in Christ rise first followed by a rapture of the living? Why wouldn't what's recorded in Daniel 12 be the exact same timeline of events recorded in Matthew 24? But how can it be if some of you are insisting that verse 11 and 12 has zero to do with the AOD Jesus projected into the final days of this age, but is involving the days of A4E instead?

Has it ever dawned on you, especially how you interpret Matthew 24:15, that that is not to be understood in a literal sense involving a literal temple involving animal sacrificing taking place in it, that neither is Daniel 12:11 to be understood in a literal sense, since it is involving the very same AOD Matthew 24:15-21 is involving?

Trust me, I get your point about types and anti-types, except none of that is relevant in Daniel 12 since the days that need to end before Daniel can rise have to be meaning the days involving verse 11 and 12. It is then day 1335 being when the end of these days have arrived, thus Daniel then rises from the dead.

In the book of Revelation great tribulation appears to be involving 1260 days, thus the 42 month reign of the beast, yet Daniel 12:11 speaks of 1290 days then verse 12 speaks of of a 1335th day. If we use Matthew 24 here, maybe 1260 days of that are involving the time period pertaining to verses 15-26, and the remaining 75 days are pertaining to Matthew 24:29, with the 1335th day meaning Matthew 24:30-31.

IMO, having Daniel 12:11-12 involving the time of A4E is not interpreting Scripture with Scripture in this particular case. Having Daniel 12:11-12 involving the same time period Jesus is pertaining to in Matthew 24:15-31 is interpreting Scripture with Scripture in this particular case. And that Daniel 12:13 proves that the AOD cannot be involving the days of A4E nor 70 AD, because clearly, verse 13 was not fulfilled at the end of those days. Neither of those scenarios are meaning when the end be.

I don't believe that the 1,290 days and 1,335 days are referring to anything except what already took place during the days of Antiochus IV's defilement of the temple and there is no daily sacrifice to be taken away at the close of this age and return of Christ.

Even if there was, that would mean there would need to be a "third temple" in Jerusalem and that would torpedo your belief that the abomination of desolation of Matthew 24:15 is the same as 2 Thessalonians 2:4, which according to your belief does not take place in a physical "Third Temple", but in the New Testament "Third Temple".
​

So your argument that the AoD neither refers to 70 A.D nor will there be a physical temple in Jerusalem for an abomination of desolation to occur in makes your entire argument above nonsensical because the 1,290 days and 1,335 days is tied to the daily sacrifice being taken away.

So there is no contradiction in what I have said, but there is a contradiction in what you have said, because you have a daily sacrifice being taken away from a temple that according to you does not exist and will not exist.

IMO Daniel was being told what was going to happen during the days of Antiochus IV and part of that was deliberately being projected onto the end of the age and the return of Christ / resurrection of the dead, just as much as what Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 24:21 was deliberately meant to make them 'remember' the days of Antiochus IV and the time of trouble which the Jews experienced at that time - which at that time was greater than anything that had occurred since there was a nation called Israel, to that time.

The rest of what I would have said here I already said in my reply to @Spiritual Israelite in Post #50 so I won't repeat it again.

So we are not fully on the same page with regard to the arguments you are using in support of Post Trib, though we are on the same page with regards to Post Trib.

We are also on the same page with regard to Mat.24:15 referring to the same thing that 2 Thess,2:4 is referring to, but all this taking place in the New Testament temple - which is why I do not believe in any daily sacrifice being taken away as in Daniel 12:11-12 (which was indeed done by Antiochus IV, though you seek to remove anything he did from any part of that prophecy).

The daily sacrifice being taken away from which temple at the end of this age?​

 

[Zao is life]

It does when considering the 7 seals as a complete group.

The seals begin with the rider on the white horse given a crown. He is riding a white horse because he is a messianic figure.

I should forget about any further argument or disagreement I have with you at this point because you are the first person who has ever agreed with me about the above - and in this it's a BIG thing for me that at least someone else realizes this.

But what you say below is nonsense:

Given a crown because he had just been anointed the King of Israel.

No He is not coming as King yet. This can be clearly seen by the type of crown He is wearing.

Firstly the crown is a stephanos in the Greek, not a diadema, like the many diadema Jesus is wearing when He returns as King of kings and Lord of lords in Revelation 19.

The diadema is a sign of (royal / political) authority and the only other ones wearing diadema are the dragon on his seven heads, and the 10 kings of the beast - whom Christ is coming to destroy when He comes in Revelation 19 wearing many diadema.

But the rider on the white horse is wearing a stephanos. In the New Testament It's the same crown always worn by the saints who overcome, and by the apostles, and by the 24 elders, and by the woman who gave birth to the Messiah, and by One like the Son of man coming to reap His harvest in Revelation 14:14.

Secondly, the color red [purrhos] of the red horse is from a Greek word which is only used twice in the New Testament: (1) for the red horse i.e 2nd seal; and (2) the dragon. It's not used anywhere else in the New Testament except those two places.

The rider of the white horse is wearing a stephanos and is going forth conquering and to conquer but he is given no arrows with his bow. That is why he wears a stephanos. It's the same crown always worn by the saints who overcome.

The first seal is telling us that the gospel will first be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, as Revelation 14:6 also shows, and when the two witnesses complete their testimony, the beast that ascended out of the abyss will make war against them, overcome them and kill them. The red horse represents that beast.

3.5 days later the resurrection of the dead takes place - and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Your graphs are based on a timeline that is based on a foundation that is in error.

 

[Timtofly]

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Regardless when one thinks the rapture occurs, no one disputes that the dead in Christ rise first. It is then a matter of who all the dead in Christ involve. Obviously, it involves dead saints awaiting a bodily resurrection unto immortality.


But who do Pretribbers assume is part of the dead in Christ that rise first? Only some saints, thus not all saints? Or all saints? For example, Adam. Obviously he is dead, and obviously, unlike Cain for example, Adam is a saint. Does that make him of the dead in Christ, or does that make him something else? If the latter, what is it that it makes him? If he is in heaven with Stephen, for example, keeping in mind that Stephen lived after Christ was born, Adam didn't, does that then mean the following?

even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

But not Adam, though? He gets left behind since he lived and died before Jesus was born, therefore, he is not among those which sleep in Jesus? Only someone that lives and dies after Christ was born can sleep in Jesus? No one born before Jesus was, including Noah, Abraham, etc, can be among those that sleep in Jesus? Therefore, when the dead in Christ rise first, OT saints, such as Adam, Noah, etc, get left behind in heaven rather than being among the dead in Christ that rise first?

I simply want to know, per their view of things, who the dead in Christ include, the fact Pretrib has them rising before great tribulation rather than after.

For one thing, you are overlooking that all the OT redeemed already had the first resurrection, at the Cross, otherwise Jesus could not bring any one with Him from heaven at the Second Coming.

They would arise first, but not from death. They would be gathered from Paradise before those redeemed on earth are gathered from the earth.

What verse in Scripture calls Adam a saint?

The whole argument is based on the human theological view of sin. Until any one acknowledges that point, no one will be correct. You all all base the point on a physical body. The dead in Christ does not mean they are dead. It means they are no longer physically on earth in Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

Jesus played a word joke on His disciples and they thought sleep meant rest, not death, because that is what sleep is unless one is using sleep for a metaphor. Sleep even as a metaphor does not have to mean death, even if one is dead, but they are resting away from sin and death, and are very much alive. The disciples were not wrong, Jesus just had to finally tell them, that Lazarus was dead.

Most here are fixated that even those in Christ are still "the dead", even though Jesus explicitly states that after the Cross, no one in Christ would even taste or experience death. So they are not "dead" in any sense of the word in Paradise, except they are "dead" from the human perspective, they are not on the earth, in Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

So who are actually "the dead". People in this thread are "the dead", because they are still in Adam's dead corruptible flesh, so being physically dead would make them alive, the opposite of their current dead state. That is how the metaphor works.

But unfortunately human theology cannot get that right, that those in Christ, currently in Paradise still need a physical resurrection. They don't, because just being in Paradise means they already have physical resurrection.

Now when it comes to Daniel, Daniel saw the Cross blurred in with the GWT, and the fulness of the Gentiles was a mystery without any mod from Daniel at all. It seems the fulness of the Gentiles is still a mystery to the Reformed theology adherents. Because they refuse to see Paul's point that Daniel is still correct, and still talking about Israel all the way to the very end, even though, Daniel could not see the distinction between the Cross and the GWT. That is not putting a spin on Daniel. Because even John said in Revelation 10, the mystery would not be finished until the 7th Trumpet sounds, so close to your last Trumpet, but Paul was still in the dark, even though he claimed a last trumpet, by faith writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The mystery still a mystery to many but finished:

"But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

This still does not mean the GWT is happening. This means people will understand, and stop arguing over the point, as it will no longer be a mystery.

As for the last trump verse of Paul. 1 Corinthians 15:52

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

This still does not mean the GWT Judgment. Saying this is the GWT event, means it is still a mystery to you, and you are back to seeing what Daniel saw, that is a mystery, and the Cross is blurred into the GWT Judgment event. In that mind set, one will always have the correct opinion of the mystery, because that is all they know, the mystery, and not the details pertinent throughout history, that have already taken place. Daniel was not wrong in seeing the Cross blurred with the GWT. That is all the information given to him.

Paul also explained it thus: 1 Corinthians 13

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

So until all those ECFs actually entered Paradise, they knew only a mystery. All those who follow human theology will know once they enter Paradise.

And obviously at the 7th Trumpet all on earth will know though it will be too late to do anything with that knowledge, if one is still on earth arguing about Scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

Continued

The issue is that some refuse to see the clear points in Scripture, and still see it at a mystery. For one in the same chapter 15 as the last trumpet verses, earlier Paul points out 3 times when humans are made alive:



"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end."



They still interpret it as a mystery through the lense of Daniel, instead of using these words to clear up the mystery that Daniel wrote about. They refuse to see a resurrection at the Cross, even though Matthew 27 states a physical resurrection. To them they (the OT redeemed) were not made alive, even though it was their turn in the order Paul gave. Those still in the dark, just declare they physically died again, because they cannot see clearly, thinking a resurrection can only happen at the GWT Judgment event.



So anybody who uses Daniel as their "trump card", will still be in the dark understanding any verse in the NT. Daniel cannot clear up the mystery of the NT. The NT was given to clear up the mystery of Daniel. If an interpretation of Daniel contradicts any verse of the NT, then that interpretation needs to be adjusted by the NT, not another OT verse. Many today still quote Solomon in Ecclesiastes written hundreds of years before Daniel, as if that will clear up the mystery, that only the NT can.



Even Paul acknowledged that he only understood parts of the mystery, at least while on earth, but the mystery will be cleared up when he physically died and immediately saw Jesus face to face.



"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."



If any one thinks it is wrong to say immediately upon physical death, instead of wairing for the last trumpet, let me refresh the point with these NT verses:



"When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him."



Stephen was not seeing the GWT Judgment event. He was about to see Jesus face to face, and could do so prior to death, which implies even after death. It can be interpreted per Paul, that the mystery was solved for Stephen at that moment even in the first century, and he did not have to wait for the last trumpet to understand, much less experience a resurrection then. Yet those still seeing through a glass darkly through the lense of Daniel, will refuse any interpretation that states the redemption of the body happened for Stephen when he immediately entered Paradise, and never tasted death again, ever.



"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power."



Stephen would have experienced the first resurrection at that moment, to see Jesus face to face, and the mystery no longer holding him in darkness, thought wise nor experience wise. Experience and understanding go hand in hand.

 

[Timtofly]

Therefore among the very last groups of people qualified to comment on the Revelation or any part of eschatology are Pre-tribulationists.

Pre-trib adherents are the only one's who understand.

They do not conflate Jacob's trouble with tribulation.

Post trib people tend to be reformed theology adherents, like yourself who also get Romans 11 wrong.

The only thing you are correct about is that many pre-trib are wrong about the GT, because that should be great trouble, not great tribulation.

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

This is not tribulation the church faces. This is not even tribulation unless you define the destruction of Sodom a tribulation period, or the Flood a tribulation period. I am not faulting the translators for using the word tribulation. I am faulting people's interpretation of what that tribulation actually involves. Also who it involves and why those involved are seeing trouble like never before, not even those at the Flood, nor those in Sodom. Jesus never defines that trouble/tribulation, but just sets the time reference between the AoD and the Second Coming.

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

The only thing Jesus states is that at that point in time, many will appear claiming to be the real Jesus, who are not. Just because many Christ will claim that point, does not make that period the worst ever in history.

If that is the case then tribulation should just be defined as false Christs, and not tribulation. Why would a false teacher be considered suffering?

The church has already gone through great tribulation known as the last 1994 years, and are still being martyred to this day. The rapture did not happen pre-trib, 1994 years ago.

The church is removed prior to Jacob's trouble, because that great trouble belongs to Jacob and the rest of the earth who rejected Christ, and will follow all those false Christs after the church is taken away.

They will be in greater trouble than the wicked in Noah's day, who rejected Noah's warnings, and the wicked in Sodom, who were given no warnings at all, but Lot was removed prior to judgment time.

So the GT can also mean Great (Judgment) Time. Not the wrath of the 7 vials, but the judgments of the Trumpets and Thunders. Still the wrath of Jesus and God, not Satan's wrath either. This trouble and tribulation is God's judgment on the world, not the church.

That is why the church is removed prior to Jacob's trouble.

 

[Peterlag]

Excellent point. I would say this is indeed 100% undeniable evidence for post-trib and against pre-trib. Or, at least against Doug's particular view since he believes that the dead in Christ include all of the OT saints (not all pre-tribs believe that).

So, let's just spell this out in a more concise way in case Doug misses your point.

Doug believes the OT saints, which includes Daniel, are included among the dead in Christ and will all be resurrected when Jesus comes (supposedly) before the great tribulation. Yet, Daniel 12:1-2 and Daniel 12:13 indicate that Daniel's people will be delivered and the dead will be resurrected after the great tribulation is over. Obviously, this would include Daniel himself as well as his fellow OT saints. So, that is a clear contradiction. Doug's interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 does not line up with what is indicated in Daniel 12:1-2.

By the way, the image you're using is the same image I put on my website a while back. I think it's a great photo.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not really because the text of Daniel 12:1 is ambiguous enough to leave it open to interpret it as the saints will be delivered FROM the tribulation being mentioned, rather than AFTER:

"At that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."​

But, when you also read Daniel 12:2 it doesn't just mention the resurrection of believers at that time, but of unbelievers as well.

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

Pre-tribs do not believe that unbelievers will be resurrected at the same time (as part of the same event) as believers, so the resurrection mentioned here can't possibly be referring to a resurrection occurring during a pre-trib rapture event if that event only involves believers and not unbelievers. So, Daniel 12:1-2 does cause a problem for pre-tribs if they see Daniel 12:1 as describing the great tribulation.

Firstly I believe that the period that the Jews faced during the time of Antiochus IV was a time of trouble, such as had never been since there was a nation even to that same time, and I believe that what Daniel was being told was talking about that time but is also deliberately meant to project forward to the time of the end of the age and the resurrection from the dead / return of Christ.

Secondly I believe that Daniel is being promised that he will have part in the resurrection that will take place at the end of the days.

Thirdly I believe that what Jesus said in Matthew 24:21 is MEANT to make the reader think about what was said in Daniel 12:1 and to 'remember' what happened to the Jews under Antiochus IV, and the apostasy and lawlessness of the Jews that took place at that time, but what is said in Matthew 24:21 is about the end of the age before the return of Christ.

- and what Jesus said in Matthew 24:22 tells us everything we need to know about whether the resurrection will take place before or after what is written in Matthew 24:21.

But to show honesty and fairness and consistency in the way we handle the scriptures, we need to admit that Daniel 12:1 is ambiguous enough to leave it open to interpret it either as the saints will be delivered FROM the tribulation being mentioned, rather than AFTER, or to interpret it as the saints will be delivered AFTER the tribulation being spoken of.

Daniel 12:13 is also ambiguous enough to argue either way, IMO.

So I don't see the fairness of using these arguments against Pre-trib beliefs.

Matthew 24:22, on the other hand, makes it clear for those (like myself) who interpret Mat.24:21-22 as referring to the same end-of-the-age tribulation mentioned in Daniel 12:1, that the saints will be in the world until the very end of the days, and this would cause the same interpretation to be made with respect to Daniel 12:13 and Daniel 12:1.

But using Daniel alone like that does not suffice for an argument against Pretrib - because Daniel 12:1 and Daniel 12:13 on its own is too ambiguously put to force such an interpretation, IMO.​

We'll have to agree to disagree on all that. That's all I'm going to say about it because I don't want to sidetrack what this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

By the way, the image you're using is the same image I put on my website a while back. I think it's a great photo.

Yes, I agree. I can't recall where I originally found it. Maybe on your website? :)

 

[Zao is life]

Pre-trib adherents are the only one's who understand.

They do not conflate Jacob's trouble with tribulation.

Post trib people tend to be reformed theology adherents, like yourself who also get Romans 11 wrong.

The only thing you are correct about is that many pre-trib are wrong about the GT, because that should be great trouble, not great tribulation.

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

This is not tribulation the church faces. This is not even tribulation unless you define the destruction of Sodom a tribulation period, or the Flood a tribulation period. I am not faulting the translators for using the word tribulation. I am faulting people's interpretation of what that tribulation actually involves. Also who it involves and why those involved are seeing trouble like never before, not even those at the Flood, nor those in Sodom. Jesus never defines that trouble/tribulation, but just sets the time reference between the AoD and the Second Coming.

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

The only thing Jesus states is that at that point in time, many will appear claiming to be the real Jesus, who are not. Just because many Christ will claim that point, does not make that period the worst ever in history.

If that is the case then tribulation should just be defined as false Christs, and not tribulation. Why would a false teacher be considered suffering?

The church has already gone through great tribulation known as the last 1994 years, and are still being martyred to this day. The rapture did not happen pre-trib, 1994 years ago.

The church is removed prior to Jacob's trouble, because that great trouble belongs to Jacob and the rest of the earth who rejected Christ, and will follow all those false Christs after the church is taken away.

They will be in greater trouble than the wicked in Noah's day, who rejected Noah's warnings, and the wicked in Sodom, who were given no warnings at all, but Lot was removed prior to judgment time.

So the GT can also mean Great (Judgment) Time. Not the wrath of the 7 vials, but the judgments of the Trumpets and Thunders. Still the wrath of Jesus and God, not Satan's wrath either. This trouble and tribulation is God's judgment on the world, not the church.

That is why the church is removed prior to Jacob's trouble.

7 Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

No mention of the church being saved out of it. No mention of the resurrection. No mention of the rapture.

8 For it shall be in that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will break his yoke from your neck and will burst your bonds. And strangers shall no longer enslave him,
9 but they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up to them.

11 For I am with you, says the LORD, to save you. Though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you, yet I will not make a full end of you; but I will correct you in measure, and will not leave you entirely unpunished.

No mention of the church being saved out of it. No mention of the resurrection. No mention of the rapture. You Pretrib guys have written your own Bibles.