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

[FreeGrace]

Yes the first 5 verses do mention the thousand years but what I’m showing you is that they don’t mention Jesus reigning on the earth.

Why would that matter? The Millennial Reign is 1,000 years. So in the context of all that Rev 19-21 says, it is obvious that Rev 20:1-5 is speaking of the Millennial Reign. What else could it be referring to?

Now if it was Jesus reigning physically on the earth wouldn’t it say that?

Again, it is just plain obvious that the 1,000 years IS the Millennial Reign. What else could it refer to?

Yes their is a millennial reign but it’s a spiritual reign and it’s happening now

There is no "spiritual reign". Where did you get that idea from?

[ewq1938]

Why would that matter? The Millennial Reign is 1,000 years. So in the context of all that Rev 19-21 says, it is obvious that Rev 20:1-5 is speaking of the Millennial Reign. What else could it be referring to?

And it is written the reign is on the Earth (Revelation 5:10) so there is no reason for John to say the reign is on the Earth another time. As you say, the context of the chapters shows that Christ left heaven and came to the Earth. It is undeniable the second coming is to result in Christ being on the Earth. This is just Amil's lame argument from silence fallacy.

[Pesachpup]

There is NO linguistic dyslexia on my part. However how you expressed yourself was that you did NOT understand what was EXPLICIT and what was IMPLICIT.
However if your point is about two Greek words, then you are arguing that egeiro speaks of a PHYSICAL being raised and anistemi about a lifting off the ground. However CONTEXTUALLY you are COMPLETELY wrong.
In 1 Thes 4 the CONTRAST is made between DEATH and RISING. Therefore IN this passage the usage speaks of COMING to LIFE and NOT about ascension to heaven.
Here is the SAME word "anistemi" used in Matthew:
Mat 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
Did Matthew come to LIFE? Nope. Did Matthew ascend into heaven? Nope. The word was being used to simply mean RISE.
This is what anistemi means.
You RISE from the grave - this is anistemi:
Mar 5:42 And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.

SAME word - again with NO connection with ascension or any other claim you are making in regards to this word. The Gospel writers used anistemi to mean to RISE, just as we do, BOTH for its normal meaning of getting up, and its unusual meaning of getting up after dying.

And here we have Jesus BEFORE He ascended to the Father:
Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
Again anistemi is used. Therefore the CONNECTION and forced interpretation you are trying to bring is NOT found IN the Greek word.

Moreover we do NOT have the saints who were dead descending with Jesus BEFORE they are first RAISED UPWARDS to Jesus by the Father.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
Here clearly they are anitemi FIRST, so your claim that the dead do NOT rise first is COMPLETELY wrong and contrary to scripture.


It is the basis of YOUR dyslexia, because when Mary met the "risen" Jesus the word used of Him BEFORE He went to the Father was anistemi (as provided above).
Mat 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”
Here the word used is egeiro, and it is connected with coming out of sleep or being roused.
This word therefore is used when speaking of the dead being asleep and then being woken and rising.
Mat 8:25 And they went and woke him, saying, “Save us, Lord; we are perishing.”
Another example where it is about being awoken and so getting up.
IOW anistemi speaks of a change in the motion of rising whilst egeiro speaks of a change in status in coming awake or alive and so then going into motion.


Nope it does NOT hinge on an upward acension of the saints EXCEPT that of moving from death to life.
The dead are NOT involved in Jesus' DESCENT, but ARE involved in an ASCENT, and this occurs BEFORE the ASCENT of those who are not dead.
The dead come with the Father as 1 Thes 4 states. You try to change it to fit your doctrine rather than letting your doctrine be shaped by what it says.
The Father brings the dead from the graves.
The entire passage has a DESCENT (which is Jesus) and an ASCENT (which is the saints dead and living).
As for 1 Peter, that is perhaps for another thread as you refuse to accept what is stated in scripture in Luke 17:31 and so make things contrary, which you had said you would not do.

I commend your examination of how egeiro and anistemi are synonyms of each. But what you failed to do is look at them in the context of "raising" someone from the dead, or in the case of Jesus, God raising him from the dead. And what you find there, is the subject of the the person who is being "raised" from the dead, is preemptively stated as only being asleep on their death bed, and their raising is pictorially viewed as "awaking from sleep". In every instance, they are said to be raised up, egeiro, from their deathbed. Only in one instance, and recorded in Matthew and Luke, where Jesus raised the rulers' daughter, is the word anistemi ever used. In Matthew's account it says this:

Mat 9:25 KJV But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.(egeiro).

In Luke, it says this:

Luk 8:54-55 KJV ⁵⁴ And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise (egeiro) ⁵⁵ And her spirit came again, and she arose (anistemi) straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

Here we see, (it is the same account) Jesus saying to her, Maid, egeiro...rise. And the word anistemi is only used to describe what the maid did, AFTER her spirit came again. This is the only time that anistemi is used within the context of someone rising from the dead. And it is not used in the metaphorical sense of being awakened from sleep. It is used in the synonymical sense of getting up.

In the rest of the NT, when it is used posthumously in regards to the resurrection of Jesus, you find egeiro being used in the context of walking in the newness of life, even as Jesus rose/ egeiro, from the dead. And you find anistemi being used in the contextual essence of Jesus' ascension or of authoritative ruling in the heavens. Contextually speaking, they do mean different things. And, as I have previously revealed in the scriptures, they unanimously agree that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus meant when he used the word anistemi. Here is an in depth elaboration by Jesus of what would happen while Jesus was with the Father during the anistemi:

Joh 16:16-20 KJV ¹⁶ A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. ¹⁷ Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? ¹⁸ They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith. ¹⁹ Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me? ²⁰ Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.

When were the disciples filled with sorrow during the passion events? When they went to tomb, and did not find the body of Jesus, Mar 16:8,10.

As far as the statement of Mar 16:9 goes, the context runs into verse 14 and beyond. Notice the word, appear.

1. He "appeared " first to Mary Magdalene,
2. Then he "appeared in another form" to two disciples,
3. Then he "appeared" to the eleven.

Mar 16:9-14 KJV ⁹ Now WHEN Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. ¹⁰ And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. ¹¹ And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. ¹² After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. ¹³ And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. ¹⁴ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him AFTER he was ris
en (egeiro). Context is being overlooked.

Because we understand the usages of egeiro and anistemi, differently, we need to wrap this up and move on. But, i must say, that I think that you are the only post-tribber that I know who does not see the 7th Trumpet as the 2nd advent. Even though I haven't participated in your thread on revelations chronology, I appreciate it very much. My comments on the seven thunders was, I guess, my invisible contribution to it. In our conversations, I was probing your understanding of the 7th Trumpet "revealing" of Jesus, trying to get at, why/ how you arrived at that conclusion. But your view of 1Peter1 has left me wondering in the dark. I was wondering how you differentiate the apokalupsis of the 7th Trumpet from the apokalupsis adventis (2nd).. If you could be able to explain that to Randy's, you might get more traction in your arguments.

I see the 7th Trumpet, timewise, being sounded at the feast of Pentecost, (6th/7th day of the 3rd month) (as the end of the feast of weeks) culminating with the 7 vials taking place during the feast of tabernacles, just shy of 42 months later. The beginning of this 42 month period corresponds to the the 5th Trumpet (2 weeks earlier) on the 21st/22nd day of the 2nd month, with Apollyon, the king of the bottomless pit, being the beast that ascends from there. The Feast of Tabernacles ends 42 months later on the 22nd of Tishri, with Armageddon taking place at that time.

Be Blessed
The PuP

P.S. (one additional comment) I am not contrary on Luke 17:31. I wholeheartedly agree with the DAYS of the Son of man. incidentally, (i think you agree) verse 30 (... when the Son of man is revealed.) is referring to what follows and not what is recorded just prior to verse 30.

[marty fox]

Why would that matter? The Millennial Reign is 1,000 years. So in the context of all that Rev 19-21 says, it is obvious that Rev 20:1-5 is speaking of the Millennial Reign. What else could it be referring to?


Again, it is just plain obvious that the 1,000 years IS the Millennial Reign. What else could it refer to?


There is no "spiritual reign". Where did you get that idea from?

I’m not saying that it’s not about the millennial reign I’m saying the bible doesn’t say that the millennial reign is only on the earth no where in the bible does it show Jesus reigning on the earth for a thousand years so it’s adding to the scriptures.

If the purpose of revelation 20 is Jesus reigning on the earth wouldn’t that chapter at least say that even once?

Jesus kingdom is spiritual and we are apart of that kingdom thus we reign with Him spiritually weather alive or dead

[ewq1938]

Christ will exercise his Kingly authority on Earth when the 7th trump sounds:

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

The rod of iron reign only begins after Christ has come:

Rev 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

The saints reign will be on the Earth not from heaven:

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the EARTH.

second coming:

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

After the second coming:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.



All these prove a literal kingdom with Christ and his saints physically here on the Earth literally ruling over human beings of various nations.

[FreeGrace]

I’m not saying that it’s not about the millennial reign I’m saying the bible doesn’t say that the millennial reign is only on the earth no where in the bible does it show Jesus reigning on the earth for a thousand years so it’s adding to the scriptures.

There is no adding to Scripture. The context is crystal clear. The idea that Jesus reigns in heaven during a thousand year period, when there will be people ON THE EARTH at that same time is quite incorrect.

If the purpose of revelation 20 is Jesus reigning on the earth wouldn’t that chapter at least say that even once?

No. The context is clear enough in Rev 20.

Jesus kingdom is spiritual and we are apart of that kingdom thus we reign with Him spiritually weather alive or dead

I asked for Scriptural evidence for your "spiritual kingdom" theory, yet none has been given. So why should I accept the theory? In fact, Jesus WILL reign physically for 1,000 years when He comes back to end the Great Tribulation, and His saints will reign with Him. That is a literal reign.

[ForHisglory]

I commend your examination of how egeiro and anistemi are synonyms of each. But what you failed to do is look at them in the context of "raising" someone from the dead, or in the case of Jesus, God raising him from the dead. And what you find there, is the subject of the the person who is being "raised" from the dead, is preemptively stated as only being asleep on their death bed, and their raising is pictorially viewed as "awaking from sleep". In every instance, they are said to be raised up, egeiro, from their deathbed. Only in one instance, and recorded in Matthew and Luke, where Jesus raised the rulers' daughter, is the word anistemi ever used. In Matthew's account it says this:
Mat 9:25 KJV But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.(egeiro).
In Luke, it says this:
Luk 8:54-55 KJV ⁵⁴ And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise (egeiro) ⁵⁵ And her spirit came again, and she arose (anistemi) straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.
Here we see, (it is the same account) Jesus saying to her, Maid, egeiro...rise. And the word anistemi is only used to describe what the maid did, AFTER her spirit came again. This is the only time that anistemi is used within the context of someone rising from the dead. And it is not used in the metaphorical sense of being awakened from sleep. It is used in the synonymical sense of getting up.

What it boils down to is the FACT that egeiro and anistemi are BOTH used for someone coming to life.
In Luke 8 he uses BOTH words for the SAME event - the "egeiro" is used as the COMMAND of Jesus to come to life, and then anistemi reports the RESULT of that command. What this points to at most is that anistemi is a PHYSICAL movement AFTER a CHANGE in status has occurred, which is what I highlighted before.
I did NOT fail to look at how the words are used, nor how they are used about Jesus. The FACT that anistemi is used by the Gospel writers for someone who is NOT ascending to heaven shows that you are making a connection which did NOT exist in the minds of the Gospel writers.

In the rest of the NT, when it is used posthumously in regards to the resurrection of Jesus, you find egeiro being used in the context of walking in the newness of life, even as Jesus rose/ egeiro, from the dead. And you find anistemi being used in the contextual essence of Jesus' ascension or of authoritative ruling in the heavens. Contextually speaking, they do mean different things. And, as I have previously revealed in the scriptures, they unanimously agree that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus meant when he used the word anistemi. Here is an in depth elaboration by Jesus of what would happen while Jesus was with the Father during the anistemi:
Joh 16:16-20 KJV ¹⁶ A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. ¹⁷ Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? ¹⁸ They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith. ¹⁹ Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me? ²⁰ Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.

Incorrect as I highlighted above.
Anistemi was used BEFORE Jesus ascended to heaven when He met Mary in the garden.
Your claim is therefore demonstrably FALSE.
Yes, anistemi is used for when we rise to meet Him in the sky, whilst egeiro does not seem to be used for that purpose, however BOTH are used for indicating someone who was dead and is now alive WITHOUT implying any ascension.
This is the KEY which you don't seem to be happy to accept.
This then leads you to make an erroneous claim about 1 Thes 4, where the CONTEXT has a difference between being DEAD and being ALIVE and NOT a difference between being DEAD and being ASCENDED.

Because we understand the usages of egeiro and anistemi, differently, we need to wrap this up and move on. But, i must say, that I think that you are the only post-tribber that I know who does not see the 7th Trumpet as the 2nd advent. Even though I haven't participated in your thread on revelations chronology, I appreciate it very much. My comments on the seven thunders was, I guess, my invisible contribution to it. In our conversations, I was probing your understanding of the 7th Trumpet "revealing" of Jesus, trying to get at, why/ how you arrived at that conclusion. But your view of 1Peter1 has left me wondering in the dark. I was wondering how you differentiate the apokalupsis of the 7th Trumpet from the apokalupsis adventis (2nd).. If you could be able to explain that to Randy's, you might get more traction in your arguments.

There are more Post-Tribbers who are realising that the 7th Trumpet is NOT the 2nd Advent.
However most Post-Tribbers are coming from a Pre-Trib background (myself included) and that has the 7th Trumpet as the 2nd Advent, and so it takes time for various doctrines and their implications to be worked through.
What apokalupsis is there with the 7th Trumpet? The word itself is not used in that passage.
What we discover though in verse 19 is there is a CHANGE where the temple is heaven is NOW opened.
When we pay attention to language we have the statement:
“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”
followed by
“We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and who was, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign. The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.”

Everyone who holds a Premil position and the standard Pre or Post Trib position makes the start of the statement as immediate, yet manage to postpone the later part to be at a later time. Now as I hold PreMil, I also have the end of the statement as a later time, but what I must do to be consistent in my application of this statement then is to accept that ALL that is said is a statement regarding what is to come to pass, but that none of it is for that moment.
This is confirmed when you read Rev 12 which has a further statement:
“Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come..."
Taking this statement which uses the word "Now" we would assume it means that Jesus has NOW started reigning on earth for it is a statement aligned with Rev 11:15 "has become the kingdom of our Lord..." YET clearly it is NOT the moment when Jesus starts reigning on earth. In fact there are still 42 months BEFORE Jesus will start reigning on earth.
What this means is that "Now..." AND "has become..." speaks of what happens DUE TO what is happening at that time, but NOT that it happens instantaneously.
The 7th Trumpet is when Jesus is crowned in heaven and the victory over Satan in heaven is won and Satan is kicked out.
This ties into Luke 19:
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return.
Jesus is the nobleman and He goes into heaven to receive the kingdom. The receipt of the kingdom is in heaven, but like marriage, there is the ceremony of the bestowal and then later is the consummation of the marriage.
Also the parable of the 10 virgins we have this same declaration regarding "Now..."
Mat 25:6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

Notice the Bridegroom did NOT appear AT THAT MOMENT. If he had ALL the virgins would have gone with Him. Instead this declaration shows that He is coming, that He is NOW a Bridegroom and not simply a man. Things are now in motion, and there is but the delay while He comes.

I see the 7th Trumpet, timewise, being sounded at the feast of Pentecost, (6th/7th day of the 3rd month) (as the end of the feast of weeks) culminating with the 7 vials taking place during the feast of tabernacles, just shy of 42 months later. The beginning of this 42 month period corresponds to the the 5th Trumpet (2 weeks earlier) on the 21st/22nd day of the 2nd month, with Apollyon, the king of the bottomless pit, being the beast that ascends from there. The Feast of Tabernacles ends 42 months later on the 22nd of Tishri, with Armageddon taking place at that time.

As I understand that Jesus returns at the End of the Feast of Tabernacles, so the final 7 Years starts from that time, with the mId point being The Passover. Now as I see the 42 months of the ACs rule as being Jewish months and not modern months, and as there will be at least one additinal month in that period (and possibly two) then it is possible for the mid-point (when the 2W are killed) to be at the Feast of Pentecost. Either way that is the sounding of the 7th Trumpet. The 7 Vials are then opened once the Woman has fled to the place of safety and the false Prophet has started putting the Mark of the Beast on people.
The 5th Trumpet is NOT 2 weeks earlier than the 7th Trumpet. but is before the 7 year period starts.
Note that the AC is the one who causes the 7 year agreement to be made, he simply doesn't rule unopposed UNTIL the final 42 months when the 2W are killed.
As for Apollyon, he is NOT the beast. No such connection is made by John though he does connect the dragon with Satan. As John saw both and named who they were so I have no reason to think John would not have said this of it were the case.

P.S. (one additional comment) I am not contrary on Luke 17:31. I wholeheartedly agree with the DAYS of the Son of man. incidentally, (i think you agree) verse 30 (... when the Son of man is revealed.) is referring to what follows and not what is recorded just prior to verse 30.

What I find interesting is to consider the Days of Noah AND the Days of Lot.
Gen 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
...
Gen 7:4 For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”
Notice that Noah entered the ark SEVEN Days before the floods came.

Gen 7:7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood.
...
Gen 7:10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth.

There is a clear period of time when God sets His people aside. This is the ONLY reason I think that scripture in anyway supports Pre-Trib.
However in Revelation (and Matthew 24) we are told that time is cut short, and this shortened period is half of 7.
However the calling into the wilderness is NOT for all Christians, but SPECIFICALLY for the Jews (which is what Rev 12 shows us).
I therefore see that the whole portion (before verse 30 and after verse 30 is to be taken into account as one whole portion, but that when we accept it is DAYS then we have one Day which is when the fire and sulphur rains down from heaven and a different Day when He is revealed.as the Son of Man.
This matches Zech 14 which also has more than One Day. A Day to flee and a Day of victory.

[marty fox]

There is no adding to Scripture. The context is crystal clear. The idea that Jesus reigns in heaven during a thousand year period, when there will be people ON THE EARTH at that same time is quite incorrect.


No. The context is clear enough in Rev 20.


I asked for Scriptural evidence for your "spiritual kingdom" theory, yet none has been given. So why should I accept the theory? In fact, Jesus WILL reign physically for 1,000 years when He comes back to end the Great Tribulation, and His saints will reign with Him. That is a literal reign.

You misunderstand me what I’m saying is that Jesus reigns over all as He is the current ruler of Gods creation which includes heaven and earth

Revelation 3:14
¹⁴ “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.

I also believe the thousand years to be symbolic for the New Testament era


Without it specifying Jesus on the earth the context is open to interpretation. If Jesus is on the earth when does He go back up to heaven to return again?

God is spirit

John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

Gods kingdom is not of this world

John 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.

Gods spirit dwells inside us

1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst?

Thus His spiritual kingdom lives within us now

[FreeGrace]

You misunderstand me what I’m saying is that Jesus reigns over all as He is the current ruler of Gods creation which includes heaven and earth

I think I understand your post perfectly well. You think the "Millennial Reign" is some kind of "spiritual reign". No, it is when He physically RULES with a rod of iron over the earth for 1,000 years.

I also believe the thousand years to be symbolic for the New Testament era

That is sad. It's quite literal.

Without it specifying Jesus on the earth the context is open to interpretation. If Jesus is on the earth when does He go back up to heaven to return again?

That's part of the point of my thread. He never goes back to heaven. If He does, where does the Bible say so?

In fact, Acts 3:21 says quite clearly that Jesus remains in heaven until the restoration of all thiings. While most of the English translations have "received in heaven", the Greek word literally means to "receive and retain, or contain". So, between the first and second advent, Jesus remains in heaven. And when He returns to resurrect all believers, He stays on earth, to reign.

God is spirit

John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

Gods kingdom is not of this world

Why do you think the verse and your comment supports your "spiritual reign"? Just read Rev 20 with an open mind.

John 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.

Gods spirit dwells inside us

1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst?

Thus His spiritual kingdom lives within us now

How does Jesus rule with a rod of iron, if His kingdom is only "spiritual" and not physical?

[Pesachpup]

What it boils down to is the FACT that egeiro and anistemi are BOTH used for someone coming to life.
In Luke 8 he uses BOTH words for the SAME event - the "egeiro" is used as the COMMAND of Jesus to come to life, and then anistemi reports the RESULT of that command. What this points to at most is that anistemi is a PHYSICAL movement AFTER a CHANGE in status has occurred, which is what I highlighted before.
I did NOT fail to look at how the words are used, nor how they are used about Jesus. The FACT that anistemi is used by the Gospel writers for someone who is NOT ascending to heaven shows that you are making a connection which did NOT exist in the minds of the Gospel writers.


Incorrect as I highlighted above.
Anistemi was used BEFORE Jesus ascended to heaven when He met Mary in the garden.
Your claim is therefore demonstrably FALSE.
Yes, anistemi is used for when we rise to meet Him in the sky, whilst egeiro does not seem to be used for that purpose, however BOTH are used for indicating someone who was dead and is now alive WITHOUT implying any ascension.
This is the KEY which you don't seem to be happy to accept.
This then leads you to make an erroneous claim about 1 Thes 4, where the CONTEXT has a difference between being DEAD and being ALIVE and NOT a difference between being DEAD and being ASCENDED.


There are more Post-Tribbers who are realising that the 7th Trumpet is NOT the 2nd Advent.
However most Post-Tribbers are coming from a Pre-Trib background (myself included) and that has the 7th Trumpet as the 2nd Advent, and so it takes time for various doctrines and their implications to be worked through.
What apokalupsis is there with the 7th Trumpet? The word itself is not used in that passage.
What we discover though in verse 19 is there is a CHANGE where the temple is heaven is NOW opened.
When we pay attention to language we have the statement:
“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”
followed by
“We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and who was, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign. The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.”

Everyone who holds a Premil position and the standard Pre or Post Trib position makes the start of the statement as immediate, yet manage to postpone the later part to be at a later time. Now as I hold PreMil, I also have the end of the statement as a later time, but what I must do to be consistent in my application of this statement then is to accept that ALL that is said is a statement regarding what is to come to pass, but that none of it is for that moment.
This is confirmed when you read Rev 12 which has a further statement:
“Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come..."
Taking this statement which uses the word "Now" we would assume it means that Jesus has NOW started reigning on earth for it is a statement aligned with Rev 11:15 "has become the kingdom of our Lord..." YET clearly it is NOT the moment when Jesus starts reigning on earth. In fact there are still 42 months BEFORE Jesus will start reigning on earth.
What this means is that "Now..." AND "has become..." speaks of what happens DUE TO what is happening at that time, but NOT that it happens instantaneously.
The 7th Trumpet is when Jesus is crowned in heaven and the victory over Satan in heaven is won and Satan is kicked out.
This ties into Luke 19:
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return.
Jesus is the nobleman and He goes into heaven to receive the kingdom. The receipt of the kingdom is in heaven, but like marriage, there is the ceremony of the bestowal and then later is the consummation of the marriage.
Also the parable of the 10 virgins we have this same declaration regarding "Now..."
Mat 25:6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

Notice the Bridegroom did NOT appear AT THAT MOMENT. If he had ALL the virgins would have gone with Him. Instead this declaration shows that He is coming, that He is NOW a Bridegroom and not simply a man. Things are now in motion, and there is but the delay while He comes.


As I understand that Jesus returns at the End of the Feast of Tabernacles, so the final 7 Years starts from that time, with the mId point being The Passover. Now as I see the 42 months of the ACs rule as being Jewish months and not modern months, and as there will be at least one additinal month in that period (and possibly two) then it is possible for the mid-point (when the 2W are killed) to be at the Feast of Pentecost. Either way that is the sounding of the 7th Trumpet. The 7 Vials are then opened once the Woman has fled to the place of safety and the false Prophet has started putting the Mark of the Beast on people.
The 5th Trumpet is NOT 2 weeks earlier than the 7th Trumpet. but is before the 7 year period starts.
Note that the AC is the one who causes the 7 year agreement to be made, he simply doesn't rule unopposed UNTIL the final 42 months when the 2W are killed.
As for Apollyon, he is NOT the beast. No such connection is made by John though he does connect the dragon with Satan. As John saw both and named who they were so I have no reason to think John would not have said this of it were the case.


What I find interesting is to consider the Days of Noah AND the Days of Lot.
Gen 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
...
Gen 7:4 For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”
Notice that Noah entered the ark SEVEN Days before the floods came.

Gen 7:7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood.
...
Gen 7:10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth.

There is a clear period of time when God sets His people aside. This is the ONLY reason I think that scripture in anyway supports Pre-Trib.
However in Revelation (and Matthew 24) we are told that time is cut short, and this shortened period is half of 7.
However the calling into the wilderness is NOT for all Christians, but SPECIFICALLY for the Jews (which is what Rev 12 shows us).
I therefore see that the whole portion (before verse 30 and after verse 30 is to be taken into account as one whole portion, but that when we accept it is DAYS then we have one Day which is when the fire and sulphur rains down from heaven and a different Day when He is revealed.as the Son of Man.
This matches Zech 14 which also has more than One Day. A Day to flee and a Day of victory.

I'm not going to quote any specific scriptures in this reply, because I don't think that it's helping. I am going to avoid the distraction. I am at wits end on how to communicate what I'm seeing in the scriptures about the difference between the egeiro and the anistemi. I realize that this is an extremely radical view compared to the traditional views and therefore makes it hard to grasp.

If you want to hold on to the only evidence you have found in Luke 8 for the synonymous use of the two words. OK But I think the "raising" of Jairus's daughter (as a unilateral event) goes against the evidentiary witness of the resurrection events found in the gospels. Here it is again, in plain speech.

The testimony of Jesus in John 16 IS about the "little while" time that the disciples would not see Jesus, and that this "little while" would cause them great sorrow that would be turned into joy. Jesus said that when this little while was over, they would again see Jesus. This all centers around Jesus telling them that during this "little while", HE would be going to the Father. So, when we look at Mary M's encounter with Jesus in John 20, we hear Jesus saying that "i have not yet ascended to my Father ", we should have no problem understanding that the "little while" that Jesus would not be seen, has not happened yet. We also see Mark 16 telling us that when Mary Magdalene told the disciples that she had seen Jesus, that they were very mournful and sad and did not believe the testimony of Mary. We also see Mark 16 telling us that the logistics of the anistemi of Jesus , consisted of the three appearances of Jesus ON THE FIRST DAY of the week AFTER THE EGEIRO. This was the testimony of the angels at the tomb to the women, and also the account of Mary Magdalene in John 20, which took place BEFORE the "little while". To which Mark 16 goes on to say that Jesus appeared to the two Emmaus disciples IN ANOTHER FORM. This is borne out in great detail in Luke 24, so that there is no mistaking that Mark is referring to that account. And finally that Mark tells us that Jesus appeared the 3rd time (after the egeiro) unto the eleven on that same day... the day of the anistemi. [This is] Two completely separated elements that took place on that day. You have since now claimed that what took place in Luke 8 is a unilateral event, when he said that "her spirit came again, AND she arose straitway..." As a unilateral event, I ask you, was she alive or dead when her spirit came again? and subsequently arose/anistemi.?

Moving on, let me look at the insanity of the question in which you asked me, "where is the apokalupsis found in Rev 11". Apokalupsis = the revelation. It was you who originally stated that the 7th Trumpet of Rev 11 is the revelation of Jesus, but it is not the resurrection? You have been froward in saying that this view stems from Luke 17. There it says, to which I am in much agreement, "... when the Son of man is revealed..."(apokalupto)

The apokalupto! (Just a synonym for apokalupsis. So let me ask you (again). How do you justify and differentiate the apokalupto of Luke 17, from the apokalypsis of Rev 11, and 1Peter1? So 1Peter1 is not the resurrection(?), yet it equals Rev 11 where it says that (aoristically speaking- simple action), the 7th trumpet is when the "dead are judged" and "reward is given to the prophets"? [The sounding of the 7th Trumpet (v.15) is the subject of verse 18]. The use of the word "and" in verses 16 and 18 confirms that.

I do appreciate you last few paragraphs. We are very much in agreement there, and glad to hear that many Post-Tribbers are believing in the non-advent "revelation" of Jesus. Do you see any sense in continuing this dialog? (With our definitional differences)?

Be Blessed
The PuP

[Revelation Man]

The common evangelical view is that Jesus comes to earth to resurrect and rapture all believers and takes them back to Heaven, all before the Great Tribulation. So, what verse or verses teach that Jesus takes all raptured believers to Heaven? Thanks.

Rev. 19: tells us the Bride COME BACK with Jesus on White Horses while the Beast and his minions are STILL ON EARTH, you reckon that takes a Rapture? The Greek word used by Paul was Harpzo, in the Latin Vulgate is was Rapio, in the English versions it is CAUGHT UP, you do understand they all mean the exact same thing right? Since the Latin Vulgate was used from 400 AD to 1400 AD the Rapio became Rapture in the English vernacular, the KJV decided to use Caught Up instead.

In Rev. 14:14 we see Jesus Rapturing the Church from up on a CLOUD Hmmmmmmm. That is a flashback, since Rev. 14 is THE HARVEST CHAPTER, all of the Harvest can't be shown without a flashback or flash-forward. Jesus shows up and Harvests the Wheat (Israel/144,000) in Rev. 14:1 and Harvests the Wicked tares in verses17-20. BUT.......in a flashback Jesus Raptures the Church in verse 14.

We see the Church in Heaven in Rev. 4:4 and Rev. 5:9, BEFORE the Seals, are opened. This is not a hard subject, we just have a lot of hard-headed people in this world who are not really called to teach the bible, trying to teach the bible, and it really irks me that they lead people down rabbit holes.

[angelmike]

Rev. 19: tells us the Bride COME BACK with Jesus on White Horses while the Beast and his minions are STILL ON EARTH, you reckon that takes a Rapture? The Greek word used by Paul was Harpzo, in the Latin Vulgate is was Rapio, in the English versions it is CAUGHT UP, you do understand they all mean the exact same thing right? Since the Latin Vulgate was used from 400 AD to 1400 AD the Rapio became Rapture in the English vernacular, the KJV decided to use Caught Up instead.

In Rev. 14:14 we see Jesus Rapturing the Church from up on a CLOUD Hmmmmmmm. That is a flashback, since Rev. 14 is THE HARVEST CHAPTER, all of the Harvest can't be shown without a flashback or flash-forward. Jesus shows up and Harvests the Wheat (Israel/144,000) in Rev. 14:1 and Harvests the Wicked tares in verses17-20. BUT.......in a flashback Jesus Raptures the Church in verse 14.

We see the Church in Heaven in Rev. 4:4 and Rev. 5:9, BEFORE the Seals, are opened. This is not a hard subject, we just have a lot of hard-headed people in this world who are not really called to teach the bible, trying to teach the bible, and it really irks me that they lead people down rabbit holes.

I want to know when did the church that is invited, transform to the bride. You do not read the scripture, but quote your own view that you have taken over from someone. Nowhere in the Bible are the saints called the bride. Where you have dug up this idea goes beyond my mind.

[FreeGrace]

Rev. 19: tells us the Bride COME BACK with Jesus on White Horses while the Beast and his minions are STILL ON EARTH, you reckon that takes a Rapture? The Greek word used by Paul was Harpzo, in the Latin Vulgate is was Rapio, in the English versions it is CAUGHT UP, you do understand they all mean the exact same thing right? Since the Latin Vulgate was used from 400 AD to 1400 AD the Rapio became Rapture in the English vernacular, the KJV decided to use Caught Up instead.

First, it isn't the "Bride" that comes back with Jesus. v.14 says "the armies of heaven". That would be all the dead saints, not just the Bride.

Second, the point of this thread is to prove that there is no pre trib rapture, as commonly taught.

In Rev. 14:14 we see Jesus Rapturing the Church from up on a CLOUD Hmmmmmmm. That is a flashback, since Rev. 14 is THE HARVEST CHAPTER, all of the Harvest can't be shown without a flashback or flash-forward. Jesus shows up and Harvests the Wheat (Israel/144,000) in Rev. 14:1 and Harvests the Wicked tares in verses17-20. BUT.......in a flashback Jesus Raptures the Church in verse 14.

Did you actually read v.14? It says nothing about the Church. Or anyone accompanying Him. But we know that when Jesus returns at the 2nd Advent, He will be accompanied by all those already in heaven.

We see the Church in Heaven in Rev. 4:4 and Rev. 5:9, BEFORE the Seals, are opened. This is not a hard subject, we just have a lot of hard-headed people in this world who are not really called to teach the bible, trying to teach the bible, and it really irks me that they lead people down rabbit holes.

Neither 4:4 or 5:9 mentions the "Church". Both verses refer to the saved people who have already died and are in heaven. You are correct, "this is not a hrad subject", but some people sure do have a hard time understanding Revelation. When Jesus returns to earth, He will be accompanied by all the believers already in heaven. They will be resurrected (their bodies) first, followed by all the living believers on earth. That is clear from 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thess 4.

[ForHisglory]

I'm not going to quote any specific scriptures in this reply, because I don't think that it's helping. I am going to avoid the distraction. I am at wits end on how to communicate what I'm seeing in the scriptures about the difference between the egeiro and the anistemi. I realize that this is an extremely radical view compared to the traditional views and therefore makes it hard to grasp.

I don;t see your view as radical, I simply see it as mistaken.
You are basically claiming that the Gospel writers used the two words egeiro and anistemi to indicate TWO different ideas abut rising form the dead.
What I have highlighted is how those writers HAVE used those words and that they do NOT give the SPECIFIC meaning you are claiming they are using.

If you want to hold on to the only evidence you have found in Luke 8 for the synonymous use of the two words. OK But I think the "raising" of Jairus's daughter (as a unilateral event) goes against the evidentiary witness of the resurrection events found in the gospels.

It is NOT the ONLY evidence, but by itself it is ENOUGH evidence to show that Luke did NOT use these words the way you are claiming.
As we look at how those words WERE used by the Gospel writers and by Paul we find that your claim is NOT supported by scripture.
This is why I disagree with your claim and why I have provided the scriptures I did which also disprove your claim.

Here it is again, in plain speech.

The testimony of Jesus in John 16 IS about the "little while" time that the disciples would not see Jesus, and that this "little while" would cause them great sorrow that would be turned into joy. Jesus said that when this little while was over, they would again see Jesus. This all centers around Jesus telling them that during this "little while", HE would be going to the Father. So, when we look at Mary M's encounter with Jesus in John 20, we hear Jesus saying that "i have not yet ascended to my Father ", we should have no problem understanding that the "little while" that Jesus would not be seen, has not happened yet.

Now you are making a further claim about "a little while" which is a nonsense. The "little while" that causes them sorrow would refer to His death, and then this would turn to joy when they see Him as a risen Lord.
In the case of Mary she had seen Him die, and had sorrow, and then gone to the tomb and found it empty and wept more, and now she meets Jesus who is risen (anistemi) and she has great joy and doesn't want to let Him go.

We also see Mark 16 telling us that when Mary Magdalene told the disciples that she had seen Jesus, that they were very mournful and sad and did not believe the testimony of Mary.

They did NOT believe Mary and so they have NOT YET had their sorrow turned to joy.

We also see Mark 16 telling us that the logistics of the anistemi of Jesus , consisted of the three appearances of Jesus ON THE FIRST DAY of the week AFTER THE EGEIRO. This was the testimony of the angels at the tomb to the women, and also the account of Mary Magdalene in John 20, which took place BEFORE the "little while". To which Mark 16 goes on to say that Jesus appeared to the two Emmaus disciples IN ANOTHER FORM. This is borne out in great detail in Luke 24, so that there is no mistaking that Mark is referring to that account. And finally that Mark tells us that Jesus appeared the 3rd time (after the egeiro) unto the eleven on that same day... the day of the anistemi. [This is] Two completely separated elements that took place on that day. You have since now claimed that what took place in Luke 8 is a unilateral event, when he said that "her spirit came again, AND she arose straitway..." As a unilateral event, I ask you, was she alive or dead when her spirit came again? and subsequently arose/anistemi.?

ALL that this shows is that egeiro and anistemi are used interchangeably by the Gospel writers.
Jesus command was egeiro and anistemi happened (yet she did NOT ascend to heaven).
Jesus was egeiro and this was anistemi BEFORE He went to the Father.
Jesus was anistemi from the grave. He egeiro.

Moving on, let me look at the insanity of the question in which you asked me, "where is the apokalupsis found in Rev 11". Apokalupsis = the revelation. It was you who originally stated that the 7th Trumpet of Rev 11 is the revelation of Jesus, but it is not the resurrection? You have been froward in saying that this view stems from Luke 17. There it says, to which I am in much agreement, "... when the Son of man is revealed..."(apokalupto)
The apokalupto! (Just a synonym for apokalupsis. So let me ask you (again). How do you justify and differentiate the apokalupto of Luke 17, from the apokalypsis of Rev 11, and 1Peter1? So 1Peter1 is not the resurrection(?), yet it equals Rev 11 where it says that (aoristically speaking- simple action), the 7th trumpet is when the "dead are judged" and "reward is given to the prophets"? [The sounding of the 7th Trumpet (v.15) is the subject of verse 18]. The use of the word "and" in verses 16 and 18 confirms that.

1Pe 1:6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,
1Pe 1:7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

What is the testing by fire? It is the Tribulation of this present time. What we endure is to bring praise and glory and honour to Jesus. Now does Jesus simply receive that when He comes or is He receiving it now as He is seen in our lives?
There are three revelations in this few verses of 5, 7 & 12. One is what was revealed (v 12), one is what will be revealed (v 5) and I think the other is what is being revealed (v 7). However I do understand why people make the revealing of v 7 to be at the same time as that of v 5 though it is a revelation of something different..
However there is NO requirement for ANY of the revelations of 1 Peter 1 to be the same thing as a revealing in Luke 17 or Rev 11. You seem to latch onto a word (or words) and then want them to have the same meaning from every context as if the Bible is a giant word search and if we find the word in another place then it means the SAME thing and is imparting the SAME idea. I don't believe the Bible functions like that at all.
I make my connections by the entire scene being explained and what occurs at that time, IOW the CONTEXT is what drives my connections and NOT words themselves.
Now I see the timing of the revealing of Jesus in Luke 17 to be when the people need to flee Jerusalem as noted in Matt 24 (and Zech 14).
This then begs the question when does this event of Matt 24 occur in Revelation.
Well it occurs when the AC comes to power and causes the AoD, which is NOT possible while the temple is in the control of believers and the 2W are giving their testimony. However we have them being killed by the AC (I understand the beast who comes from the pit to be the AC), and then the lie for 3.5 days followed by a great earthquake in Jerusalem.
Well Zech 14 speaks of the earthquake in Jerusalem and fleeing and Matt makes a connection for fleeing when the sanctuary is abominated (by the killing of the 2W and the actions of the False Prophet, and the declaration of the AC as per 2 Thess2).
This then brings the revealing of Jesus into a particular time in Revelation, without it being directly mentioned.
I hope this clarifies my thinking and reasoning and why I am in disagreement with you. If you find any value in changing anything or dealing with my point then please do.

[Pesachpup]

I don;t see your view as radical, I simply see it as mistaken.
You are basically claiming that the Gospel writers used the two words egeiro and anistemi to indicate TWO different ideas abut rising form the dead.
What I have highlighted is how those writers HAVE used those words and that they do NOT give the SPECIFIC meaning you are claiming they are using.


It is NOT the ONLY evidence, but by itself it is ENOUGH evidence to show that Luke did NOT use these words the way you are claiming.
As we look at how those words WERE used by the Gospel writers and by Paul we find that your claim is NOT supported by scripture.
This is why I disagree with your claim and why I have provided the scriptures I did which also disprove your claim.


Now you are making a further claim about "a little while" which is a nonsense. The "little while" that causes them sorrow would refer to His death, and then this would turn to joy when they see Him as a risen Lord.
In the case of Mary she had seen Him die, and had sorrow, and then gone to the tomb and found it empty and wept more, and now she meets Jesus who is risen (anistemi) and she has great joy and doesn't want to let Him go.


They did NOT believe Mary and so they have NOT YET had their sorrow turned to joy.


ALL that this shows is that egeiro and anistemi are used interchangeably by the Gospel writers.
Jesus command was egeiro and anistemi happened (yet she did NOT ascend to heaven).
Jesus was egeiro and this was anistemi BEFORE He went to the Father.
Jesus was anistemi from the grave. He egeiro.


1Pe 1:6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,
1Pe 1:7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

What is the testing by fire? It is the Tribulation of this present time. What we endure is to bring praise and glory and honour to Jesus. Now does Jesus simply receive that when He comes or is He receiving it now as He is seen in our lives?
There are three revelations in this few verses of 5, 7 & 12. One is what was revealed (v 12), one is what will be revealed (v 5) and I think the other is what is being revealed (v 7). However I do understand why people make the revealing of v 7 to be at the same time as that of v 5 though it is a revelation of something different..
However there is NO requirement for ANY of the revelations of 1 Peter 1 to be the same thing as a revealing in Luke 17 or Rev 11. You seem to latch onto a word (or words) and then want them to have the same meaning from every context as if the Bible is a giant word search and if we find the word in another place then it means the SAME thing and is imparting the SAME idea. I don't believe the Bible functions like that at all.
I make my connections by the entire scene being explained and what occurs at that time, IOW the CONTEXT is what drives my connections and NOT words themselves.
Now I see the timing of the revealing of Jesus in Luke 17 to be when the people need to flee Jerusalem as noted in Matt 24 (and Zech 14).
This then begs the question when does this event of Matt 24 occur in Revelation.
Well it occurs when the AC comes to power and causes the AoD, which is NOT possible while the temple is in the control of believers and the 2W are giving their testimony. However we have them being killed by the AC (I understand the beast who comes from the pit to be the AC), and then the lie for 3.5 days followed by a great earthquake in Jerusalem.
Well Zech 14 speaks of the earthquake in Jerusalem and fleeing and Matt makes a connection for fleeing when the sanctuary is abominated (by the killing of the 2W and the actions of the False Prophet, and the declaration of the AC as per 2 Thess2).
This then brings the revealing of Jesus into a particular time in Revelation, without it being directly mentioned.
I hope this clarifies my thinking and reasoning and why I am in disagreement with you. If you find any value in changing anything or dealing with my point then please do.

This is my last response in this matter (feel free to rebut) because you cannot understand the plain language of Jesus and the Apostles.

Jesus said, and reiterated by the apostles,

"In a little while, ye shall not see me...BECAUSE I go to the Father "

Peter says that WE have a lively hope that is,

1. Defined and established as the resurrection of Jesus, verse 3,
2. An inheritance that is incorruptible, undefiled and reserved in heaven; verse 4
3. It is salvation that will be:
A. Revealed in the last time, verse 5
B. Might be (not IS) fill of praise, honor & glory; v7
C. The end of our faith, verse 9
D. The salvation of our souls; verse 9
4. It is the same salvation that the prophets,
A. Enquired of,
. B. Searched diligently for,
C. And prophesied about. Verse 10
5. It is Also testified by
A. The grace that is in you; verse 10
. B. the spirit of Christ in them and us, verse 11
C. The sufferings of Christ; verse 11
D. the glory that FOLLOWED; verse 11
. E. Our ministry, verse 12
F. Them which also preach the gospel, verse 12
G. The Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; verse 12
6.Desired by the angels; verse 12
7. It is the grace that is to be brought to you; verse 13

AT THE APPEARING OF JESUS CHRIST & (V.4)
AT THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST. (V.13).

It is the Blessed hope of the saints.

Tit 2:13 KJV Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Be Blessed
The PuP