The "secret" Rapture theory

[Victoria]

They do not believe that Christ came secretly 70 A.D. ~ but do take scriptures in Matthew 24; Mark 13 and Luke 21 where the scriptures speaks of Christ's second coming and try to applied a coming, "not" to the end of the world as the Holy Ghost intended them to be understood, but to the destruction of of the Jewish temple and nation.

Confusion... just as I've already concluded

Victoria, you are assuming a position that you cannot prove, since you have no scriptures to support what you saying, You must have scriptures to support what you are saying, or else, it is just an assumption on your part, that you have received from someone else saying the same. No pun intended, just making a point for your consideration.

It would only appear that way if you're in opposition to Paul's ministry. Mystery = hidden = secret
As Jesus Himself had Paul relay unto us, you've gotta rightly divide.

The first resurrection is strictly spiritual in nature, it takes place when one is born again.

Ephesians 2:1​

“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;”

Correct, Jesus being the firstfruits of all who slept, as mentioned 1 Corinthians 15:20.
I'm w/ you so far. However, this isn't speaking of the first future bodily resurrection.

Red, can something "new" be born again? Only something that previously existed can be, right?

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go,
behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
(Exodus 4:22-23)

Fast forward to John 3:1-7, where Jesus is telling Nicodemus that Israel must be born again, as a nation.
Everything prior to the cross is still Old Testament.

John 5:25​

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”

Those who have part in this resurrection the second death has no power over them!

Revelation 20:6​

“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.”

Christ is on David's spiritual throne now~(Acts 2:29-35) where he is reigning and his saints with him! (1st Corinthians 15:24-28. ) Much like David of old was king, yet not in Jerusalem, but later came and reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel, just as Christ one day shall come and reign over all true Israel in the world to come.

He initially ruled Judah from Hebron for about seven and a half years before conquering Jerusalem and establishing it as the capital, from which he reigned over the united kingdom of Israel and Judah for 33 years.

I answered this previously here:

7 Reasons Great Tribulation | Page 14

 

[mikesw]

Confusion... just as I've already concluded

It would only appear that way if you're in opposition to Paul's ministry. Mystery = hidden = secret
As Jesus Himself had Paul relay unto us, you've gotta rightly divide.

Correct, Jesus being the firstfruits of all who slept, as mentioned 1 Corinthians 15:20.
I'm w/ you so far. However, this isn't speaking of the first future bodily resurrection.

Red, can something "new" be born again? Only something that previously existed can be, right?

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go,
behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
(Exodus 4:22-23)

Fast forward to John 3:1-7, where Jesus is telling Nicodemus that Israel must be born again, as a nation.
Everything prior to the cross is still Old Testament.


I answered this previously here:

7 Reasons Great Tribulation | Page 14

See why I backed off certain discussions? I cannot treat Matthew 24 as some totally allegorical description. It would be outside the bounds of the type of discussion I would want to have on eschatology. This is not to deny certain allegorical aspects though.

 

[Victoria]

See why I backed off certain discussions? I cannot treat Matthew 24 as some totally allegorical description. It would be outside the bounds of the type of discussion I would want to have on eschatology. This is not to deny certain allegorical aspects though.

Understood, Mike. You have your own convictions, & that's to be respected
I wasn't aware that some considered A.D. 70 a secret rapture.

 

[civic]

@FreeInChrist @Victoria a spiritual return of Christ is heresy, false doctrine and a denial of Christs 2nd Coming which is an essential / core doctrine of Christianity from both testaments. The OT prophets taught it , Jesus taught it and so did the Apostles.

 

[Amos]

See why I backed off certain discussions? I cannot treat Matthew 24 as some totally allegorical description. It would be outside the bounds of the type of discussion I would want to have on eschatology. This is not to deny certain allegorical aspects though.

Yup, I'm staying out of this one.

 

[Victoria]

a spiritual return of Christ is heresy, false doctrine and a denial of Christs 2nd Coming which is an essential / core doctrine of Christianity from both testaments. The OT prophets taught it , Jesus taught it and so did the Apostles.

Amen, brother!

 

[civic]

Amen, brother!

Jesus warns against a non visible coming in Matthew 24:23-28 and calls those who teach it false prophets.

 

[Victoria]

Jesus warns against a non visible coming in Matthew 24:23-28 and calls those who teach it false prophets.

Amen

I'm not sure exactly what happened. I commented that I didn't know some PP's believe in an A.D. 70 secret rapture.
Perhaps I gave off a bit of confusion in what followed in my post?

 

[civic]

Amen

I'm not sure exactly what happened. I commented that I didn't know some PP's believe in an A.D. 70 secret rapture.
Perhaps I gave off a bit of confusion in what followed in my post?

Preterists believe His return was non visible, non physical and spiritual

 

[Victoria]

Preterists believe His return was non visible, non physical and spiritual

Yes, Preterism was invented by a Jesuit Priest named Luis del Alcázar in retaliation against the Protestant Reformation.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Yes, Preterism was invented by a Jesuit Priest named Luis del Alcázar in retaliation against the Protestant Reformation.

Preterism was "invented" by Jesus and His Apostles. The Reformers, bless them, were confused on the identity of the Man of Lawlessness, whom the Apostle Paul said was alive in his own days. That Man of Lawlessness as well as his restrainer died in that first-century generation (AD 66 to be exact).

Preterists believe His return was non visible, non physical and spiritual

Not all of them. You are painting with a rather broad brush. I am a Preterist that believes Christ's returns were to be visible and physical. Christ Jesus at His ascension has always continued to retain that same glorified, resurrected form which came out of the grave. That means wherever He goes, He is manifested and appears in that same glorified, resurrected, human body form. He "continueth ever" in that form as our Great High Priest, as the book of Hebrews taught.

 

[mikesw]

Yes, Preterism was invented by a Jesuit Priest named Luis del Alcázar in retaliation against the Protestant Reformation.

You ought to remember that when someone wants to create the wrong thinking they will create one view that attracts certain people and then create an opposing view that attracts a separate group. That seems to be what happened with eschatology almost 200 years ago

 

[3 Resurrections]

And not to sidetrack this thread into another thought ... There are unexplained things that have happened that are documented in the Holy Book and "man" has used his ability to offer explanations. But I do not recall seeing a discussion of such on any forum, or even by any-preterists as to what or why... It is basically ignored.

50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split

52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

This was not secret by any stretch it is a biblical recording. But it stops at this verse... never to be brought up again....

54 Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

I have written extensively about these Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints many, many times, on many, many Christian forums, including the GCF forum where you and I share membership. The Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were the "first resurrection" event and were bodily raised on the same day that Christ arose from the grave - all of them together composing the "First-fruits" as being that "first resurrection" event.

The first resurrection is strictly spiritual in nature, it takes place when one is born again.

Not possible. The Scriptures tell us in Rev. 20:5 that the millennium period was "finished" when the "first resurrection" took place with that "remnant of the dead" coming to life again. This "first resurrection" was a single event on the calendar in AD 33 - not an event which repeatedly takes place every time a person is born again.

 

[Victoria]

@3 Resurrections @mikesw

I hold the position taught by the apostle Paul given to him by Jesus Christ Himself, rightly divided.

 

[Red Baker]

Correct, Jesus being the firstfruits of all who slept, as mentioned 1 Corinthians 15:20.
I'm w/ you so far. However, this isn't speaking of the first future bodily resurrection.

Red, can something "new" be born again? Only something that previously existed can be, right?

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go,
behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
(Exodus 4:22-23)

Greetings Victoria,

Pray to tell me, what does your words above have to do with what I said:

Red Baker said:
The first resurrection is strictly spiritual in nature, it takes place when one is born again.

Ephesians 2:1​

“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;”

I never said that this has reference to a bodily resurrection, it strictly has reference to a spiritual resurrection that takes place when one is born again by the Spirit of God. You need to reread what I said in light of the word of God, once more, and then comment.

Fast forward to John 3:1-7, where Jesus is telling Nicodemus that Israel must be born again, as a nation.
Everything prior to the cross is still Old Testament.

Victoria, if that is your understanding of John 3:1-8, then you are very confused. Israel as a nation is not even on Christ's mind in this discourse with Nicodemus, and is certainly not the reason as to why it was given, and recorded for us for all to learn as long as this world should remain.

Yes, everything prior to the cross is OT, that's a given. But, the reason why John 3:1-8, is to teach us, a great biblical truth and it is this: "A man must be first born of God's Spirit before he can see, hear, and believe, all in which are the fruit of one born of the Spirit of God!"

John 3:3​

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Double verily is used for one reason, and it is this: Jesus knew that what he was about to say, few would believe it, so, he used a double verily to emphasis the truth of what he was about to say to a truth hidden from most, yet a biblical truth nonetheless! Now, if you would like I would love to discuss these verse in depth. One quick side note: Nicodemus was a born again child of God when he came to Jesus, just his knowledge was pitiful to say the the least. His confession of whom Christ was in verse one is as good of a confession as any one on this forum, or any person you would ever meet, it is a child like confession from an heart that had been quickened by the Spirit of God, or else he would have never came with such a confession!

7 Reasons Great Tribulation | Page 14

First resurrection = The just to life. Revelation 20:6
Second resurrection = The unjust to damnation. Revelation 20:11-15

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

This is wrong Victoria~jesus clearly said this:

John 5:28​

“Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

They were marvelling over what had just Jesus said concerning the a spiritual resurrection of men who were dead in sin and trepasses, so the Lord added the words in verse 28, those in graves were not the one he spoke about in John 5:28, which is evident by Christ adding these words:

John 5:29​

“And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

Proving that the resurrection you called the first is wrong, since ALL shall be raised up on the last day, some unto the resurrection of life, others unto the resurrection of damnation! Proving the "FIRST" resurrection is spiritual in nature and has reference to the new birth just as we said. You need to rethink your position since it is clearly against God's testimony of the truth.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I suppose it all depends on who you ask? Some will say spiritually, while others will say physically (but is presently hiding away at the North Pole w/ His saints during Satan's Little Season). Yet, there's zero concrete evidence. They ignore so much scripture! It causes a lot of confusion w/in their own camp b/c they don't even agree w/ each other

Hmm, I've never even thought about this one, Free

Search Assist displayed this:

Matthew 27:50-54 describes the events that occurred at the moment of Jesus' death, including the tearing of the temple curtain, an earthquake, and the resurrection of many holy people who appeared in Jerusalem. These events symbolize the significant spiritual changes brought about by Jesus' sacrifice, indicating that access to God was now open to all and demonstrating the power of His resurrection.

What do you think about this? Sounds good to me! There's power in the cross

Good morning @Victoria ...

It sounds good but is one of those things we wont know in this lifetime.

I have read "An accompanying sign of his death is an earthquake, the tombs are open and it is only when Jesus resurrects many of the saints (those who believed in Christ) that died previously are also brought back to life and seen after his resurrection, but this is a not a permanent resurrection, these saints will die again. The Scripture does not tell us how long they lived, whether it was a few days months or years. This is the only mention of it in Scripture. They were a accompanying sign of Jonah and a testimony to the person and power of Jesus."

Additionally Ai says... No, there are no historical accounts from historians like Josephus or Tacitus that mention the saints who came out of their graves as described in Matthew 27:50-54. This event is unique to the Gospel of Matthew and is not recorded in other historical or biblical texts.

and Search Assist says.

No, there are no historical accounts from historians like Josephus or Tacitus that mention the saints who came out of their graves as described in Matthew 27:50-54. This event is unique to the Gospel of Matthew and is not recorded in other historical or biblical texts. agameforgoodchristians.com

Historical Accounts of the Saints' Resurrection​

Lack of Historical Documentation​

• No contemporary historians, such as Josephus or Tacitus, mention the event of saints rising from their graves as described in Matthew 27:50-54.
• This absence raises questions about the historical verification of the event.

Biblical Context​

• The resurrection of the saints is unique to the Gospel of Matthew and is not recorded in the other Gospels.
• Early Church Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, referenced this passage, but it remains a topic of debate regarding its authenticity and significance.

Interpretations and Speculations​

• Scholars and theologians have speculated about the identity of these saints and the implications of their resurrection.
• Questions arise about why this event is not more widely documented or discussed in historical texts outside the Bible.

In summary, while the event is noted in the biblical narrative, there is no external historical evidence to corroborate it.

And looking into Clement and Eusibius we can see they do mention this fact but it just seems to me so odd that
no one , not even the Centurion and others present who witnessed this did not immediately spread the word.

Here is a question... If no one actually knew this, and there is no recording of who these "Saints" talked to when they went into the city, or about what... is it possible that this is a mystery not to be understood?

 

[FreeInChrist]

I have written extensively about these Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints many, many times, on many, many Christian forums, including the GCF forum where you and I share membership. The Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints were the "first resurrection" event and were bodily raised on the same day that Christ arose from the grave - all of them together composing the "First-fruits" as being that "first resurrection" event.

Good morning @3 Resurrections

Yes, I remember reading you over there but honestly I had forgotten what you have said.

But I still want to know why only Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius were the only two that I have found that
even give a cursory mention to Matt 27:52

This seemingly is another mystery for the Centurion and guards kept quiet and nothing was said from those they appeared to
in the city.

Not possible. The Scriptures tell us in Rev. 20:5 that the millennium period was "finished" when the "first resurrection" took place with that "remnant of the dead" coming to life again. This "first resurrection" was a single event on the calendar in AD 33 - not an event which repeatedly takes place every time a person is born again.

 

[civic]

I am a Preterist that believes Christ's returns were to be visible and physical. Christ Jesus at His ascension has always continued to retain that same glorified, resurrected form which came out of the grave. That means wherever He goes, He is manifested and appears in that same glorified, resurrected, human body form. He "continueth ever" in that form as our Great High Priest, as the book of Hebrews taught.

I agree with this regarding Jesus bodily Resurrection and Return. The Incarnation was permanent, the 2 natures in Christ are permanent. He is forever both God and man.

 

[Red Baker]

@3 Resurrections

Not possible. The Scriptures tell us in Rev. 20:5 that the millennium period was "finished" when the "first resurrection" took place with that "remnant of the dead" coming to life again. This "first resurrection" was a single event on the calendar in AD 33 - not an event which repeatedly takes place every time a person is born again.

So Wrong? You said: The Scriptures tell us in Rev. 20:5 that the millennium period was "finished" when the "first resurrection" took place.

You are so wrong, my friend, so wrong!​

Revelation 20:4,5
“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. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. "This is" the first resurrection.

What is described in Revelation 20:4 IS the "results" of the first resurrection, Mr. 3 Resurrections! You need to change your name my friend. When we worshipped together back in the late eighties and early nineties you believe what I'm saying, since I have not changed but you certainly have changed. We both were taught premillennism and changed in the late seventies and early eighties, at least this is true of me, and I know what you first were taught by your parents, etc.

Without going into details of Revelation 20:1-9; I will only (for now) say that this is speaking of the time from Christ's ascension until he comes again to destroy his enemies. During the church age Christ is NOW reigning on David's throne, per Peter from Acts 2:29-36; and Paul from 1st Corinthians 15:24-28; etc. This is what we see in Revelation 20:4, which is the results of one being born of God, which is indeed a spiritual resurrection and the first one that we must experienced, if we ever hope to be part of the resurrection unto life.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Good morning @3 Resurrections

Yes, I remember reading you over there but honestly I had forgotten what you have said.

But I still want to know why only Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius were the only two that I have found that
even give a cursory mention to Matt 27:52

This seemingly is another mystery for the Centurion and guards kept quiet and nothing was said from those they appeared to
in the city.

Matthew 27:52-53 is not the only place that speaks of those who were raised on the same day as Christ.

Ephesians 4:8-12 speaks of Christ rising from the dead and leading a "multitude of captives" which He gave as "gifts to men". These "gifts" were the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints who then began to serve in the church as apostles, (not the original 12), prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, in order to perfect the saints for the work of the ministry, and to edify the body of Christ.

Paul in 2 Timothy 2:18 referred to Hymenaeus and Philetus who were going about telling the believers that "the resurrection is already past". The only way these two men could be claiming a resurrection had already occurred before then was for them to be referring to this group of resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints who had been seen of many in Jerusalem. In one respect, Hymenaeus and Philetus were correct. This bodily resurrection event had already occurred along with Christ rising from the dead. But they were incorrect that there would not be another resurrection after that first one. This is why Paul had to write 1 Thessalonians 4, to comfort those saints who were thinking that their own loved ones who had died in Christ since His ascension had "missed the boat", so to speak. These would also rise from the dead in the next resurrection event, and be taken to heaven together with all those who had already been made "alive", but who had "remained" on earth until then (the "rapture" of all the bodily resurrected saints in AD 70).

Revelation 20:5 also speaks of this "remnant of the dead" who "lived again" when the millennium was "finished". This event John called "the first resurrection", which was the raising of Christ and all those Matthew 27:52-53 saints who came out of their broken-open graves around Jerusalem on the same day.

Revelation 14 also speaks at length of the faultless 144,000 "First-fruits", who were "redeemed from the earth" by being raised out of the grave. These 144,000 shared the same title of the "First-fruits" along with "Christ the First-fruits" because they were all raised out of the grave on that same "first resurrection" day.

In other words, the Rev. 14:4 144,000 First-fruits were the same as the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints. They were all "blessed and holy" who participated in this "first resurrection" event - no unrighteous ones among them. Revelation 14:14-16 goes on to describe the newly-crowned Son of Man sitting on a cloud of heaven "reaping" the dried harvest with that first sickle. This was Christ on His resurrection day having just ascended to the Father, reaping that "harvest" of Matthew 27:52-53 saints out of the grave on that same day. We know this "harvest" is not the end of the age "harvest", because the angels would be the reapers on that next occasion, and here in Rev. 14:14-16, it is only the Son of Man doing the reaping by Himself on His resurrection day.

This is not an exhaustive list of Biblical proofs concerning the raising of the Matthew 27:52-53, but I'll stop here for now. If you are interested in an apocryphal gospel concerning this Matt. 27:52-53 event, check into the "Gospel of Nicodemus" / aka "The Acts of Pilate", in which an account of Christ's resurrection day and the deliverance of the OT patriarchs is given. A letter from Pontius Pilate reporting to emperor Claudius concerning the events on Christ's resurrection day is sometimes included in Latin manuscripts in an appendix to the Gospel of Nicodemus.