I'm seriously tired of this volley, so I'll tackle your comments and then let you have the last word.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
THE DAY OF CHRIST is not found in the OT. No OT prophet mentions it.
It's only mentioned ONCE in the NT, too, and the surrounding events do not deviate from the descriptions surrounding any of the MANY OTHER TYPES OF references to the Day of the Lord, some of which I listed. If the use of the word Christos is significant to you, fine, but you have completely failed to demonstrate why it is significantly different other than just saying it is.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
The day of Christ RELATES to the body of Christ, NOT ISRAEL. The prophets in the OT didn't know anything about the body of Christ. (Eph.3)
That didn't stop them from writing about the church in prophecy, as I demonstrated with chapter and verse and not just making my own personal assertions, which is currently your approach to arguing this, so you are the one who is failing to rely on scripture.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
Daniel states nothing concerning the apostasy which occurs within the body of Christ. (2 Tim.4) Apostate Christians DEPART from the truth. (1 Tim.4) There are NONE in Dan.11.
Departure from the truth is departure from the truth. Daniel 11 refers to the falling away. Whether or not Daniel personally knew anything about the Body of Christ is irrelevant. As you pointed out regarding John in revelation, he wrote what he observed and heard. That's all. Likewise, the text in Daniel didn't come from Daniel's personal knowledge of anything (recall "no prophecy is of human interpretation") but the information came from God. Are you suggesting God didn't know about the Body of Christ back then?
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
The abomination of desolation is the placing of the image, which results in the invasion of Jerusalem. This occurs at the midst of the week. Jesus calls it great tribulation. (Matt.24, Luke 21)
I agree (I think), but I'm not sure about the image thing. There's still some question in my mind about the two references in Daniel. But IMO that's totally irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
You can't get the fact that the DAY OF THE LORD is a period of time, which is MADE UP of days.
This I just don't get. When did I ever insist that the Day of the Lord is a single day?
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
The actual day of his coming is ONE of them. It is AFTER the great tribulation. The day of the Lord though, STARTED long before that day of his coming.
Now you're ignoring scripture. The Day of the Lord begins after the great tribulation. But it isn't just one day. I've illustrated at least the former with scripture already, and multiple times, including the Day of Christ in 2 Thess.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
You have IGNORED the text of Zech.14, which includes the invasion of Jerusalem as the day of the Lord. That is in the midst of the week. You won't go far IGNORING texts.
Now here I'm just baffled. I ignored nothing of the kind. Did you not read my reply to you on this very issue? It was in another thread, but it was still a reply to YOU.
http://www.christianforums.com/foru...=definite and article and hebrew&pagenumber=4
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
Now, like I said, you go on your tirade to prove the day of Christ is the day of the Lord, due to the name.
Here's the facts.
The day of the Lord is an OT term. It is mentioned in the NT.
The day of Christ is a NT term, not mentioned in the OT.
As I said, a completely arbitrary distinction, and one that violates the plain reading of the text.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
The day of the LORD refers to the Father, not the Son. (Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 2)
The day of Christ refers to the Son, not the Father. The Father is never called Christ. That is a title of the Son.
Really? Not only was I under the impression that Jesus said that He and the Father are one, I thought the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus for using the expression, "I am" in an unmistakable context.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
The day of Christ is stated to be the day of our gathering. (2 Thess.2)
So is the Day of the Lord. For the umpteenth time, Jesus clearly refers to the Day of the Lord in Matthew 24:29-31. When you add that to the many other links (the fact that the man of sin who exalts himself above every other God must be revealed BEFORE your "Day of Christ") that tells you without any wiggle room that the Day of Christ and the Day of the Lord (and the Day of the Lord Jesus and the Day of the Lord's wrath, etc., etc.) all refer to the same thing.
29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
The day of the Lord is stated to be a day we escape. (1 Thess.5)
Absolutely. The Day of the Lord's wrath is exactly what we escape. Not the great tribulation. And you can CONFIRM that with 1 Thessalonians 5:9
9 For God did not appoint us to wrath
It does NOT say that God did not appoint us to tribulation.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
Now those are biblical facts.
You teach otherwise because you have a system.
Quite the contrary. Everything I have said comes straight from scripture with no added spiritualization or symbolism. And in every case I have let scripture speak for itself. When scripture says wrath, I read wrath, not tribulation. When scripture says great tribulation I read great tribulation, not wrath. When scripture uses words like BEFORE, IMMEDIATELY AFTER, etc., I allow those words to define the sequence of events and do not impose some other chronology on the events. If that's a system, it's a system of allowing scripture to speak for itself, and no more.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
Like I said before.
You have to DENY the time of Jacob's trouble is the day of the Lord.
I do not deny that, scripture does. When scripture lumps the great tribulation (the day of Jacob's trouble) in with the rest of the events, it speaks in general terms (as I pointed out referring to the original hebrew used in Zechariah 14). This is not unusual at all in scripture, but it doesn't mean it's all one event at one time with one label. For example, look at the portion of Isaiah Jesus quoted:
Isaiah 61
1 "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
Note that this verse isn't even finished yet, but this is where Jesus stopped and said "today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." But what follows in Isaiah?
And the day of vengeance of our God;
Whoops -- the OT seems to be describing in a continuous way events that are separated by qutie a long period of time, which is why Jesus stopped where He did! So if you had interpreted this passage in some year BC, you would probably have made the mistake of assuming these things all had to be fulfilled at once under a single label called "A day of Carl?"
So when the OT says "
a day of the Lord is coming, this will happen, that will happen, and the other thing will happen, we know it's referring to many things in general terms. But when the OT says THE Day of the Lord or THE Day of the Lord's wrath, then you might want to pay attention to see if you'll find something specific about THAT day.
Now what do we see if we allow scripture to speak for itself according to its own language this way? What is associated with THE Day of the Lord and not "A" day of the Lord? We find VINDICATION for Jacob, not the time of Jacob's trouble.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
You have to DENY the day of the Lord and the day of Christ are different days.
No, you deny they are the same. Scripture aligns them perfectly, as I illustrated in detail with scripture references and not just my personal assertion that they are different.
You also deny that tribulation is NOT the same thing as wrath. You ignore that the Day of the Lord is when Jacob is vindicated, not the time of Jacob's trouble. Yet these are all based on very plain reading of the scripture, whereas your ideas are based entirely on opinions that contradict other scriptures.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
You have to DENY the day of the Lord is a period of time.
I don't know where you got this idea. I don't deny anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that scripture places that period of time in a different location than you do.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
Paul taught a pre-tribulation gathering of the body of Christ. I call it midweek. The tribulation STARTS in the midst of the week.
He did nothing of the sort. This is purely your interpretation, and totally unsupported by scripture itself. Scriptuer doesn't even plainly put the rapture where I believe it is -- it doesn't CLEARLY place it anywhere, or there would be no argument about it. But IMO all scripture lines it up when Jesus says it happens, which is on or about the Day of the Lord or when the celestial signs that immediately precede the Day of the Lord occur.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
You didn't even comment on the sun going down. How it is related to the day of the Lord. How are you going to learn the Bible? Or the timing of the sun going down? 12:00 noon. How bout that?
You mean Amos 8? Criminy! I might give a hoot if it really said "I will make the sun set at noon" and stopped there. But it doesn't. It says, "I will make the sun go down (also translated "go in") at noon and darken the earth in clear day." So unless you're saying it's going to set over the whole earth at noon (a very neat trick, but I guess God can do anything), either you're tripping on a translation issue (go down, go in, whatever), or missing a nice poetic way of saying the sun will go dark. This is even more clear in Jeremiah 6, where it says more plainly "the day will go away" (get dark, duh), NOT that the sun will set.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
That's WHEN Paul saw him. (Acts 9,22,26) Ah, the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's what were talking about, isn't it? You didn't comment on the invasion of Jerusalem at 12:00 noon by the spoiler. That's Jeremiah. That's who Paul used for his desription of the day of the Lord as the woman in travail.
All I can say is, wow. You're lining up your events around literary techniques like similes and poetic desriptions, which wouldn't even make sense if you happened to come to the right conclusion. But your conclusions CONTRADICT the way the Bible outlines the chronology of events with language that does NOT rely on similes and poetic descriptions! Priorities, man! Next you're going to be checking astrological charts and counting the letters in the verses to see if you can connect these things that way.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge
Bible study is serious. Trying to prove a system is not. You'll have to do better.
In Christ Jesus,
Carl
Yes. It is far too serious to be making assertions that contradict the Bible based on things as flimsy as similes, or a premonition that there's some connection between Jesus visiting Paul at noon and the noon hour is also used in a description of the sun going dark. THAT is the sort of thing that is a sure sign that someone is approaching the text with a system. And you compound your error by ignoring things that are NOT based on similes or mystical interpretations.
That's it. Enjoy your last word.