Eschatology views Tier Ranking

I'm going to rank various positions on Eschatology in terms of how I personally feel about them at the time of my writing this post on Saturday November 13th of 2021.

S Tier: The Position(s) I currently favor.

I'm currently a Pre-Millennial Futurist with a Rapture Position that can be called "Mid-Trib", but not what many assume Mid-Trib means in that what The Rapture is I view mostly the same as Post-Tribbers, it is the Second Coming, and from my position's own POV the Tribulation by definition ends at The Rapture.  And The Last Trump is the Seventh Trumpet.

I also consider some Idealist readings of Revelation also true, it is also a symbolic summery of The Entire Biblical Meta narrative, but that doesn't conflict with it also being future events, because that's what every good final episode of a saga should be.

A Tier: Positions I'm currently very open to being converted to.

Historicism in it's Pre-Millennial form, Partial-Preterism and Revivalist post-Millennialism, or something that combines elements of those. 

I kind of want to be convinced of something like that now given other things I believe.  But it wouldn't be likely to be any in their current most well known forms, since my hypothetical Preterism wouldn't be 70 AD focused (not for Matthew, Mark or Revelation anyway) and my Historicism would be less fixated on The Vatican viewing Christian Monarchy in general as the Abomination of Desolation.

If I did abandon Futurism I would probably retire this blog and start a new one.

B Tier: Views I consider firmly wrong but not in any way heretical.

Middleism, only in that separating Matthew's Olivette Discourse from Revelation I view as untenable, whichever time period one is about so is the other.

Also any views where my only or main objections come down to not interpreting Revelation as Chronologically as I do.  But thus far everyone I've seen doing that is also guilty of something down below, (It's mainly associated with Post-Trib, Chris White's Pre-Wrath and Preterism).

C Tier: Views I consider tied to Heresy but merely minor ones

Dispensationalism (Pre-Trib, some forms of Mid-Trib, the Pre-Wrath view of Chris White), Supersecessionism (Most forms of Post-Trib, probably some hypothetical forms of Mid-Trib, and also today most Non Futurists).

And also Domminionism which mainly manifests as Reconstructionist Post-Millennialism but can be made compatible with other views.

D Tier: Views heretical in their rejections of core doctrines of the Faith.

Any view that denies a literal bodily Resurrection of The Dead.  Which is firmly required for Full Preterism and Amillenialism.

F Tier: Basically not even really Christian at all anymore.

Any view that identifies the Satan of The New Testament with YHWH The God of The Hebrew Bible.  Like Marcionism and the most well known forms of Gnosticism.

Often goes hand in hand with throwing out Revelation altogether as a False Prophecy.  But they may also selectively use stuff from Revelation.  Also these people are generally also doing the D Tier Heresy.

An Argument for Zion of Revelation 14 being Earthly Zion

First of all if you're seeing this as a complete reversal of a certain post I made earlier this month, that was a post directed at Preterists rhetorically assuming certain Preterist presuppositions.

In Revelation 14 I definitely believe the Parousia is already in progress.  And the only apparent smoking gun that this Zion must be in Heaven not on Earth is the 144 Thousand being "Before The Throne".  But remember Daniel 7:9-14 is the foundational Hebrew Bible source material for how Jesus defined the Parousia, and that passage seems to involve YHWH's flying Chariot-Throne.  It could be The Throne is The Cloud or on it.

Hebrews 12:22 is the other major New Testament basis for a "Heavenly Zion", though it's actually Jerusalem Paul calls Heavenly there.  Paul does sometimes use Heavenly as a synonym for Spiritual.  That passage is about how we are Citizens of The Kingdom regardless of where we dwell or who controls any Earthly location.  And also about how the architectural final form of the City is currently under construction in Heaven.  It doesn't contradict the connection to a Terrestrial location.

Psalm 48 can be seen as the Old Testament basis for a Heavenly Zion since it links Zion to the "sides of the north" a term also used in Isaiah 14 about Satan's yet future fall from heaven.  But I think the relation of geographical terms in both these passages may be complicated.  If The Tabernacle of David were located where I currently hypothesize it was then it was indeed on a slope north of The Mountain's Summit.  And "Sides of the north" is used in some translations of where Beth-Togarmah is located in Ezekiel 38.  Since I believe Isaiah 14 is about End Times events it could refer to Satan and The Beast wanting to set up their own Throne on Mt Zion which will ultimately fail.

I should perhaps mention here how I don't think Zion was the location most people think it was.  I have argued on this Blog that Bethlehem is the City of David.  My current theory is that the Summit of Mt Zion is where the Mar Elias Monastery currently sits which is the highest elevated summit in the region, and I have a hunch that the Tabernacle of David stood where the fifth century Church of Mary's Seat was located to the north of the summit.  But even if that theory is wrong my position on this chapter doesn't change.

And thus this view can be compatible no matter what city you think Babylon and/or The Great City is.

It is frequently assumed that the Mount of Olives is where Jesus will Return to.  Now it could be involved in how all this plays out.  But the Biblical basis for it is weak in my view.  In Acts 1 what the Angel says is about Jesus Returning the same way He Ascended, it's not meant to be about the location of a landing spot.  And I think a strong argument can be made that the Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled in 30 AD.  Still it could be He returns first to the Mount of Olives to begin the Resurrection there and then sets up His Throne on Zion.

It is often assumed the reference to "Heaven Opened" in Revelation 19 means a door opening in heaven and that the Rider on the White Horse and His Army are traveling from heaven to earth at that moment.  But that's not necessarily borne out by the text either.

Earlier in Revelation 11 a reference to Heaven being "shut up" is agreed by all to be a reference to it not raining, showing how the Witnesses echo the ministry of Elijah and using language from 1 Kings 8:35, 2 Chronicles 6:26 and 7:17.  In Genesis 7-8 the Windows of Heaven being Opened is terminology linked to the flood waters.  So this Terminology in Revelation 19 could be linked to the "latter rain" of Joel 2, or 2 Peter 3 talking about how the End Times Judgment will echo The Flood but with Fire instead of Water.  But I also now believe the ministry of the Witnesses is the same 1260 days as the Woman hiding in the Wilderness, so Heaven being Opened in Revelation 19 is the end of their shutting up of heaven.

This further proves the point that both Pre-Tribers and Post-Tribers are wrong on Revelation 19 being in any way the Second Coming, this is happening after He's already Returned.

My belief in The Man-Child being The Church means I see The Rapture as a second fulfillment of many Prophecies that were also about the Birth of Christ, like Micah 4 and 5.

The Kingdoms of The World are Become The Kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ

This statement made right after the Seventh Trumpet sounds is why Post-Tribbers and others who want to play around with the Chronology of Revelation think the Seventh Trumpet can't sound till right when The Millennium begins.

Last year I made a post arguing for The Last Trumpet being the Yom Kippur Jubilee Trumpet.

The Jubilee Trumpet doesn't actually sound when the Jubilee begins, it sounds about six months earlier on Yom Kippur to announce the coming Jubilee Year.

This could become an argument for a Mid Seventh year Rapture view, or we could argue in this typpological context one half year become three and a half years.

The Parusia events do happen to start happening immediately.  But the full realization of Christ taking over the World is still yet future.

The Timing of The Rapture is not The Point of the Olivte discourse Parables

In Matthew 24's Olivite Discourse Verse 31 is the end of the straight forwards description of future events  Then verse 32 onto the end of chapter 25 is a series of figures of speech and parables, some have parallels in the others Gospels but most do not.

Pre-Tribbers and Post-Tribers and Pre-Wrathers all talk about MOST of these parables as if the timing of the Rapture is their point, and both sides of the "Imminence" debate will try to argue these parables support their position.

I don't believe the timing of the Rapture is the point.  I do believe they are about the Parusia in a sense, but whether the people involved were or should be expecting prior events or not isn't the point.

I should remind everyone that building doctrine on Parables is always sketchy.

Here is the thing, I'm Anti Pre-Trib, early in this blog's history I made a trilogy of posts debunking Imminence (both Pre-Trib and Pre-Wrath versions of it).  But if the timing of the Rapture was the point of these parables I'd have to agree they support Pre-Trib more.  I know Chris White keeps saying "what's the point of watching if there is nothing to watch for" but Pre-Tribbers view it as you're not watching for the return if you're instead watching for prior events.

In these parables the narratives in question have no prior events, the Bridegroom or Thief or whoever just shows up.  If the point is about timing then the point is the bad servants and foolish virgins seemed to think they had more time then they actually did.

And these are warnings given specifically to believers, most appear only in Matthew who's version was a speech given ONLY to the 12.  So the common Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath explanation that it's the World who it comes on like a Thief doesn't hold up in this context, maybe when 1 Thessalonians 5 uses that idiom but not here.

The problem with applying the Pre-Trib interpretations of the Parrables to the actual Doctrine of the Rapture is that they imply you won't be Raptured if you weren't properly watching for it.  And that's not how the Rapture will actually work. when it's directly described all believers regardless of what they are doing get Raptured.

I said most up above, but you see the Sheeps and Goats parable that ends chapter 25 is treated differently, no one thinks that one's point is the timing of The Rapture, it's usually viewed as either a Post-Armageddon judgment Revelation doesn't mention or as the White Throne Judgment.  But the opening of the parable is just as explicitly about the coming of the Son of Man as all the others, so separating it so it's about something different isn't justified.  Revelation 11 refers to a Judgment of the Saints after the Seventh Trumpet.

The moral point of the Sheeps and Goats Judgment is that we should act as if Jesus is already here regardless.  And I think the other parables are the same.

I think the best modern expositor on the Parables is Peter Hiett, even though I don't agree with his basic views on Revelation and Genesis.

Who is speaking in Revelation 16:15?

What's said here includes some terminology used a few times elsewhere in Scripture.  At least once by Jesus himself.  But most importantly it is phraseology assumed to be associated with the Parusia, the "Second Coming" and the Rapture.  And therefore Post-Tribbers and others may use this as evidence that the Parusia hasn't happened yet when the 6th Bowl of God's Wrath is poured out.

"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."

Some Bibles have put this verse in Red, but not all.  So what is the context?

Before this verse it talks about the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet using Frog like messengers to gather the Kings of the East for the coming Battle.  Then verse 16 says "And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."  It sounds like the one doing the gathering is maybe the one who said that, and that was clearly defined as what some have dubbed the "Satanic Trinity".

And don't many interpretations of Revelation presume one of these three personages is pretending to be Jesus?

But even if it is Jesus speaking, there are still a few assumptions involved.

Parusia is not the word for "come" used in the "come as a thief" verses, it's usually either Heko or Ercomai.

The only time Paul uses this kind of phrase it is of the Day of the Lord not of the Parusia/Rapture.  He used it in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, when he's already talked about the Rapture in the prior chapter.  Same with 2 Peter 3:10.

Also at least once I've seen this verse cited specifically as evidence there are Believers on Earth at this time.  The subject of Post Rapture believers in my model is something I will make a separate post on eventually.  But this verse I don't think proves anything one way or the other on that, even if it is Jesus who is talking, I don't see it being worded as something addressed only to Believers.  In other "come as a thief" verses the point is that it is to Unbelievers he'll be coming as a thief.

But ya know what's interesting, this is the only of these thief verses to directly lead people to think the Thief is Jesus, and only because of an assumption it's Jesus talking.   But Jesus said in John 10:7-14 that He does NOT come as a Thief to steal kill and destroy, He is the Good Shepherd and the Hireling is the Thief.  The Hireling here could be the same as the Idol Shepherd of Zechariah 11, which many have taken to be the Antichrist and I've considered could be the False Prophet.

The only time Jesus own words are cited as part of this 'He comes as a Thief at the Second Coming' theme is in Matthew 24:42-50.  It's easy to see why the Lord and the Thief are presumed to be synonymous here.  But remember this passage also gets used by Pre-Tribbers to support their imminence doctrine, even though others clearly see the moral of the story as saying the opposite.

And a core teaching of Pre-Trib is their insistence that The Antichrist doesn't appear till after The Rapture.  While we know that II Thessalonians 2 clearly teaches the opposite.

 Meanwhile to many Post-Tribbers the Rapture is the same thing as the regathering of Israel.  While a theme of my Blog has been that this very part of Revelation 16 is the Beast gathering the Lost Tribes as a counterfeit Messiah-Ben Joseph.  And the true regathering of Israel is not completed till the end of or after the Millennium.

Update August 2018: So I'd somehow completely forgotten to consider the Thief imagery being brought in the letter to Sardis. So that weakens an aspect of this argument.

Revelation 14:14-20, The Parusia and the Wrath of God.

Post-Tribbers often tend to see The Second Coming and The Rapture in the same parts of Revelation that I do, and then some more.  And that is why their view is dependent on messing around with the Chronology of the book.

That includes this part of Revelation 14.  The Son of Man riding on a Cloud, is a clear identifying characteristic of The Parusia in both Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4.  Plus people use the Kingdom Parables to justify associating Harvest imagery with The Rapture.

So naturally I've seen Post-Tribbers say they specifically believe this event is the same as or happens at the same time as the Revelation 19 event.

Now the core premise of this Blog has become that The Book of Revelation should be interpreted Chronologically.  I've done numerous posts on that subject.  But even if I abandoned that, even if I recanted every prior post on the Revelation Chronology tag.  Even if I accepted a claim that the earlier parts of this same Chapter didn't happen right before or at the same time as this part.  I would still have to say it's absurd to place this event after The Bowls of God's Wrath are poured out.

Verse 19 says "And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.".  This is clearly the beginning of the Bowls of Wrath narrative, this is the origin of what fills those bowls.  Not matter how literally or symbolically you interpret that imagery this chronological fact about it is clear.

So even if one doesn't believe the whole book is Chronological, there is still no denying that 14:14-16:21 are a continuous narrative, a narrative about The Wrath of God.  Just read all that remembering that our modern chapter and verse divisions weren't originally there, and it should be self evident.

So as far as I'm concerned you simply can't agree that this is part of the Parusia/Rapture, yet continue to insist that the Parusia/Rapture doesn't happen till after all the Bowls have been poured out.

Now from there we can dispute how long it takes the seven bowls to be poured out, and then how much time there is between the last bowl and Revelation 19.    I have myself become increasingly flexible on that.

I've decided the point of my Midway-Point Rapture view is not it being the literal exact halfway point on a timeline, but that it's between the Trumpets and the Bowls.

A view being New is not an argument against it being True.

Daniel 12:4 foretells that in the End Times knowledge shall be increased.  That is often taken to be about Knowledge in general, the explosion of knowledge that has happened since the Industrial Revolution.  But some have taken it to be about specifically knowledge of God's Word.

I say those two naturally go together.  We today have lots of advantages in studying God's Word that didn't always exist.  Today in debates people often get mad at you if you neglect to cite the exact Chapter and Verse, when Jesus didn't have that luxury, He just named the Prophet He was quoting and that had to be enough.  Not to mention how the Internet and Computer Programs have made it easier then ever to do word searches and to check the original Greek and Hebrew, and compare variant manuscripts.

But even before all of that.  The New Testament interprets some parts of The Hebrew Bible in ways that seemingly no Israelite ever thought of in the B.C. Era.

The Canon was closed I believe with the publication of The Book of Revelation. So it's a part of The Bible that never gets interpreted by other parts of The Bible, instead it is a key to helping us interpret other parts.

But I'm a Continuationist, I believe God does still inspire people, but those revelations have to be scrutinized against Scripture.  Sometimes I think even the person who receives the revelation might mis-interpret it.

This has become a vital part of the Rapture Dispute.  With people wondering why it took till the 19th Century for The Pre-Trib view (and by extension anything like Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath) to be popularized, however many debatable hints at it before you might find.

This tactic conveniently ignores how Futurism in general was not popular in the Protestant world till the late 19th Century, their default Eschatology was Historicism.

For over a Thousand Years the Catholic Church kept most people from reading The Bible in their own language.  After the Reformation started it still took awhile for Translations to be made, and arguably the first ones made weren't the best.  So that's why it makes perfect sense that lots of valid interpretations of Scripture wouldn't be discovered or re-discovered till the 1600s or later.

Now there is a lot of mis-information about Darby.  He first wrote out the basics of his Pre-Trib Rapture view in early 1827, before Margaret MacDonald had her vision in 1830, and also before Irving published his translation of Manuel Lucanza.

Still neither of those sources teach a Pre-Trib Rapture.  MacDonald's account of her revelation has certain things left out of it when people make it seem like it could have inspired Darby's Pre-Trib view, like how she did say The Church would be persecuted by The Antichrist.  Her vision does not lay out a clear chronology however, I feel it could be compatible with either Post-Trib or Mid-Trib, but certainly not Pre-Trib.  Plus Darby said he thought her visions were Satanically inspired.

This whole "The Rapture must be false since it started with Darby" rhetoric definitely has an Anti-Continuationist tone to it.  Darby's own account of how he first came to the idea makes it seem slightly like a divine revelation.  And then they add the association with a controversial proto-Charismatic.

I think it's possible that Darby did receive a legit Revelation about Christ gathering His People before His Wrath is poured out.  But then made many mistakes when trying to figure out how that fit into Scripture.  In a way making the same key mistake Post-Tribbers make.

Because in my opinion, no amount of precedent for Post-Trib makes up for the fact that Post-Trib (in both it's Futurist and Historcist varieties) is based on an inherently wrong assumption, that Revelation 19 is the Second Coming.  Pre-Tribers make the same mistake however when they say The Rapture is distinct from the Second Coming.

But I understand why this mistake would be so common.  If you start your study of Bible Prophecy with Revelation, which many do, it's easy to see why one would make that mistake.  I myself did originally which is why I used to be Post-Trib, though I was always distinct from most Post-Tribbers.

Morgan Edwards taught a form of Pre-Trib in the mid 18th Century, while also being one of the earliest Futurists of the English Speaking world.

So I still haven't given up on finding some obscure little known Ancient or Reformation era precedent for something similar to my Midway-Point view.  But regardless it is not necessary.

My view on The Rapture is the one that correctly identifies where to find The Parusia in Revelation using Scripture to Interpret Scripture.

The Second Resurrection

I did a post on The First Resurrection already.  I've updated that post fairly recently, so if you only read it when it was new, you might want to read it again.

Most assume the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll wind up in the Lake of Fire, and so the people at the White Throne Judgment who do not wind up there must be from earlier Resurrection events.  But what Revelation 20 says does not support this.  Those resurrected in verse 4 reigned with Christ a Thousand years, they received a reward already, there is no need for a future Judgment.  And the Bema Judgment of those Resurrected at The Rapture I firmly believe happens soon after The Rapture at the 7th Trumpet, because of Revelation 11:18.

Those Judged in Revelation 20:11-15 are only those Resurrected then.

Some Post-Tribbers, and others who oppose interpreting Revelation Chronologically, like some Post-Millenialists, point to John 5:28-29 to prove that those who are saved and those who aren't will be Resurrected at the same time.  But that's because they are assuming the Second Resurrection is only of people who'll be cast into the Lake of Fire when Revelation never ever says that.  Those verses from John 5 I believe say every person dead at that time will rise, but it does not preclude some being resurrected earlier.

The Sheep and Goats Judgment, which is the last Parable of Matthew 25, also supports this.  The fact is, those who Believed in Jesus in this Life are neither the Sheep or Goats, we are His Brethren, a clearly distinct entity in that parable.  This is also about the Second Resurrection.

Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 that those who are Christ's are Resurrected at His Parusia, and the rest are resurrected when all the enemies have been defeated.  The last of which is Death. The Second Death, is the death of Death, as Revelation 20:14 clearly says.

This clear unambiguous teaching of Scripture harms a lot of traditional assumptions about Soterology.  And that is why I now direct you to my Sola Scriptura Christian Liberty blog.

The Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30

Deuteronomy 30 is considered the first and most important Prophecy of Israel's return to her Promised Land.  Other Prophecies we turn to from Prophets like Isaiah are arguably just elaborating on that.

Some think this can apply to 1948 and what's been going since.  I long ago sorta agreed with that, but have during the time I've written on this blog been inclined to agree with those who say it obviously can't fit, and my mind as of this post hasn't entirely changed on that, but.......

Nehemiah chapter 1 quotes Deuteronomy 30, as having already being fulfilled by the return from the Babylonian Captivity.

Unless you want to reject the Canonocity of Nehemiah, (which I know of people who would, but I'm not addressing this post to them,) you have to accept this as correct.  Now another Captivity happening under Rome is why we know there is another return from Captivity coming.  But Deuteronomy 30 has been fulfilled at least once already.

Doesn't matter how at face value laughable it seems.  Critics of Christianity mock plenty of the New Testament's claims of Old Testament fulfillment.  But good Christians should accept and defend those no matter what.  From Peter applying the end of Joel 2 to Pentecost, to the claim that Jesus was a Nazarite because he was from a town called Nazareth.  I've gone out of my way on this blog to defend the New Testament's quotations of Isaiah 7 and 8.  But the Acts 2 reference is more comparable here, yet equally criticized by some, as it's about a stage in God's Covenant relationship with His People.

Christians can believe there is a second fulfillment coming, that may be grander then the first, as I certainly do with Joel and Pentecost in my view of Revelation 6-7.  But we can't question the accuracy of the cited fulfillment.  We use Scripture to Interpret Scripture.

That means Nehemiah has destroyed much of the argument that it's absurd to apply these Prophecies to 1948.  It's no longer true that it has to be something obviously Supernatural, and that no Gentile human governments can be the means by which God does it.

I would argue the Anglican British Government (and the Rothschilds if you insist on overstating their involvement) come closer to being worshipers of The God of The Torah then the devout Mithra worshiping Cyrus, or the Zoroastrians who made the later decrees.

But the main reason I can argue 1948 fits better is that it more naturally fits the idea that they're returning from all over the world, from it's very edges, from many nations.  While in Nehemiah's day at face value it seems like a return from just one nation.  Perhaps we could infer these decrees also became a rallying cry to Israelites who wound up in other regions for whatever reason, but if so that was only a small part of it.  The prophecies specify people returning by Ships, they specify Israelites returning from Ethiopia, and somehow even people returning by air (but not all of them, that will be important later).  Those details fit 1948 and since, but are harder to apply to Nehemiah's time.

Rob Skiba, one of the main people I'm responding to here, is totally against viewing that return as including the Northern Kingdom's exiles.  Though Chris White and Chuck Missler argue it did, that Babylon inherited Assyria's captives.  However Assyria never kept them in Assyria in the first place, and Ezra and Nehemiah's long lists of returning clans includes no references to Joseph, Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, Gad or Naphtali.  Asher wasn't part of the Assyrian deportation in the first place which is why Anna was in Judea.  Yet again the people saying clearly 1948 can't fulfill these are basing it partly on asserting modern Jews are only from the Southern Kingdom.

The only thing one could argue that Return had that today's doesn't is returning in obedience.

Christians typically assume they can't be returning in obedience unless they've accepted Yeshua/Jesus as their Messiah.  But to a Jew that's a non issue, and they would be offended if you told them otherwise.  Fortunately I've become a Universalist.  I do believe the culmination of all this involves Jesus being recognized as The Messiah, but at the start of the process I know there are other ways to be obedient.  So I won't offend Jews by telling them God's Promises to them doesn't apply till they accept Jesus.

Now there is a strictly Hebrew Bible basis for questioning the obedience of modern Israel that some have made, and that's how they aren't even really trying to govern themselves by the Torah.  Some online today limit Canon to only The Torah, they reject Nehemiah so I can't really respond to them here.  Ironically in this case it's being a Paulian Evangelical Universalist Christian that makes it easier to defend Israel here.  To me Paul's declaration that we aren't under The Law anymore doesn't apply just to Christians, Jesus saved and liberated everyone.  And as a civil Government the Torah is utterly unworkable in the modern world.

But if I were a citizen of modern Israel, there are plenty of policies of the modern government I would object to.

So the question becomes, was Israel in perfect obedience in Nehemiah's day?  By some priorities they were more so then modern Israel.  But no, they certainly still had issues that the Prophets from that time period like Zechariah, Haggai and Malachi were addressing.

But they no longer had the main problem that lead to the Captivity, their tendency to fall into Idolatry was cured.  Whether or not modern Israel still has the same issues as first Century Judaism would be a complicated debate, but since most Modern Jews aren't Sadducees, I think a good case can be made that they don't, from a Christian, Rabbinic or Karaite perspective.

So it is my view that 1948 was the beginning of the restoration of Israel, but it's not complete yet.  Ezekiel 37 clearly isn't fulfilled until the Resurrection.  The time between the Decrees of Cyrus and Nehemiah was longer then between 1948 and now, and Nehemiah's decree was only the beginning of another phrase. 

The issue of Israel's return is also part of the Rapture debate.  You see to many Post-Tribbers the Rapture is the same as Israel's return, hence the emphasis on saying it must be a supernatural return.  Ignoring the clear references to many returning by "Ships of Tarshish".

The Church is New Jerusalem/Yahuah-Shammah.  But we're not all there is to Israel, there is still the land allotted to the Tribes, the Levites, the Priests and the Prince, which are all separate from Yahuah-Shammah.  It's after the Rapture that Israel is protected in the Wilderness.

Post-Tribbers deny that we are actually taken to Heaven at the Rapture.  Jesus clearly said in Mark 13:27 "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.".  But more importantly then that, Revelation 13 says the Best will Blaspheme "Them that dwell in Heaven", chapter 14 has the Resurrected 144 Thousand on the Heavenly Zion.  New Jerusalem doesn't descend until after the Millennium and Gog and Magog and the White Throne Judgment.

The First Ressurection

Post-Tribbers like to insist that Revelation 20 tells us when the First Resurrection happens.  I

The Resurrection happens at the Seventh Trumpet, and we see Resurrected Church Believers in the Heavenly Zion in chapter 14.

It is the saints seen in Chapter 15 who are most directly defined as those being refereed to in Chapter 20 as reigning with Christ during The Millennium.  It is an inherently specific group, only those Marytered by The Beast, unless your an Historicist, you can't say that refers to all Believers.

The term "first resurrection" is a classification more so then a sequence.  Like Amalek being called the First of the Nations in Numbers 24:20, when as a bastard grandson of Esau he was no where near the first to come into existence.  Or saying something is First Class.

It begins with Jesus, then those Matthew 27:51-53 refers to as rising soon after Jesus did.  Then The Church at The Rapture, and then those incorrectly called by pre-tribbers 'Tribulation Saints" in chapter 20.

This goes back to my many other posts on The Resurrection.

Is The White Horseman of Revelation 19 someone other than Jesus?

I realize this suggestion is going to be very controversial.  There is a phrase we think of as a Title of Christ mainly because of it's usage in this passage, and yet under that assumption has inspired the title of two Hollywood films.  "King of Kings and Lord of Lords".  That title is also clearly applied to The Lamb in Revelation 17:14.  But in Revelation 19 the person being described has that name written on their vesture and thigh, making their relation to that name perhaps more complicated.

Plus that term is secular in origin, being a term for an "emperor" a King who rules other Kings. And as such can apply to David and Solomon.

First of all this does not change that I think The Arnion (Lamb in the KJV) mentioned as getting married just before this is Jesus.

Second of all regardless of if this is Jesus or not, this is not the Parusia, I've already noted the significance of how that word does not appear in this passage and it has nothing in common with the passages that define the Parusia.  The defining traits of the Parusia occurred in chapters 11-14.

In Revelation 19:12 we read "and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself."  I can understand why that sounds like it could be a title of Jesus at first.  But in Revelation 2:17 that is a promise Jesus makes to faithful Church believers.  "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."  Revelation 3:12 also speaks of Faithful Believers having a New Name written on them.

Another promise to the Faithful in the messages to the Seven Churches is also used here.  The promise to rule with a Rod of Iron, in 2:27 and 19:15.  That is also said of The Man-Child in 12:5.  I've already argued strongly that The Man-Child is The Church citing 2:27 (But the biggest Proof Text of that is Isaiah 65), yet people retort that Revelation 19 makes that clearly of Jesus.  

The only appearance of this phrase outside Revelation is Psalm 2.  Chuck Missler likes to argue Psalm 2 is a dialogue between the Trinity, but an argument can also be made that Psalm 2 is about the same thing as Psalm 8, God's promised Dominion of The Earth to the faithful of mankind.  Also it's a Davidic Psalm and so Yahuah's Anointed here could be David.  David anticipates some promises generally unique to New Testament believers, like being promised The Holy Spirit wouldn't leave him.

But, the term "Faithful and True" is used only three times in all of Scripture, all of them in Revelation.  Revelation 19:11 is the second of them.  The third is at the end not being used of a personage.  And Revelation 3:14 is clearly using it as a Title of Christ.

As I was pondering these conflicting clues, I noticed something in verse 11 of chapter 19.  The Horse itself is described as a "him".  

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war."

So I started wondering, is it possible that verses 12-16 are describing The Horse rather than The Rider?  And then there is 19:11’s parallel to 6:2, and how that White Horseman is viewed as possibly a False Christ.  Could it be chapter 6 is the Church and/or Israel being lead astray by a False Messiah, and then 19 is the true Messiah back in control?

Isaiah 63 is a passage often taken as being the main Hebrew Bible counterpart to this part of Revelation 19.  In Isaiah 63:13, Israel is symbolically described as a Horse.  Zechariah 10:3 repeats this analogy in a more positive context, representing Judah as Yahuah's goodly Horse.  And I should note that Rabbinic Jews who accept the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine might view Isaiah 63 as about Messiah Ben-Joseph rather than Ben-David.

Certain things are applicable potentially to both Jesus and Faithful Believers.  Being called “Faithful and True” could work as one of those.  As well as the imagery of a Two Edged Sword coming out of His Mouth, referencing the idea of the Word of God as the Sword of the Spirit from Ephesians 6.  And as I’ve considered that I’m maybe leaving the argument that the Rider is Jesus and the Horse the Church.

Many assume it’s the armies following in 19:14 that are Believers.  But Rob Skiba believes those are the Angels and maybe I should now consider him more right on that then I used to (but still not how he ties that into his Flat Earth arguments).  But also this may tie into how Believers will have different classes based on Rewards.

Maybe the Rider is the most Faithful of the Church and the Horse are those who lacked rewards, or Old Testament believers?

I’m not sure entirely what to make of these observations.  

But it has the potential to totally destroy Post-Trib, as even if a version of Post-Trib could be formed that interprets Revelation chronologically, it is dependent on the assumption that Revelation 19 clearly places a Return of Jesus after the Bowls of God’s Wrath.  I believe The Second Coming already happened before the Bowls were poured out.

And again on my Man-Child argument, this removes the only solid counter argument and seals the deal on The Man-Child being The Church.

Update March 4th 2017:

One more layer I could add here is how The Hebrew Bible uses Messiah meaning Anointed One, translated Christ in Greek, of more then just The Messiah.  It's used of Kings, Priests and Prophets, and sometimes seemingly refers to Believers as God's Anointed.

The New Testament is generally assumed to have phased that out (though Believers being called Christians could reflect it).  But Revelation is again often viewed as more Old Testament in style.  Twice the word Christ appears in Revelation 20, in verses 4 and 6, neither uses the Greek definite article before the word.  How the KJV translated verse 6 leaves out the word "his".  It should read "of God and of His Christ".

Remember that David is refereed to as a Messiah.  And that Ezekiel 34 and 37 refers to the resurrected David ruling as a Nasi during The Millennium.  (From that comes debates about if this is the same Nasi refereed to in Ezekiel 40-48.)  Zechariah possibly calls the Horse Judah, David's Tribe.

Maybe I'm reading too much into that.  But it's not a question I feel we can ignore.

Update November 8th 2018: Revelation 19:14 has the armies following the Rider dressed the same as The Bride in Verse 8.  So maybe the Horseman is the New Testament Church and the armies Old Testament Israel? 
https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2018/08/maybe-wedding-feast-isnt-in-heaven-like.html

The Seals, Trumpets and Bowls.

I didn't grow up being taught any particular view of the End Times, I'm one of those who never knew what the Rapture (or really Secret Rapture) was until the Left Behind books became a pop culture phenomenon.

In my first memories of reading the Book of Revelation, I was admittedly skimming it over and not digesting most of the details.  But while much I didn't understand, it's chronology never confused me.  It seemed clearly like John was being shown a sequence of events, mostly in Heaven but to varying degrees correlating to events on Earth.

I never bought Pre-Trib.  For a long time, until not long before I created  this blog, I was essentially Post-Trib.  But what caused me to become alienated from mainstream Post-Trib was how they scrambled the Chronology of Revelation.  But at least they're not like Pre-Wrath saying their view is Chronological when it clearly is not.

But my personal perspective aside, there are clear textual reasons why the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls are clearly threes sequences that follow each other and can't in any way be happening at the same time.

Revelation 8 begins with the Seventh Seal being opened and then clearly depicts the Seven Trumpets being given to their angels as a result of the Seventh Seal being opened.

Revelation 11:15-18 begins to describe what happens when the Seventh Trumpet is sounded.  And one statement is "Thy Wrath is Come".  In context what the grammar and meanings of these words is saying in both Greek and King James English is NOW his Wrath is Come at the sounding of the Seventh Trumpet, Biblically trumpets are warnings and this was the last warning.

Pre-Tribbers and Pre-Wrathers (and also Post-Tribbers) want to insist we were already in God's Wrath at least in the Trumpets because "obviously that's God's Wrath".  But that isn't sound doctrine.  Releasing demonic entities in Revelation 9 isn't God's Wrath.

The Bowls are defined as God's Wrath, so not even one could have been poured out before the Seventh Trumpet.

The only time Wrath is mentioned before the Seventh Trumpet is sounded is in Chapter 6, after the Sixth Seal is opened.  And it's not the narrative voice, or God, or anyone in Heaven, or any Prophet saying it.  It was said by the kings and other powerful men of the Earth.  They think this is God's Wrath.

In Anime analysis videos much is made of how things in early episodes are meant to take on a new meaning when re-watched.  Well this part of Revelation chapter 6 I think has a similar effect.  That these worldly people think they are already in God's Wrath is hilarious when you know what's coming, they have no idea.

And I have another post on that it's perfectly fine to view some plagues as happening more then once.

The Book of Revelation repeats many things from earlier in The Bible.

This is well known, people have written much on how it's judgments echo the Plagues inflicted upon Egypt before The Exodus.  And other repeats are noted too.

So why do these "Revelation obviously isn't Chronological" people have so much trouble accepting that some of these things will happen more then once over the course of the Time of Jacob's Trouble? 

Remember during the Wandering God inflicted Plagues upon Israel in their disobedience.

Jesus refereed to Earthquakes, plural, in the End Times in Matthew 24.  Revelation always seems to refer to a single Earthquake at a time, but does so five times.  But Post-Tribbers seems to think they are all different accounts of the same Earthquake.  So when does Jesus' plural Earthquakes happen?

Trumpets Biblically are Warnings, there are some compelling reasons to see each Trumpet as a warning of each Bowl, but there are also flaws with that.  But the point here is the parallels that exist are all the Trumpets being lesser.  A Third of the water turns to Blood in the Trumpets, all of it does in the Bowls, same with the Darkening of the Sun and Moon.  Those can't both be true at the same time.

And the Moon turning to Blood is NOT the same thing as it being darkened or not giving her light.  The shade of Red that Blood is is actually a very bright shade.  I don't think this is a Lunar eclipse, it may or may not have some natural process involved.  But Dark means it is not currently giving or reflecting any light.  Meaning the only color it could be is black, which is actually the absence of color.

Now I've seen Post-Tribbers assert "how can a Star fall in the one Trumpet in Revelation 8, and a third be Darkened in another, and then a third fall from Heaven in Revelation 12, if they all fell to the Earth in in the Sixth Seal in Revelation 6?".

This was not asked by a Flat Earther, but it directly relates to how Flat Earthers abuse the concept of "literal" interpretation when it comes to things like the Stars.  And I already did a post on dealing with what The Bible says about Stars.  "Star" to the Ancients didn't mean the modern Scientific definition.  Revelation 6 is poetically describing a Meteor Shower, Revelation 12 could be another Meteor Shower.  And Wormwood is a Comet.  None of this contradicts a Chronological interpretation of Revelation.

How many Second Comings are there?

My take on this has kinda changed since I last did a post on this subject, so I'm making this new post.

Post-Tribbers like to mock mainly Pre-Tribbers, but the Mid-Trib view would fit into this as well, for believing in "Two Second Comings".

My first response to that, as someone who's view can be considered a variation of Mid-Trib, is that the term "Second Coming" is not Biblical at all.  There are various references to His Parousia, translated Coming, but never with a numerical designation.

However the big problem here is that Pre-Tribbers like to call the Rapture and the Second Coming distinct.  And on that I strongly disagree with them.  They are correct that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 19 are not about the same event.  But 1 Thessalonians 4, and 1 Corinthians 15 both clearly refer to the event in question as the Parousia.

Here is the big perhaps shocking point of this post.

Revelation 19 is NOT the Second Coming.

It does not use the word Parousia, in fact Parousia isn't used in Revelation at all.  And chapter 19 has nothing of any real substance in common with the passages that do.  At the Parousia He comes on a Cloud or Clouds, in Revelation 19 He's riding on a White Horse.  At the Parousia his feet never touch The Earth, He gathers His Church and takes them to Heaven (Mark 13:27).  In Revelation 19 His Saints are already in Heaven and follow Him as He leaves (though The Bride as New Jerusalem doesn't descend till the New Heaven and New Earth).

So yes it's technically an event where Jesus "comes" to a certain location.  But when it comes to The New Testament using the Greek word Parusia as a technical term for a specific Biblical Event, it is not that Parusia.

Jude 1:14 may be about the same event as Revelation 19, and uses Cometh, a form of the word, but still ultimately not the same word.  But in the Greek it's not even that similar, it's not a form of Parusia, it's elquen, and actually means Apeareth.

Isaiah 63 also uses Cometh and is seemingly in close proximity to Revelation 19, but that Hebrew word seems more similar in meaning to elquen then Parousia.  And there He "Cometh" from Edom, not Heaven..

The Parousia is about Revelation 14 not 19.

Revelation chapter 14 is where The Son of Man is riding on a Cloud.  The Seven Bowls of God's Wrath are poured out between that event and the Revelation 19 event.

 I'd made before the observation that you can technically say he had more then one "coming" at his first Advent.  In fact it's only the Triumphal Entry that is refereed to with a form of the word "come", in Daniel 9, and that wasn't even the first time he came to Jerusalem.  But that is in light of all this a very minor point.

Which wrong view on The Rapture is the most dangerous?

The popular answer is the Pre-Trib view, the one thing all non Pre-Tribbers seem to agree on.

I really don't understand how the people who are now not believers or believers who are uninterested in Prophecy talk about being raised on the Pre-Tirb Rapture and being constantly terrified by it.  They clearly did not truly understand what The Rapture is if they found it frightening.

But what I'm going to discus here is how most of my fellow non Pre-Trib Futurists seem to think, simply by virtue of it being currently the mainstream view, that Pre-Trib is the most dangerous view.  That once we're clearly in the 70th Week and no Rapture happens countless formally faithful Pre-Tribbers will lose their faith and fall away.

Post-Tribbers particularly then see the dangers of Pre-Trib as innate in any more obscure view that has the Rapture as distinct from Revelation 19, even though I am adamant Christians will face Great Tribulation.  They are unwilling to listen to anything I have to say on Prophecy so long as I'm not Post-Trib like them.

I don't think so low of Pre-Tribbers, or anyone else who disagrees with me.  But especially Pre-Tribbers because I've grown a lot in the Spirit listening to other issues talked about by Pre-Tirbbers like Chuck Missler.  Pre-Tribbers are often the most likely to agree with me on Eternal Security, it seems the Pre-Wrath camp has a lot of Calvinism in it.

I've listened to a lot of Pre-Tribbers, many do believe American Christians will face persecution first.  I'm confident they will simply get over it and rework their understanding once Pre-Trib is proven wrong.

I don't think there is any risk of truly Saved people being "deceived" by the II Thessalonians 2 event.  I certainly don't think it's possible for a saved person to take the Mark, if you think that 100% of people who take The Mark are damned, but also believe in Eternal Security, then you have to believe no Saved person could take the Mark.  I think the Mark is instituted after The Rapture has just happened, and the awakening Israelites are fleeing to the wilderness.  So no one already saved will be presented with that dilemma.

Rob Skiba likes to say that the warning to Believers to not be deceived clearly means it's possible for us to be deceived.  That is true but it's not about the II Thessalonians 2 event, that event isn't a deception at all, that's when the Deception ends and the enemy just comes right out and says what he means, he will not claim to be Jesus or The God of The Bible he will claim to be better then The God of The Bible.

Before that, during the first half of the Week it might, MIGHT, be possible for Believers to wind up being tricked into helping/supporting the Man of Sin.

Pre-Trib will be proven wrong pretty much as soon as the 70th Week starts.  I believe The Temple will be standing before we enter it, and all of the first Six Seals will be opened before the Nisan that starts it is over.

So I'm more concerned that the default position among people is that IF Pre-Trib is wrong Post-Trib must be the only other option.  Then after that is the trendy Pre-Wrath view.  And also that movie from the Pastor I do not like to name that is presenting a model technically Mid-Trib in form but is really a hybridization of Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath ideas.  Pre-Wrathers especially love to brag about Mid-Trib being a "defunct view".  Well they should remember that it'd suit Satan well if the correct view is the least popular.

All three of those models place the Seventh Trumpet at the end of the 70th Week rather then The Mid-Way point as a plain reading of Revelation clearly shows.  Post-Trib sometimes sees the sixth or seventh Seal as the same event but not always.  Pre-Wrath places the Sixth Seal some indeterminate amount of time after the Mid-Way point.

Meanwhile there are also people arguing that there is no 70th Week, that the entire period is only 3.5 years and so every 3.5 year period referenced is the same.  And most who do believe in a 70th Week have this wrong idea that those years will begin and end on Yom Teruah, when Yom Teruah should Biblically mark the midway point.

I've talked to Pre-Wrathers who think it's possible we're already in the 70th Week now and aren't aware of it.  I firmly believe it can't start till The Temple (it could be just a Tabernacle) is standing in Jerusalem.  Pre-Wrathers also tend to think the Persecution only starts at the Abomination of Desolation.

Basically what I'm saying is I fear once Pre-Trib is firmly debunked people may be deceived into thinking we're already at or past the Mid-Way point when the 70th Week has really only just started.

The only issue there is how can people be tricked into thinking The Abomination of Desolation has happened already when it really hasn't?  Paul certainly makes what it is unmistakable in II Thessalonians 2.  But lots of people are already trying to alegorize or twist that.

I think there will be plenty of Christians who won't fall for this deception, even if their current views make them vulnerable to aspects of it.  But we need to be aware of how that deception could work.

1. Thanks to how the 1290 days reference from Daniel 12 is commonly misunderstood, most people assume the Sacrifice and Oblation is made to cease at the same time as the Abomination of Desolation when it's really 1290 days before it.

2. The Anti-Semites of the world may well think the Temple being rebuilt itself is the Abomination of Desolation.  That's what some of Texe Marrs logic seems to imply.  And since many other Dispensationalist and Zionsit Christians think it's possible The Temple won't be rebuilt till very soon before it happens, they are not prepared to refute that argument timing wise.

3. Then there are the people who allegorize what The Temple means in II Thessalonians to being The Church.  Don't assume that view will lose credibility once a Third Temple is standing, many of them are clarifying they do think The Jews might get their Temple rebuilt, but that Christians should not be tricked into thinking that is prophetically relevant.

4. Rob Skiba has gone and wrongly defined what The Abomination of Desolation of Antiochus Epiphanes was, saying it refers to when he offered the Pig on the Altar (a legend that is apocryphal to begin with) not the Idol.  So imagine if it's Nisan, perhaps on Passover, someone invades Jerusalem, enters the Temple and kills a Pig on the Brazen Altar.  Rob Skiba is set up to be deceived, especially if that same Decoy Antichrist claims to be Nimrod.

5. I've also seen someone argue (with the intent of supporting a Prestist view however) that when Jesus said "The Holy Place" really means "A Holy Place" and that the Abomination need not happen in specifically the Inner Sanctuary at all.  This is especially tempting to fall for once you notice Antiochus Epiphanes lesser Abomination Idol wasn't in the Holy Place but on the Brazen Altar.  That's probably why Rob Skiba got confused.  But II Thessalonians 2:4 says he sits in The Temple, the only sitting Place in The Temple was the Ark itself which lid was the mercy Seat, this Temple I don't think will have the real Ark.

6. I also think some might get confused by a person deifying himself or giving Messianic status to himself and forget that The Beast will also speak AGAINST the True God.

All of these could be relevant, since Satan will probably try to have multiple deceptions going on with multiple Decoy Antichrists.  Maybe even relevant in ways that sometimes overlap.

No Preterist model views Revelation chronologically

In fact their chronology of Revelation is more garbled then Post-Tribbers or Pre-Wrathers.

Pre-Wrathers love to say they interpret Revelation chronologically not like Post-Tribbers.  They may view the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls as concurrent.  But to them what Revelation 13 describes pretty much happened during the Seals.

I did a post in the past on how Preterist are a lot like Pre-Tribbers on I Thessalonians 4.  So I figured I'd be helpful to point out how they are like Post-Tribbers on Revelation.

My view is that the events in Revelation with few clearly defined exceptions happen in the order John sees them happen.

Are The Rapture and Second Coming separate events?

This is a question that has been important to the Rapture debate for awhile.  It's not a simple yes or no.

I Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 19 are definitely about different events.  Problem is the term "Second Coming" isn't actually in The Bible at all.  The word "Coming" in the Greek Parusia, is used in I Thessalonians 4 not Revelation 19.  Revelation never uses "Coming" in reference to Jesus at all.  I prefer to refer to his Second Advent which includes both events just as his first Advent had more then one "coming".

Pre-Tribbers agree those two chapters of The Bible are separate events, and make their argument against Post-Trib dependent on that to an extent.  Problem is, here is how one Pre-Trib website defines them.

The Bible must see the Rapture (Jn. 14:1-4; I Cor. 15:51-58; 1 Thes. 4:13-18) and the Second Coming (Zech. 14:1-21; Matt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; Lk. 21:25-27; Rev. 19) as separate events, because when the verses are compared they describe two very different scenarios:

The excerpts from the Olivte Discourse they listed by any standard resemble I Thessalonians 4 way more then Revelation 19.   And of course the Rapture has to be not in Revelation at all for them.

Here is some of how they break it down.

Rapture — believers meet Christ in the air
Second Coming — Christ returns to the Mount of Olives to meet the believers on earth

The Mount of Olives is only identified as relevant in Zechariah, but we know form Isaiah 63 that Jesus is in Edom first when he comes on a White Horse. Zechariah is consistent with this.  Jesus is in fact back already in the prior Chapters (12-14 are all one prophecy), Israel has already "Looked upon me whom they pierced".  The Mount of Olives is merely where he starts his second Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem.

Christians want to see the Mount of Olives as relevant to his return because it gives symmetry to the Ascension where he left from there.  But I'm afraid there is no solid Biblical basis for it.

Rapture — living believers obtain glorified bodies
Second Coming — living believers remain in same bodies

Good so far I guess.  Nothing said about the Revelation 19 event precludes change however.

Rapture — believers go to heaven
Second Coming — glorified believers come from heaven, earthly believers stay on earth

This is where the problem really begins.  Because Matthew 24 and Mark 13 clearly describes Jesus taking his people from the Earth to Heaven.

Rapture — no signs precede it
Second Coming — many signs precede it

This is the reason they need Matthew 24 to not be about The Rapture.  At any rate Paul in II Thessalonians 2 refers back to what he talked about in 1 Thessalonians 4 and clarifies that signs will proceed it.

Rapture — revealed only in New Testament
Second Coming — revealed in both Old and New Testaments

I believe there are at least two maybe three Rapture passages in the Old Testament, and even Pre-Tirbbers are beginning to accept this.

Matthew 24 uses the word Parusia which Paul also does in I Thessalonians 4.   Revelation doesn't use it at all.

Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 4 refer to Jesus coming in the Clouds, in Revelation 19 and Isaiah 63 he comes on a White Horse.  But the Son of Man is on a Cloud in Revelation 14.

Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a Trumpet, Revelation 19 does not,  Revelation's Last Trumpet was the 7th in Chapter 11, which alludes to the Bema Judgment and the Resurrection of the Dead.

The word Harpazto from which via Latin we get Rapture from I Thessalonians 4 is used in Revelation in Chapter 12.

Zion and New Jerusalem

I've expressed in the past my view that The Church isn't on The Earth during The Millennium.  We're in New Jerusalem, which is also Yahweh-Shammah.

The physical city of New Jerusalem already exists, it's in Heaven, maybe it's accurate to say in a sense it IS Heaven.  It is the Heavenly Jerusalem and Zion of Hebrews 12:22.

The term "Sides of The North" appears in The Bible twice.  Once dealing with Lucifer's Fall in Isaiah 14, and once in Psalm 48 talking about the Heavenly Zion when it descends as New Jerusalem.

It is my belief that the 144,000 are part of the Church and in some sense represent The Church.

Revelation 14 describes them as standing on Mount Sion.  In terminology that implies now they have been Resurrected.

I see The Rapture in the Seventh Trumpet (which extends into the opening part of Revelation 12).

Revelation 14 depicts the Raptured Church standing in the Heavenly Zion.

One verse proving a Pre-Trib Rapture

That is a common challenge to Pre-Tirbbers.  I'm NOT Pre-Trib, but when this challenge comes specifically from Post-Tirbbers they mean any verse proving a Rapture that enables believers to escape any of the End Time scenario.

There is a verse for that however it's often overlooked.  Luke 21:36

"Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all the things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."

 The verses before this have terminology that I'm certain Pre-Tribbers will think backs up they're Imminence doctrine.  What they keep missing is that you shouldn't be surprised IF your paying attention.

The point for me today however is that we do have a promise to escape.  And Revelation 13:6 refers to people dwelling in heaven when The Beast is at the height of his power.

The Gospel Preached unto all Kingdoms, and Revelation 14

Matthew 24:14 at the end of describing the Pre-Abominaiton persecution says.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

On it's own sounds like it's foretelling The Church spreading The Gospel.  Completing the Great Commission finally in the End Times.

Both Chuck Missler (Pre-Trib) and Chris White (Pre-Wrath) see a correlation to Revelation 14:6.

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people".

It's funny first because it actually doesn't fit either of their Rapture models to have a Pre-Rapture event in Revelation 14.

Going back to what I argued before, about the Resurrection and The Rapture actually possibly being separated by 10 days (Trumpets to Yom Kippur).  I said there I was inclined to see Revelation 14 as during this period.

Remembering that "angel" simply means messenger.  It could be the angels here are resurrected Church Believers.

I want to say something about Revelation 14:8 that Post-Tirbbers might use to back up their non-chronological view of Revelation.

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

I could see someone trying to argue this proved Babylon already fell even though it's Fall is described latter.  God (and his Prophets) often uses past tense language in reference to future events(commonly known as “prophetic perfect”; example, Isaiah 53; 21:1-10).

The full context and intent here is clearly that this "Angel" is giving a Prophecy of Babylon's coming Fall.  Not simply telling everyone what they already know because they just saw it happen.