Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What verse indicates that Jesus returns to Heaven after the reapture of all saints?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
    Rather, it's you who aren't getting the point. Dan 7 says NOTHING about Jesus resurrecting/rapturing saints and taking them back up to heaven.
    Sorry, I showed you where it was, and you just ignore it. It is there in its seminal stage, with the mere seed of the idea. As the idea develops, its origin in Dan 7 can clearly be seen because the same language is being used, indicating the source of what follows indeed originates from Dan 7.

    Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
    Yes, every mention of the Second Advent mentions "the clouds". You still haven't proven that Jesus returns to heaven after "coming in or with the clouds".
    Why should I prove that when I haven't said that?

    Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
    So what? All verses about the Second Advent have a common origin.
    That's my point. If all verses about the 2nd Advent have a common origin in Dan 7, then all elements having to do with the 2nd Advent can be explained by the context of Dan 7. That helps us keep the ideas in their own context.

    Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
    None of this is at dispute. It's your opinion that Jesus takes saints back to heaven.
    What do you mean "back to heaven?" If they are on earth, they aren't going "back" to heaven!

    Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
    But the issue is your claim that Jesus returns to heaven with the resurrected/raptured saints.
    It seems you have no idea what I believe. Your arguments don't square with what I believe.

    Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
    Again, you cannot prove your theory about needing to be glorified in heaven. Our glorification occurs "in the clouds" when Jesus comes from heaven to earth.
    That's what I've been saying all along! I never indicated that the glorification takes any longer than a single second. People are taken in an instant to the clouds of heaven, are transformed, given new bodies, and then appear with Jesus on earth in a single moment of time--in the "twinkling of an eye." Nobody is going on a trip to heaven to remain there in glorified bodies! The whole point is to appear with Jesus in his Kingdom on earth. To do that we need glorified bodies. And it only takes an instant for that to happen. If it's so fast, then saying it takes place in heaven is only saying that we're beginning his descent from heaven with him in a second of time. We are *part of his revelation* at the coming of the Kingdom.

    2 Thes 1.9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.

    Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
    What doesn't make any sense is your theory about being glorified in heaven. And Jesus taking saints back up to heaven for that, and then coming back.
    Maybe you should go back and reconsider what I've been saying? You might be misunderstanding my position? Being glorified in heaven in one second is not *staying in heaven in glorified bodies.* Rather, it has to do with appearing with Christ from heaven in a moment of time.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by randyk View Post

      That's what I've been saying all along! I never indicated that the glorification takes any longer than a single second. People are taken in an instant to the clouds of heaven, are transformed, given new bodies, and then appear with Jesus on earth in a single moment of time--in the "twinkling of an eye." Nobody is going on a trip to heaven to remain there in glorified bodies! The whole point is to appear with Jesus in his Kingdom on earth. To do that we need glorified bodies. And it only takes an instant for that to happen. If it's so fast, then saying it takes place in heaven is only saying that we're beginning his descent from heaven with him in a second of time. We are *part of his revelation* at the coming of the Kingdom.
      The belief of 'glorification' of the Christians happening when Jesus Returns, is wrong and is never prophesied to happen.
      When Jesus Returns, He will bring the souls of the GT martyrs with Him and they will be brought back to life, NOT to immortality yet; as they may die again. Revelation 20:4-5
      Those Christians who are alive and remain, will be gathered to Jesus, as His priests and co- rulers. I Thess 4:17, Matthew 24:30-31, Revelation 5:9-10

      The prophecy in 1 Corinthians 15:50-56, is all about what happens at the Great White Thone Judgment; AFTER the Millennium. Proved by how it is only then that Death is no more. Rev 21:4

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FreeGrace View Post
        Rather, it's you who aren't getting the point. Dan 7 says NOTHING about Jesus resurrecting/rapturing saints and taking them back up to heaven.
        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        Sorry, I showed you where it was, and you just ignore it.
        No, I ignored your eisegesis of Dan 7.

        It is there in its seminal stage, with the mere seed of the idea.
        I'm sure that kind of excuse goes a long way to explain something any way the explainer wants. This is hardly a defense of your position. Gimme a break. "seminal stage". lol.. "mere seed of the idea". Yeah, sure.

        As the idea develops, its origin in Dan 7 can clearly be seen because the same language is being used, indicating the source of what follows indeed originates from Dan 7.
        No. There is NOTHING, not even a "mere seed of the idea" about Jesus taking all believers, dead and alive, to heaven for glorification, and then making ANOTHER U-turn back to earth.

        That's my point. If all verses about the 2nd Advent have a common origin in Dan 7, then all elements having to do with the 2nd Advent can be explained by the context of Dan 7. That helps us keep the ideas in their own context.
        Please show me your "mere seed of the idea" and "seminal idea" about Jesus making 2 U-turns.

        What do you mean "back to heaven?" If they are on earth, they aren't going "back" to heaven!
        Didn't you claim that believers have to go to heaven to be "glorified"?

        It seems you have no idea what I believe. Your arguments don't square with what I believe.
        Either your posts are just too difficult to wade through, or I've confused you with another poster.

        That's what I've been saying all along! I never indicated that the glorification takes any longer than a single second. People are taken in an instant to the clouds of heaven, are transformed, given new bodies, and then appear with Jesus on earth in a single moment of time--in the "twinkling of an eye."
        YEP. You are the poster who makes the ludicrous claim that Jesus comes in the clouds, takes the believers to "the clouds of heaven" for glorification (transformation) and then brings them back down to earth.

        If you don't see TWO U-turns in your theory, I can't help you.

        Nobody is going on a trip to heaven to remain there in glorified bodies!
        I know you didn't say that. I'm interested in the preposterous notion that believers are taken BACK to heaven for glorification.

        The whole point is to appear with Jesus in his Kingdom on earth.
        It doesn't take a trip to heaven for that.

        To do that we need glorified bodies.
        That happens when Jesus comes TO EARTH. 1 Cir 15:52, 1 Thess 4.

        And it only takes an instant for that to happen. If it's so fast, then saying it takes place in heaven is only saying that we're beginning his descent from heaven with him in a second of time. We are *part of his revelation* at the coming of the Kingdom.
        You have absolutely zero evidence for your theory from the Bible.

        Maybe you should go back and reconsider what I've been saying? You might be misunderstanding my position?
        You've been clear, and I reject it outright.

        Being glorified in heaven in one second is not *staying in heaven in glorified bodies.*
        Since the Bible is very clear that Jesus comes to the earth in the clouds with all the dead believers, and resurrects their bodies and transforms the bodies of the living believers, there is NO NEED to return to heaven. But your theory has just that. Nonsense. No one goes back to heaven, even in your theory of 1 second or less.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Keraz View Post
          The belief of 'glorification' of the Christians happening when Jesus Returns, is wrong and is never prophesied to happen.
          When Jesus Returns, He will bring the souls of the GT martyrs with Him and they will be brought back to life, NOT to immortality yet; as they may die again. Revelation 20:4-5
          Those Christians who are alive and remain, will be gathered to Jesus, as His priests and co- rulers.
          This is a huge misreading of Rev 20.

          4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
          5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.

          These 2 verses SAY that the martyred believers from the Trib will be part of the "first resurrection" (that means their bodies are resurrected to immortality, or Paul was dead wrong when he wrote in 1 Cor 15-
          52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
          53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
          54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

          If this isn't clear, I can't help you.

          Oh, and 1 Cor 15:23 - But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

          What is clear here is that Paul includes EVERYONE who belongs to Christ to be resurrected at the same time. "each in turn". Then, Christ is FIRST. Then, "those who belong to Him".

          So Christ is the FIRST one to be resurrected. Then EVERYONE else who belongs to Him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Keraz View Post
            The belief of 'glorification' of the Christians happening when Jesus Returns, is wrong and is never prophesied to happen.
            When Jesus Returns, He will bring the souls of the GT martyrs with Him and they will be brought back to life, NOT to immortality yet; as they may die again. Revelation 20:4-5
            Those Christians who are alive and remain, will be gathered to Jesus, as His priests and co- rulers. I Thess 4:17, Matthew 24:30-31, Revelation 5:9-10

            The prophecy in 1 Corinthians 15:50-56, is all about what happens at the Great White Thone Judgment; AFTER the Millennium. Proved by how it is only then that Death is no more. Rev 21:4
            Brother, if all you see are broken pieces of a bottle, you will have difficulty fitting all of the pieces back together again. But if you know what the original bottle looked like, it will be much easier putting the pieces back together in the right order.

            You have Tribulation Saints in one place, a gathering in Jerusalem in another place, and glorification somewhere else. These are pieces concocted from various passages without regard for how the event was originally constructed. If you want to know how they go together, go back to Dan 7, which is the source, and see how Jesus interpreted that passage in the Olivet Discourse. And then stop adding different pieces or putting them in the wrong order, because they all fit as originally intended, as a single frame.

            The Tribulation Saints are viewed in Rev 20 not because they alone are there, but only because the book of Revelation is focusing in on the last 3.5 years of Antichristian rule, in which these "Tribulation Saints" suffer. We are told they will be rewarded for resisting the Beast, just as we are today going to be rewarded for resisting the antichrists of our own time.

            But Rev 20 is speaking not just of the restoration of "Tribulation Martyrs," but also of the entire historic People of God, only focusing on the "Tribulation Martyrs" in particular due to the storyline. The original blueprint for this development is found in Dan 7, where all the saints who inherit the Kingdom are delivered from the Little Horn, the Beast.

            Also, in Dan 12 it is shown that these same people, who are delivered, will rise in the 1st Resurrection, together with all of God's People. A good portion of Dan 12 goes along with Dan 7 and is a summary of that, along with a summary of the Antiochus 4 affair.

            That they were glorified is clear from Jesus' statements about the need both for his own glorification, as well as our own glorification, eg John 17. You apparently don't understand what "glorification" is, the immortalization of our bodies? We must be changed in order to inherit the imperishable. That's what Paul said.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by randyk View Post
              Like I said, to argue over what "completion" means is an exercise in futility. I could say he finished the race during the last mile of a 10 mile race, or I could say he finished the race when the checkered flag was waved. One is a moment in time, and the other is not.
              Actually the first usage is incorrectly using language. He would be finishing the race in the Last Mile, but not HAVE FINISHED.

              Lightning is sudden. It is not just about light, but also about its brevity.
              Lightning also gives you a big shock and it is hot and many other things we can say about lightning. What is important is how Jesus was using the IMAGE of lightning to CONVEY meaning. He was SOLELY referring to its VISBILITY and NOT its duration nor anything else about lightning.

              Exercise in futility... This is all about the judgment that changes the world--not about the changed world that follows.
              Judgement takes time, and it shows you are UNWILLING to apply your meaning to what you claim.

              I'm making the argument that is natural. I don't know why it should even be argued? The coming of Christ is at the forefront of the prophecy, and it is characterized as "lightning." It represents a sudden appearance in judgment.
              No, you are NOT making an argument that is natural. You are making an UNNATURAL argument as you are applying a DIFFERENT aspect of lightning to how Jesus was applying it. IOW you are NOT paying attention to what Jesus said, and instead are putting your OWN interpretation on top of His.

              Included in that coming is the gathering of saints to participate in it. Logically, it all happens at the same moment. Why should anybody argue this? This is what we are given!
              It is included, but it is also separated into events of differing durations. Paul notes the CHANGE part of it happens in an INSTANT, but by implication he does NOT include the Rapture part, nor the judgement part nor anything else.

              Paul only talks about an instant transformation of our bodies in 1 Cor 15 because that is the particular subject he is talking about. His claim is predicated on the assumption that our instant changed is connected to Christ's instant coming. If you can't or aren't willing to see that I don't know why?
              Yes Paul's claim is predicated on an assumption that our instant CHANGE is based on Jesus coming, but where you err is by therefore saying that Jesus comes IN AN INSTANT. As you are unwilling to see what Paul IS saying, nor how Paul notes that the CHANGE is in a twinkling, but no other parts are noted as being such, so you are amending what Paul says and what Jesus said.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                Actually the first usage is incorrectly using language. He would be finishing the race in the Last Mile, but not HAVE FINISHED.


                Lightning also gives you a big shock and it is hot and many other things we can say about lightning. What is important is how Jesus was using the IMAGE of lightning to CONVEY meaning. He was SOLELY referring to its VISBILITY and NOT its duration nor anything else about lightning.


                Judgement takes time, and it shows you are UNWILLING to apply your meaning to what you claim.


                No, you are NOT making an argument that is natural. You are making an UNNATURAL argument as you are applying a DIFFERENT aspect of lightning to how Jesus was applying it. IOW you are NOT paying attention to what Jesus said, and instead are putting your OWN interpretation on top of His.


                It is included, but it is also separated into events of differing durations. Paul notes the CHANGE part of it happens in an INSTANT, but by implication he does NOT include the Rapture part, nor the judgement part nor anything else.


                Yes Paul's claim is predicated on an assumption that our instant CHANGE is based on Jesus coming, but where you err is by therefore saying that Jesus comes IN AN INSTANT. As you are unwilling to see what Paul IS saying, nor how Paul notes that the CHANGE is in a twinkling, but no other parts are noted as being such, so you are amending what Paul says and what Jesus said.
                Until I know something more, I stand by my arguments. Unless you have more arguments, you haven't convinced me I'm wrong. You are arbitrarily applying characteristics of lightning that *you wish* to apply. In reality, it appears that Paul gets his sense of "in the twinkling of an eye" from Jesus' sense of his coming "like lightning." This would attach the same characteristic of lightning, as being *in a moment of time* to everything that happens at the moment of his Coming, including our Rapture to heaven, our physical transformation, etc.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by randyk View Post

                  Until I know something more, I stand by my arguments. Unless you have more arguments, you haven't convinced me I'm wrong. You are arbitrarily applying characteristics of lightning that *you wish* to apply. In reality, it appears that Paul gets his sense of "in the twinkling of an eye" from Jesus' sense of his coming "like lightning." This would attach the same characteristic of lightning, as being *in a moment of time* to everything that happens at the moment of his Coming, including our Rapture to heaven, our physical transformation, etc.
                  When the 7th trump sounds, Christ will leave heaven and arrive at the clouds of the Earth. Likely that will be instant and while possible to be seen from the ground, I doubt that will be the visible return of Christ that's like a flash of lightning and all will see. I suspect that happens when he leaves the clouds and descends to the Earth so that would make the resurrection and changing happening before the lightning part of the actual second coming. So, the twinkling of an eye is not from seeing lightning but only refers to a blinking of the eye, in how fast it happens. Also, when I see something loud and bright my eyes open wide and I don't blink so there's that issue also to consider.

                  The twinkling of an eye is only tied to how fast the resurrection and changing happens and other really fast things simply aren't related or connected to that particular saying.



                  James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
                    When the 7th trump sounds, Christ will leave heaven and arrive at the clouds of the Earth.
                    That sounds like an itinerary! Do you really think each step has to be carefully planned and timed, to enable one thing to lead to another thing? Is such a time sequence even necessary for God?

                    Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
                    Likely that will be instant and while possible to be seen from the ground, I doubt that will be the visible return of Christ that's like a flash of lightning and all will see. I suspect that happens when he leaves the clouds and descends to the Earth so that would make the resurrection and changing happening before the lightning part of the actual second coming. So, the twinkling of an eye is not from seeing lightning but only refers to a blinking of the eye, in how fast it happens. Also, when I see something loud and bright my eyes open wide and I don't blink so there's that issue also to consider.
                    Reference to the "twinkling of an eye" suggests there are spectators, such as when "every eye will see him." This is the 2nd Coming, and the travel time doesn't exist, as stated. People on earth only see the end result, which is a revelation of a new Kingdom on earth. It appears in a moment, but lasts forever.

                    Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post
                    The twinkling of an eye is only tied to how fast the resurrection and changing happens and other really fast things simply aren't related or connected to that particular saying.
                    Since it is *Christ's Coming* that is depicted as "lightning," everything connected to that retains the same characteristic--quickness and judgment. It is, I believe, a sudden appearance. To create a gap or bridge between Christ beginning in Heaven and coming down the clouds is not a concept that I see in any of the passages. The clouds of heaven and heaven are viewed as one, as I see it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by randyk View Post

                      That sounds like an itinerary! Do you really think each step has to be carefully planned and timed, to enable one thing to lead to another thing? Is such a time sequence even necessary for God?
                      Yes. His first coming also was thoroughly planned out and everything happened in proper order at the proper time.




                      Reference to the "twinkling of an eye" suggests there are spectators
                      No, it is only a reference to how fast a blink of the eye is not that they see anything in particular and those on Earth who are changed don't see Christ at that time but will after the are raptured up to the clouds. By that time the change in a blink of an eye already happened.


                      , such as when "every eye will see him."
                      And that is after the resurrection and changing of the living bodies and after Christ leaves the clouds of the Earth to go further downward to be seen.



                      Since it is *Christ's Coming* that is depicted as "lightning," everything connected to that retains the same characteristic--quickness and judgment. It is, I believe, a sudden appearance. To create a gap or bridge between Christ beginning in Heaven and coming down the clouds is not a concept that I see in any of the passages.
                      Either way there is a pause in the second coming for some unknown amount of time at the clouds of the Earth and the "in a twinkling of an eye" is something only written concerning the resurrection and rapture. It is not used another time in the whole of scripture. It only refers to two events that happen BEFORE Christ appears in the flash of lightning when all eyes will see him.




                      James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post

                        Yes. His first coming also was thoroughly planned out and everything happened in proper order at the proper time.






                        No, it is only a reference to how fast a blink of the eye is not that they see anything in particular and those on Earth who are changed don't see Christ at that time but will after the are raptured up to the clouds. By that time the change in a blink of an eye already happened.




                        And that is after the resurrection and changing of the living bodies and after Christ leaves the clouds of the Earth to go further downward to be seen.



                        Either way there is a pause in the second coming for some unknown amount of time at the clouds of the Earth and the "in a twinkling of an eye" is something only written concerning the resurrection and rapture. It is not used another time in the whole of scripture. It only refers to two events that happen BEFORE Christ appears in the flash of lightning when all eyes will see him.
                        Alright, be happy with what you want to believe.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by randyk View Post

                          Alright, be happy with what you want to believe.
                          Also I suspect that you think "twinkling" means light shining/reflecting in someone's eye but it actually just means a movement or jerk ie: a blinking of the eye. Light is not part of the word's meaning:

                          G4493
                          ῥιπή
                          rhipē
                          hree-pay'
                          From G4496; a jerk (of the eye, that is, (by analogy) an instant): - twinkling.
                          Total KJV occurrences: 1
                          James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ewq1938 View Post

                            Also I suspect that you think "twinkling" means light shining/reflecting in someone's eye but it actually just means a movement or jerk ie: a blinking of the eye. Light is not part of the word's meaning:

                            G4493
                            ῥιπή
                            rhipē
                            hree-pay'
                            From G4496; a jerk (of the eye, that is, (by analogy) an instant): - twinkling.
                            Total KJV occurrences: 1
                            I suppose if I saw lightning in the sky, I might blink too. Absolutely!

                            One of the definitions include, a "sudden projection." Would that be comparable to lightning? So if the eye suddenly projects something, would that be a twinkle of light?

                            My Greek interlinear referred to it as a "glance" in a "flash," or "moment." So is it a "glance" or a "blink?" You have to decide. I would think "glance" best fits a "sudden projection" of the eye. A "blink" would miss it.

                            In fact, it might even be comparable to a flash of light from the eye--a glance, just as lightning is cast down from the sky. It is the eye casting out a glance, as a twinkle of light.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by randyk View Post

                              I suppose if I saw lightning in the sky, I might blink too. Absolutely!

                              One of the definitions include, a "sudden projection." Would that be comparable to lightning? So if the eye suddenly projects something, would that be a twinkle of light?

                              My Greek interlinear referred to it as a "glance" in a "flash," or "moment." So is it a "glance" or a "blink?" You have to decide. I would think "glance" best fits a "sudden projection" of the eye. A "blink" would miss it.

                              In fact, it might even be comparable to a flash of light from the eye--a glance, just as lightning is cast down from the sky. It is the eye casting out a glance, as a twinkle of light.
                              It has nothing to do with any light or brightness:


                              Gill:

                              In the twinkling of an eye; these two the Jews not only put together as here, but make one to be as the other; so they say (k), הרגע כהרף עין, "a moment is as the twinkling of an eye". This phrase, as the twinkling of an eye, is frequently used in Jewish writings (l), to signify how speedily and suddenly anything is done, and which is the design of it here; and the apostle's meaning is, that the change upon the bodies of living saints will be so quick, that it will be done in a trice, before a man can shut his eyes and open them again; so that it will be as it were imperceptible, and without the least sensation of pain; this may also be referred to the resurrection, which will be quick, and done at once; though it seems rather, and chiefly, to respect the change of the living; what follows, indeed, favours the other sense also; for all will be quick and sudden, the coming of Christ, the raising of the dead, and the change of the living:


                              James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by randyk View Post
                                Until I know something more, I stand by my arguments. Unless you have more arguments, you haven't convinced me I'm wrong. You are arbitrarily applying characteristics of lightning that *you wish* to apply. In reality, it appears that Paul gets his sense of "in the twinkling of an eye" from Jesus' sense of his coming "like lightning." This would attach the same characteristic of lightning, as being *in a moment of time* to everything that happens at the moment of his Coming, including our Rapture to heaven, our physical transformation, etc.
                                You have NOT provided an argument for the DURATION of the Rapture to be the SAME as the DURATION of the CHANGE.
                                All you claimed was when Jesus said HE is SEEN like lightning is SEEN from the West when it occurs in the East (or vice versa). Jesus made NO mention in the passage of the Rapture or of the transformation.
                                If you would provide an actual argument which has scripture supporting it THEN please do.
                                You are the one who is arbitrarily applying a characteristic of lightning stated by Jesus to be about ONE thing - Him being SEEN - to another separate event (which occurs on the SAME day and within a similar time reference) - of the Rapture. I am not making any such arbitrary claim.
                                Paul does NOT make any connection with Jesus being seen, with the transformation, and this is simply your wishful thinking. In 1 Thess 4 Paul clearly does NOT make such a connection as he notes the dead rise FIRST, which means there is a delay between the dead rising first and the living rising. In the end we meet in the clouds where Jesus is SEEN coming.
                                I prefer NOT to make FALSE connections and create unsolicited assumptions and eisegesis as you seem to prefer to do.
                                There is ZERO reason to say that the Rapture takes the same length of time as lightning, but there IS reason to say that the transformation is in the blink of an eye.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X