Where do I Find Rapture in Revelation?

[vooks]

Well I gave you a civil response. What you posted here is anything but. I will leave you to your misery.

sideshows

 

[Walter]

Too funny!!!

 

[Hark]

How many battles do you find in Revelation?

First off; the first reference below is wrong; that's Revelation 19 th chapter. FYI. No biggie. I have made mistakes. This is for our readers following this discussion.

Revelation 20:19-21 (KJV)
And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

The second reference below is correct.

Revelation 20:7-10 (KJV)
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Now for your explanation;

These two battles are separated by around 1000 years. And the first one happens BEFORE resurrection while the second one happens after resurrection of the saints.

That much I understand of your attempt at explaining it per your P.O.V., BUT in respect to the two references of Revelation 19:19-21 and then Revelation 20:7-10, the event in Revelation 19:19-21 is the event in Zechariah 14:1-5.

If Zechariah's battle entails resurrected saints, it MUST be the latter that happens AFTER resurrection.

Per your first incorrect reference that you testify was to happen first; you had overlooked what you had placed in bold red.

Revelation 20:19-21 (KJV) ( It's really Revelation 19:19-21 BTW )
And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army

So the beast and the earth's armies will gather to make war against the coming King of kings and what army? Christ's army.

You can infer that the army are going to be angels, but I believe I had made my point clearer here when it ties in with Zechariah 14:1-5 that the saints coming with Him is that army in Revelation 19:19.

Once again my brother @Hark,
Where is the much touted (pre-trib) rapture in Revelation?

If you were honest enough, the only reason you resist the first resurrection as what Holy Spirit calls FIRST and instead engage in theological circus acts is simple; resurrection at Rev 20 happens post-trib which smashes your pet theory to smithereens. Please take off your pre-trib scales and let Holy Spirit speak to you.

I have had to discard a lot of religious nonsense and garbage I gallantly defended because I found it inconsistent with the Sword of the Word.

I know you would like to think that you did, but honesty has nothing to do with the progress of this discussion, because you were not dishonest about how you read Revelation 19:19. You just did not see that you were actually supporting my point of view.

Maybe this will help. Let's look at the Greek word from which " first " was translated from. Go to this link below:

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B66C020.htm

If you scroll down to the 5th verse and click on the last Greek word in the Greek text of that verse, you will find this definition for the Greek word protos:

"contracted superlative of pro - pro 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):--before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former."

Now look at the verse again in context to see the meaning of first in relation to the context of that verse which was used to defer from the rest of the dead that was to happen later on.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

So how I had seen it was correct because John was not inferring that this "first resurrection" was the only resurrection, but that this resurrection happened first before the rest of the dead happened later on.

Ask yourself why John did not immediately place "This is the first resurrection" at the beginning of verse 5 in connection to verse 4?

But John placed that after talking about the rest of the dead to be resurrected later on after a thousand years were finished. And so "first resurrection" was used to defer from the rest of the dead in an order, but not inferring that this was the only resurrection which you and many readers are taking that to mean.

 

[vooks]

First off; the first reference below is wrong; that's Revelation 19 th chapter. FYI. No biggie. I have made mistakes. This is for our readers following this discussion.



The second reference below is correct.



Now for your explanation;



That much I understand of your attempt at explaining it per your P.O.V., BUT in respect to the two references of Revelation 19:19-21 and then Revelation 20:7-10, the event in Revelation 19:19-21 is the event in Zechariah 14:1-5.



Per your first incorrect reference that you testify was to happen first; you had overlooked what you had placed in bold red.

Revelation 20:19-21 (KJV) ( It's really Revelation 19:19-21 BTW )
And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army

So the beast and the earth's armies will gather to make war against the coming King of kings and what army? Christ's army.

You can infer that the army are going to be angels, but I believe I had made my point clearer here when it ties in with Zechariah 14:1-5 that the saints coming with Him is that army in Revelation 19:19.



I know you would like to think that you did, but honesty has nothing to do with the progress of this discussion, because you were not dishonest about how you read Revelation 19:19. You just did not see that you were actually supporting my point of view.

Maybe this will help. Let's look at the Greek word from which " first " was translated from. Go to this link below:

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B66C020.htm

If you scroll down to the 5th verse and click on the last Greek word in the Greek text of that verse, you will find this definition for the Greek word protos:

"contracted superlative of pro - pro 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):--before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former."

Now look at the verse again in context to see the meaning of first in relation to the context of that verse which was used to defer from the rest of the dead that was to happen later on.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

So how I had seen it was correct because John was not inferring that this "first resurrection" was the only resurrection, but that this resurrection happened first before the rest of the dead happened later on.

Ask yourself why John did not immediately place "This is the first resurrection" at the beginning of verse 5 in connection to verse 4?

But John placed that after talking about the rest of the dead to be resurrected later on after a thousand years were finished. And so "first resurrection" was used to defer from the rest of the dead in an order, but not inferring that this was the only resurrection which you and many readers are taking that to mean.

you are full of nonsense.

These are two battles and you have zero proof that Zechariah's is relating to the first and not the second. You just make things up to support your nonsense.

why is Satan gathering around the beloved city for battle? Tourism?

 

[vooks]

@Hark,
When Holy Spirit says FIRST, He means FIRST not the 'first of the remaining two'. If you have scriptural evidence that FIRST means anything else other than FIRST. Please share it

 

[Hark]

you are full of nonsense.

These are two battles and you have zero proof that Zechariah's is relating to the first and not the second. You just make things up to support your nonsense.

why is Satan gathering around the beloved city for battle? Tourism?

You said the first battle was Revelation 19:19 which was the battle done when Satan was cast into the pit in Revelation 20:1-2

Revelation 19:19 says the beast and the world's armies are battling Christ and His army. What is His army consist of?

Zechariah 14:5 is the answer to that question as He sets foot on the Mount of Olives, ( Zechariah 14:4 means no longer in the air ) bringing the saints with Him to do battle ( Zechariah 14:5 ).

So now He is on earth with the saints battling Satan and the world's armies and then Satan is casted into the pit and then what?

Then the so called " first " resurrection happens. So first cannot mean the only resurrection that had happened. First means this resurrection was to happen first before the rest of the dead are resurrected later on.

 

[Hark]

@Hark,
When Holy Spirit says FIRST, He means FIRST not the 'first of the remaining two'. If you have scriptural evidence that FIRST means anything else other than FIRST. Please share it

You want the concordance definition again from which "first" was translated from?

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B66C020.htm

If you scroll down to the 5th verse and click on the last Greek word in the Greek text of that verse, you will find this definition for the Greek word protos:

"contracted superlative of pro - pro 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):--before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former."

Now look at the verse again in context to see the meaning of first in relation to the context of that verse 5 which was used to defer from the rest of the dead that was to happen later on in verse 5.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

First was used to place the order of these two resurrections; that is all that it means.

 

[vooks]

You said the first battle was Revelation 19:19 which was the battle done when Satan was cast into the pit in Revelation 20:1-2

Revelation 19:19 says the beast and the world's armies are battling Christ and His army. What is His army consist of?

Zechariah 14:5 is the answer to that question as He sets foot on the Mount of Olives, ( Zechariah 14:4 means no longer in the air ) bringing the saints with Him to do battle ( Zechariah 14:5 ).

So now He is on earth with the saints battling Satan and the world's armies and then Satan is casted into the pit and then what?

Then the so called " first " resurrection happens. So first cannot mean the only resurrection that had happened. First means this resurrection was to happen first before the rest of the dead are resurrected later on.

You are being obtuse.
IIt is circular reasoning to insist there MUST have been some resurrection prior to the first battle because Zechariah's battle has resurrected saints.

In the first battle we have the armies of the Lord which you assume/imagine to be resurrected saints. But in the second battle, we have resurrected saints who following your logic MUST be Christ's army as well for how can the resurrected saints be armies in one battle and not the other?

So in the two battles we have resurrected saints, and if we do, what reason do you have for claiming Zechariah's is one and not the other?

 

[vooks]

You want the concordance definition again from which "first" was translated from?

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B66C020.htm

If you scroll down to the 5th verse and click on the last Greek word in the Greek text of that verse, you will find this definition for the Greek word protos:

"contracted superlative of pro - pro 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):--before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former."

Now look at the verse again in context to see the meaning of first in relation to the context of that verse 5 which was used to defer from the rest of the dead that was to happen later on in verse 5.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

First was used to place the order of these two resurrections; that is all that it means.

Do me a favor, give me examples where this exact word means anything but FIRST

 

[Hark]

You are being obtuse.
IIt is circular reasoning to insist there MUST have been some resurrection prior to the first battle because Zechariah's battle has resurrected saints.

In the first battle we have the armies of the Lord which you assume/imagine to be resurrected saints. But in the second battle, we have resurrected saints who following your logic MUST be Christ's army as well for how can the resurrected saints be armies in one battle and not the other?

So in the two battles we have resurrected saints, and if we do, what reason do you have for claiming Zechariah's is one and not the other?

The reason is that Christ is setting foot on the Mount Olives. ( Zechariah 14:4 ) That means He was in the air coming to do battle with the world's armies at Jerusalem. He sets foot on the Mount Olives, and the saints are coming with Him from above ( Zechariah 14:5 )

 

[Hark]

Do me a favor, give me examples where this exact word means anything but FIRST

Protos is the Greek word from which there are other words to use besides first as it was used to defer one thing from another to be placed in order.

Mia is another Greek word that also means first. Here is that definition from the concordance.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK33.htm#S3391

"irregular feminine of eis* - heis* 1520; one or first:--a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other."

The Greek word, " mia " was used to describe the day of the week as in the " first " day of the week for Mark 16:2.

So the Greek word "protos" is using " first " to set an order between two resurrections as this one is happening before the other in context.

You have to ask yourself why there are two Greek words for "first". Then you may see what John really meant by the "first" resurrection in context.

 

[vooks]

The reason is that Christ is setting foot on the Mount Olives. ( Zechariah 14:4 ) That means He was in the air coming to do battle with the world's armies at Jerusalem. He sets foot on the Mount Olives, and the saints are coming with Him from above ( Zechariah 14:5 )

What is it about Jesus setting foot on Mount Olives that can only be inferred from Rev 19 battle and not Rev 20 battle?

 

[vooks]

Protos is the Greek word from which there are other words to use besides first as it was used to defer one thing from another to be placed in order.

Mia is another Greek word that also means first. Here is that definition from the concordance.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK33.htm#S3391

"irregular feminine of eis* - heis* 1520; one or first:--a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other."

The Greek word, " mia " was used to describe the day of the week as in the " first " day of the week for Mark 16:2.

So the Greek word "protos" is using " first " to set an order between two resurrections as this one is happening before the other in context.

You have to ask yourself why there are two Greek words for "first". Then you may see what John really meant by the "first" resurrection in context.

You are digressing.
I simply asked for an example of the exact Greek word FIRST which means anything other than first.

 

[Hark]

What is it about Jesus setting foot on Mount Olives that can only be inferred from Rev 19 battle and not Rev 20 battle?

Jesus is reigning as the King of kings when the second battle is commencing. He is not doing it starting it from Mount Olives.

 

[Hark]

You are digressing.
I simply asked for an example of the exact Greek word FIRST which means anything other than first.

There are two Greek words for first; mia and protos.

Ask yourself why there are two Greek words for first. Find out the difference between the two. Or don't. We cannot continue any further for the progress of your discussion by your utter dismissal without substance for that dismissal.

 

[vooks]

Jesus is reigning as the King of kings when the second battle is commencing. He is not doing it starting it from Mount Olives.

You are hilariou
Who says he is not reigning in 19 but he is reigning in 20?

 

[vooks]

There are two Greek words for first; mia and protos.

Ask yourself why there are two Greek words for first. Find out the difference between the two. Or don't. We cannot continue any further for the progress of your discussion by your utter dismissal without substance for that dismissal.

Because it is irrelevant.
The actual word for FIRST in Rev 20:5,6 is prote not protos. Basic common sense theology which you so severely lack demands we examine ALL its scriptural applications in NT. Next we move on to Septuagint. After this we go to the church fathers and finally, contemporary literature.

Let's start with NT. Show me ANY application of the EXACT SAME word in NT meaning anything other than FIRST

 

[vooks]

Revelation 20:6 (KJV)
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Those who participate in the FIRST resurrection;
1. Will not go through the second death
2. Wil reign with Christ 1000 years

Pre-trib nonsense peddlers believe they won't participate in the FIRST resurrection yet they will have #1 and #2

 

[Hark]

You are hilariou
Who says he is not reigning in 19 but he is reigning in 20?

You basically said He is "coming" to do battle in Revelation 19 with Him being on a white horse and so the second battle in Revelation 20 is where He is already reigning. There is no coming when He is reigning from Jerusalem. The second battle is the devil and his armies are coming to Him at Jerusalem.

His foot would not be setting down on the Mount Olives unless He was coming from the air. Did you notice how the Mount split when He did?

Zechariah 14:3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. 5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

 

[Hark]

Because it is irrelevant.
The actual word for FIRST in Rev 20:5,6 is prote not protos. Basic common sense theology which you so severely lack demands we examine ALL its scriptural applications in NT. Next we move on to Septuagint. After this we go to the church fathers and finally, contemporary literature.

Let's start with NT. Show me ANY application of the EXACT SAME word in NT meaning anything other than FIRST

I had given you links to mia and protos as it is spelled protos from that link.

First was derived from mia in Mark 16:2

I am not going to click on every Greek word in the Greek text in the whole Bible looking for protos being used again in the N.T.