Are the rapture and the second coming the same event? (2)

[chiamoni]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Are the rapture and the second coming the same event?"

 

[Interplanner]

Well, Danoh, now I'm positive you don't really read or absorb posts. I would not have said what I did about Rom 11 without hours in it and its OT quotes. That particular author proved to me that I only knew a handful of places that were wobbly supports of 2P2P, which does not exist.

 

[riverrat]

Well, Danoh, now I'm positive you don't really read or absorb posts. I would not have said what I did about Rom 11 without hours in it and its OT quotes. That particular author proved to me that I only knew a handful of places that were wobbly supports of 2P2P, which does not exist.

I continue to be impressed with you humbleness!

 

[Postvieww]

Can the church, being a "bride" be the "he" that is taken out of the way? That would do injustice to the male "he." However, the Holy Spirit working through the body of Christ on earth could certainly be a "He." In fact, the church, God's people on earth have been the "salt" of the earth for generations. It makes good sense, because the church will certainly be "taken out of the way."

You just help make my case in the first two sentences. I see we agree again. Then your next three sentences you spend trying back yourself out of a corner. Really???? Nothing I’m saying here depends on the “he” issue. Does your case depend on having the definition of apostasia you want?

"Departure" is a good word, chosen by the first men to translate this verse into English. If it is the church that has departed, then the church, by way of the rapture will have been "taken out of the way." When they have been caught up, they will have departed and they will have been "taken out of the way."

You assume departure means departure from the faith. None of the translations you have provided say that. They simply say departure, you add “of the church” in your translation.
1 Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Not the same greek word in 1 Tim 4:1,but for sure the same theme as apostasia.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (GNV)

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall (What day?” the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,” is that day! not come, except there come a departing first, (You say departing of the church)and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

So according to your theory this verse should read something like this. “Let no man deceive you by any means: for( the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him)shall not come, except there come a (departure of the church) first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.
Really!!! So the rapture must happen before the rapture can happen. Really!!! Did you even stop to think about what you are saying here. Your attempt to explain away a problematic verse has crashed and burned. I’m embarrassed for you. You should have let Juelrie answer on her own!! I guess you will have to build another doctrine on the “day of Christ” to get out of this one.
Again just let it be what it is. Verse 3 gives us two signs that will happen before that day happens. 1. A faling away (apostasy) also predicted in 1 Tim.4:1. 2. And that man of sin be revealed. Those are the two signs that must take place first. It is simply stated, quit working so hard to make it say something else.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (WEB)
3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction,
Tyndale: 2:3 Let no ma deceave you by eny meanes for the lorde commeth not excepte ther come a departynge fyrst and that that synfnll man be opened ye sonne of perdicion
Miles Coverdale: 2:3 - Let noman disceaue you by eny meanes. For the LORDE commeth not, excepte the departynge come first, and that that Man of synne be opened, euen the sonne of perdicion

The question is, is this Paul's intent? If "apostasia" is translated as "departure," does it fit the context of this passage? Yes, it fits better than KJV's "falling away."

In Paul's argument, at the end of verse 3, the departure has taken place, the man of sin revealed, and in the next verse is sitting in the temple declaring that he is god. Therefore a proper exegesis demands that whatever Paul meant by apostasia must be the restrainer taken out of the way. Indeed, it can mean nothing else, or we would have to throw out verses 6-8.

Proper exegesis???? The apostasia does not have to be the “he” restrainer. Nor do we have to throw out anything!

For those that insist apostasia is a falling away, there are problems they have not solved. First, how can a falling away and "taken out of the way" be aligned? Do they say the same thing? I don't think so. Can a falling away from something (Paul did not say what) be equated with "taken out of the way?" Can something falling away (from something) allow the man of sin to be revealed? For those that insist that Michael is the restrainer, then it has to be Michael that has fallen away! Again that would be extremely poor exegesis.

How do you get this so mixed up? The falling away is in verse 3, the taken out of the way is in verse 7 they are not aligned! No they don’t say the same thing ,there we are agreeing again. The falling away is sign # 1 before “that day shall come”. The he taken out of the way is what allows the antichrist to be revealed, which is sign # 2 that happens before that day shall come( our gathering). The apostasia is not the restrainer! Since all of this must happen before the gathering it can’t be the gathering too!!
No the falling away does not allow the man of sin to be revealed, the restrainer being removed does that. He, the restrainer is not the church removed because the church cannot be removed before the restrainer is taken out of the way and the antichrist is revealed then our gathering can take place! Maybe if I say it enough it will be so, as well.
If the restrainer is Michael he does not have to be fallen away, again that is verse 3 the withholder a “he” is in verse 7. Could be Michael or any other “he” God designates, but definitely not the church!!

Indeed, a departure or departing makes far more sense and fits the context of the passage perfectly. What ever Paul meant by apostasia, it can be nothing else that what allows the man of sin to be revealed, so it most be whatever is doing the restraining being "taken out of the way."

There is yet another huge problem with the way some read this passage. in verse 2 we see that these folks were extremely upset because someone apparently told them that the day of the Lord had come, and the hard times they were living through was a part of the day of the Lord.

I don’t see any of that in this verse. Now you say day of the Lord is the same as the day of Christ. We agree again.
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
Yes they were shaken in mind and troubled that “the day of Christ is at hand.’ Sounds imminent to me not already here.

For those that believe the day of the Lord equals the day of the rapture, then why on earth would these folks be upset? They should be jumping up and down with excitement, believing the rapture would come any day!

This theory simply does not fit the text. They were upset - very upset. Here is another scenario: suppose Paul had previously taught them that the rapture would come FIRST, as the trigger for the day of the Lord: just what we read in Paul's first letter to them. Then someone told them that the Day of the Lord had come, and they were in it........would this be cause for them to be upset? Surely it would! They could have thought Paul taught them error. They could have thought that they MISSED the rapture. That would certainly make them upset. This theory fits the context perfectly.

You do a lot of supposing and looking for scenarios that will work, try post trib that will work!. Paul never taught a pre-trib rapture, neither did Jesus nor anyone else in the scripture. This response of yours just shows another desparate attempt to “exegete” manipulate, privately interpret and massage the text to fit a false theory. Sorry to be so blunt.

We must not leave out Paul's theme: the gathering or rapture. Does the word departing or departure satisfy Paul theme? Certainly it does, for the bride is caught up (rapture or gathering) then the man of sin is revealed.

Paul’s theme is the coming of our Lord Jesus, and our gathering together unto him, and in context verse 2 the day of Christ is at hand, all one subject.
If you keep repeating it will that make it so?? So I’ll repeat as well , the man of sin in this passage is revealed before the gathering can take place. That is the context, that is what the text says!

If apostasia is to mean a falling away, where then does Paul satisfy his theme of the departure? It can only be satisfied if we make "day of the Lord" synonymous with rapture. However, we cannot do that, for Paul teaches us in his first letter that the rapture comes first, and moments later sudden destruction as the start of the Day of the Lord.

His theme is not departure by your definition.
No wonder your so confused jumping back and forth, here to there no one can keep up with you, your exegesis is ridiculous. Every single passage where Paul talks of the gathering, resurrection or (rapture, your word ),can be shown to be at the end or after antichrist is revealed, and I have made that case on this forum. You very seldom take a passage in it’s entirety, or complete context, instead jumping from here to there avoiding straight answers on any point anyone makes, muddling what is said with opinion multiple translations, and personal theories. I’ve never seen a doctrine so hard to squeeze out of the text as what you propose.

The next question, if the restrainer is the Holy Spirit working through the church, causing the church to restrain evil, what then happens when the rapture takes place? Does the Holy Spirit stay or does He go? If He stays, there would be no Christians through which He would work, for they would have been caught up. If He goes with the church, and the world goes back to what it was before the day of Pentecost, then we could certainly say the restrainer was "taken out of the way." If He stays, we could not say that so easily. It would seem then that when the church is raptured, the Holy Spirit goes with them.

Really?? If the Holy Spirit through Paul, calls the church a “he” while working through the church on this earth why is this only reference to the church as a “he”. Then to be consistent if the church and the Holy Spirit are a “he” on this earth are they suddenly transformed to a she bride after they are snatched out? Really???
What you say here makes no sense whatsoever!!! If He Goes or if He stays , really???? The Holy Spirit is omnipresent, He’s not going, taken, snatched or removed anywhere!!!!

It has been asked, "how can pretribbers arrive at the "He" that is taken out of the way be the church or the Holy Spirit working through the church? This question could just as well be asked this way: what scriptural proof is there than the restrainer is Michael? The question is, which fits best IN CONTEXT? Does Michael "fall away?" How could anyone even think that? Could Michael be "taken out of the way?" Would this be the way Paul would have written it if Michael was told to stand aside and quit restraining? I think not! "Taken out of the way" fits the church being SNATCHED much closer. We should note that in the war in heaven, it is not just Michael alone, but all his angels with him who defeat Satan.

There is no proof positive that Michael is the restrainer just as there is no proof it is the church, governments, or the Holy Spirit, all of which I have heard promoted as fact by various people. I simply said “Could not Michael be the “he” that restrains the antichrist?” as a possible reasonable possibility. I can’t prove it absolute so I said Could it not be so.

 

[Postvieww]

Wrath as most certain been discussed in this thread. It is written that God would set no appointment for us with His wrath, and that He would deliver us from His wrath. How then do we identify His wrath in Revelation? Some try to separate God's wrath from Satan's wrath, but this is scripturally impossible, because both Satan's wrath and God's wrath are poured out in the last half of the week. In other words, people are suffereing under Satan's wrath, but are also suffering under the plagues and vials of God's wrath.

Yes but they come from a different source and affect a different people, surly you can exegete that out of Revelation.

Some try to rearrange Revelation to fit their theory, since God's wrath is mentioned in Rev. 6. They try to push Rev. 6 way back in Chapter 19 somewhere. Again, is this the intent of the author? They forget that these seals are sealing a scroll, which cannot be unrolled until all 7 seals are broken or opened. Without a doubt, the trumpets and what follows are what was INSIDE the scroll, but became readable (and carried out) ONLY when all 7 seals were opened. This is just the way John wrote it. It is silly then to even think seal # 6 can wait to the end of the book.

Is it even remotely possible with John's wording that once people recognize that the day of the Lord has come, they IMAGINE the face of God being very angry, for they KNOW the Day is a day of WRATH? Of course it is more than possible, it is very probable, because John writes that GOD IS ON HIS THRONE. There is then no reason why seal 6 cannot be broken in sequence just the way John write it.

Doesn’t say they imagined anything, text says “hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:” So could it be remotely possible the text doesn’t say this ??

In the end, after so many pages of argument, one side is determined to stick with their theories, even when they have to rearrange to make their theory fit; and even when they cannot explain why the Thessolonians were so upset; even when they cannot explain how a falling away has THE in front of it:

"except there come a falling" it doesn't have a the in front where did you find that?



a very significant falling away. How could a falling away be detected unless it happened in ONE DAY? How would anyone know that enough people had fallen away from something to qualify? The truth is, no one could know. But if it is the departing of the church, THE WHOLE WORLD will know! It will happen in an instant and would certainly qualify as a SIGNIFICANT event needed THE departing.

“How could a falling away be detected unless it happened in ONE DAY? How would anyone know that enough people had fallen away from something to qualify?”

This is what I mean about muddling.

The big question, can the Greek word Apostasia mean a departure of a group of people out of the whole, where a part is moved from where they were to a NEW PLACE? Yes, certainly the compound word apostasia can mean that. Anyone that looks up each word separately can see that plainly.

And this as well.

Fiinally, we cannot ignore Paul's "and now you know." Why would Paul write those words, unless He just TOLD his readers who the restrainer was? If departing is the correct translation, then of course Paul just told us: the restrainer is the Holy Spirit working through the church that has suddenly be snatched OUT OF THE WAY.

Maybe he did tell them. He did not say “the restrainer is the Holy Spirit working through the church that has suddenly be snatched OUT OF THE WAY.” YOU SAID THAT. REALLY!!
May God bless and help us all.

 

[Riberra]

The commentaries are in agreement: the New Covenant believer is not the same as an Old Testament believer. When Paul said, "In Christ," for those who would be raptured, He knew exactly what he was writing.

By rapture you mean probably the caught up and gathering together of those in Christ still alive and remaining AFTER the Tribulation when Jesus return .(1 Thessalonians 4:17)
For sure no Old Testament Saints will be there for the caught up and gathering when Jesus returns AFTER the Tribulation because they are all dead.

1 Thessalonians 4:17

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

John the Baptist declared that he would be the friend of the bridegroom, and not a part of the bride.

John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Well John the Baptist (Elie) will not be alone to be friend of the bridegroom rejoicing greatly
Rev 19
6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

The great multitude rejoicing is not the Bride.

7.....and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.


Lest see who else are present in Rev 19
Rev 19
4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.

As i said earlier, it is possible that the 24 Elders are the Old Testaments patriarchs.- the spirits of just men made perfect,-(Heb.12:23)

Hebrews 12
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,


24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

[Interplanner]

The dead in Christ will be raised. No distinction is made about OT believers, unless they were already raised in mt 27.

 

[Manasseh_]

They are alive and conscience and aware of where they are and why they are there. But God calls this existence "the 2nd death."

they (the wicked) are not aware of anything since they're DESTROYED in the lake of fire at the appointed time, death is not life, it's the absence of life, you can't redefine word meanings to suit your false doctrine

 

[Riberra]

The dead in Christ will be raised. No distinction is made about OT believers,

I agree with you.The dead in Christ will be raised when Jesus Returns AFTER the tribulation and the OT believers will be part of it.(Rev 20:4-5)
The problem with Lamad is that he have invented a resurrection pre-tribulation ... out of Rev 20:4-5

Lamad's 3 resurrections:

1-resurrection pre-tribulation for those who died in Christ.

2- resurrection after the tribulation for the Old Testament Saints and those in Christ who will be beheaded during the Antichrist reign .

3-The Great White Throne Judgement after the Millennium.

unless they were already raised in mt 27.

That is effectively a possibility.

 

[Interplanner]

In which case they are present with God already.

 

[KrAZeD]

they (the wicked) are not aware of anything since they're DESTROYED in the lake of fire at the appointed time, death is not life, it's the absence of life, you can't redefine word meanings to suit your false doctrine

destroyed....how's that punishment? or torment? If one ceases to exist then frankly that's not a punishment- If you don't exist you can't experience anything because your non existent. No lack of God nor repercussions of disobeying Him or not accepting His Son as our Lord, frankly if those opposed to God just get destroyed then answer the question- What have they lost?

 

[Riberra]

In which case they are present with God already.

In their spirit (soul)...
If i am interpreting Hebrew 12:23 correctly....-and to the spirits of just men made perfect,-

Hebrews 12 (KJV)
22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,


24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

http://biblehub.com/hebrews/12.htm

 

[iamlamad]

Can the church, being a "bride" be the "he" that is taken out of the way? That would do injustice to the male "he." However, the Holy Spirit working through the body of Christ on earth could certainly be a "He." In fact, the church, God's people on earth have been the "salt" of the earth for generations. It makes good sense, because the church will certainly be "taken out of the way."

You just help make my case in the first two sentences. I see we agree again. Then your next three sentences you spend trying back yourself out of a corner. Really???? Nothing I’m saying here depends on the “he” issue. Does your case depend on having the definition of apostasia you want?

"Departure" is not a definition of apostasia "I want." I am seeking the best definition that fits the context. The first seven translations of the bible into English all used the word departure or departing. An the Latin Vulgate used a Latin word meaning departure. It seems VERY likely this is the best English translation.

Why is "He" important? It is the word John used.
Coffman Commentaries
In the Greek, the restraining power is spoken of, both as "he" and as "it," as when a man might speak of the law as "it," and of the enforcer of it as "he."

Many people say the church could not possibly fit because the church is the bride of Christ, a chaste virgin. This could not fit the "he" that is restraining. My only point was that I believe Paul was thinking of the Holy Spirit working through the church.

However, until we make the connection between verses 6-8 and verse 3, we are at a stalemate. Apparently you cannot see a connection, yet they are very much connected.

In verse 3 Paul lists events in their proper order: FIRST the apostasia; SECOND the man of sin revealed, Third, the day of the Lord has come. (Not that the DAY begins with the revealing; rather the revealing is proof positive that the Day of the Lord had come.) Forth, the man of sin enters the most holy place in the temple (verse 4) attempting to prove that he is God.

David Guzbek Commentary:
Some translations have that the day of Christ is at hand, such as the King James Version. But "The verb does not really mean to be at hand, but rather to be present." (Morris) The Thessalonians were not afraid that the day of Christ was coming, but that they were in it.

It was obvious that the day of Christ had not been completed. Paul will demonstrate that it had not yet dawned, because the Thessalonians were afraid that they were in the Great Tribulation (the day of the Lord), and had missed the rapture. But Paul will demonstrate that they are not in the day of Christ, because if they were, certain signs would be present.

Amp: 2 Not to allow your minds to be quickly unsettled or disturbed or kept excited or alarmed, whether it be by some [pretended] revelation of [the] Spirit or by word or by letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here.

CEB: 2 We don’t want you to be easily confused in your mind or upset if you hear that the day of the Lord is already here, whether you hear it through some spirit, a message, or a letter supposedly from us.

CJB 2 not to be easily shaken in your thinking or anxious because of a spirit or a spoken message or a letter supposedly from us claiming that the Day of the Lord has already come.

I agree with David here. Paul's argument is to show them that they were NOT in the day and that the Day had not yet come. He tells them HOW to recognize it when it does come. In other words, Paul is telling them they are NOT in the day of the Lord; that when they see the revealing of the man of sin, THEN they can KNOW the Day of the Lord has already started.

After Paul lays out his argument in these points, he then goes into more detail of the revealing. He makes a very clear point that the revealing cannot possibly take place until the restraining force (preventing his revealing) is "taken out of the way."

There is proof that ties verses 6-8 to verse 3 and 4. Notice verse 4:

4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Question: could this verse take place and be fulfilled before the one restraining is "taken out of the way?" How could he enter the temple and be revealed unless the restrainer has been removed? The answer is simple: NO! There is no way he could enter the temple and declare he is God until the restrainer has been taken out of the way, so he could be revealed at the proper time. Yet in verse 4 this is what he does. This is why some translators have rendered the end of verse three as already completed:

Amp: and the man of lawlessness (sin) is revealed,
CEB: and the person who is lawless is revealed
CJB: and the man who separates himself from Torah has been revealed
Darby: and the man of sin have been revealed
ESV: and the man of lawlessness is revealed
HCSB: and the man of lawlessness is revealed

There should be no question that at this point in Paul's argument, the one restraining has been taken out of the way, and the revealing has taken place, as seen in verse 4.

These words prove beyond any shadow of doubt that at the end of verse 4, the man of sin has been revealed: he was free to walk into the temple and declare he is god. Yet, Paul makes it very clear this cannot possibly happen unless something else comes first: the one restraining taken out of the way. If the restrainer is at work, there is no revealing; but once the restrainer has been "taken out of the way," the man if sin enters the temple, declares he is God, and is therefore revealed.

Therefore, whatever is in the first half of verse 3, it MUST BE what Paul is talking about in verses 6-8: the restrainer holding back the revealing until the proper time - being removed, departed or "taken out of the way." It is why Paul wrote, "and now you know" (who the restrainer is) in verse 6. He wrote, "and now you know" because he just gave it away who was restraining, but did it in a way not at first noticed.

So the key to the restraining force is in the very word "apostasia" - that which must come FIRST before the man of sin is revealed in the last part of verse 3. There is no way around this logic, and any who fail to see this connection will never properly understand this passage.

Logic then demands that "apostasia" equals or means the same as the restrainer being removed - they are one and the same thing. In other words, "taken out of the way," and "apostasia" must have the same meaning. Therefore, if a theory says Michael is the restrainer, then Michael must "be taken out of the way" or Michael must depart or fall away.

There is a parallel structure here:
Verse 3: apostasia then the man of sin revealed.
Verse 6: something restraining that he might be revealed in his time
Verses 7 & 8: someone restraining until he is taken out of the way, and then the revealing

If a theory is to follow the KJV and say "falling away," and if the theory is to say the restrainer is Michael, then before the man of sin can be revealed, Michael himself must "fall away." Perhaps if some make the connection Paul makes between restrainer and the apostasia, they would like departing better.

Make no mistake, in the Greek, "THE" is there showing that this is not just any general apostasia, it is a very specific one: THE apostasia.

David Guzik Commentary"
The falling away: The article makes it even more significant. This is not a falling away, but the falling away, the great and final rebellion.

David is very aware that the Greek text has the article: THE showing a very significant apostasia. (this author thinks it is a rebellion.)

Note that Paul said this must come first. Suppose someone wants to follow Paul here and is watching the current "falling away." Has enough people fallen away by now, early in 2015 to be "THE" falling away? My point was, how could anyone know if enough people has fallen away to be what Paul was talking about? The truth is, NO ONE would know. In other words, if Paul really meant a falling away from truth, no one would know WHEN this event happened. This is why I don't think Paul had a "falling away" in mind. Now, if there was a great falling away that happened in ONE DAY, then people could point to that and say, "that is what Paul was talking about."

So my question to those on this forum that believe the real meaning is a falling away: has ENOUGH people fallen away yet to constitute the restrainer being "taken out of the way?"? Can the Beast now be revealed?

More to come

 

[Interplanner]

The question is moot. None of the material you are looking at has to do with the modern situation.

 

[iamlamad]

"Departure" is a good word, chosen by the first men to translate this verse into English. If it is the church that has departed, then the church, by way of the rapture will have been "taken out of the way." When they have been caught up, they will have departed and they will have been "taken out of the way."

You assume departure means departure from the faith. None of the translations you have provided say that. They simply say departure, you add “of the church” in your translation.
1 Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Not the same greek word in 1 Tim 4:1,but for sure the same theme as apostasia.

No, I mean departure as the bride being "taken out of the way" so that the man of sin can be revealed in the proper time. it seems you are struggling with the idea that "apostasia" can mean "deparuture." It was the KJV that added the thought of departure "from the truth" as in a great falling away (Note that the KJV does not say what is being fallen away from).

If you wish to bring in 1 Tim, then you have more trouble: how can you equate "some" departing with what Paul wrote in 2 Thes. 2 as a very significant ("THE") apostasia. These two do not equate. Then you will have yet another problem. Paul wrote this to show people how they can know when the REAL Day of the Lord comes: first the apostasia, second the man of sin revealed. So again I ask, if Paul meant people departing from the church, as in many just quit going to church - how could anyone know if enough had departed to qualify? This is just not something easy to recognize. I believe Paul's intention was that this significant apostasia would be EASILY recognizable. By the way, there is a very similar word to Apostasia used: "apostasion" which means divorce. For sure in a divorce, one departs from another.

 

[Danoh]

The question is moot. None of the material you are looking at has to do with the modern situation.

So says the "partial" Preterist.

Yours is a tired, completely erroneous, two thousand year old tune - that whole mess that Paul is trying to straighten out in 2 Thessalonians had also been the result of a "partial preterist's" erroneous looking around at events in history and concluding, "oh, these persecutions - this means our gathering together unto Him is past already; this means we're in the day of the Lord... I better go write 'an epistle as from' Paul, as sanctioned by him....,"

Here, here is a warning against you and your fellows, in your very same very error - 2 Timothy 2:

17. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Scripture backs you and yours up alright.

 

[iamlamad]

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (GNV)
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall (What day?” the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,” is that day! not come, except there come a departing first, (You say departing of the church)and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

So according to your theory this verse should read something like this. “Let no man deceive you by any means: for( the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him)shall not come, except there come a (departure of the church) first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.
Really!!! So the rapture must happen before the rapture can happen. Really!!! Did you even stop to think about what you are saying here. Your attempt to explain away a problematic verse has crashed and burned. I’m embarrassed for you. You should have let Juelrie answer on her own!! I guess you will have to build another doctrine on the “day of Christ” to get out of this one.
Again just let it be what it is. Verse 3 gives us two signs that will happen before that day happens. 1. A faling away (apostasy) also predicted in 1 Tim.4:1. 2. And that man of sin be revealed. Those are the two signs that must take place first. It is simply stated, quit working so hard to make it say something else.

In your theory, the Day of the Lord is the coming of the Lord and is the gathering. Can you prove that scripturally? Neither John to Paul ever put it quite like that. Scripturally, the Day of the Lord is NOT the coming of the Lord, as in these two terms being synonymous. Scripturally John starts the Day of the Lord just before the 70th week as in before the 7th seal.

However, you have perhaps one tiny leg to stand on, because in 1 Thes. 4 & 5, Paul tells us there is a coming FOR His saints, and it is back to back with the start of the Day of the Lord. Paul then ties the beginning of the Day of the Lord to the rapture in a way that we cannot separate them. If we really understand Paul, the rapture event, starting with the dead in christ rising starts the "sudden destruction" earthquake that Paul equates with God's wrath, telling us that God will make no appointment for us with His wrath.

Since Paul had just mentioned the day of the Lord, then he is equating the Day of the Lord with God's wrath. Of course there are many Old Testament scriptures that add wrath to the Day of the Lord. The point here that cannot be missed is that it is the dead in Christ rising that STARTS the great earthquake "sudden destruction." Therefore it is very legitimate to say that the rapture event is the trigger for the Day.

The truth then, is that the rapture is NOT on the day of the Lord, but rather PRECEDES it and causes it to begin. Since you tried to put words in my mouth, let me do it instead:

Let no man deceive you by any means, for that Day [the day of the Lord or the Day of His wrath] shall not come, unless there come a departing first [the gathering or the rapture of the church being "taken out of the way], and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

This is much closer to the truth than your version, because you in error equate the gathering with the Day. In fact, this fits what Paul wrote in chapter 5 perfectly, that the Day of the Lord comes as a consequence of the rapture. Which verse about the Day of the Lord in the Old Testament fits a gathering?

Isaiah 13:6
Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Isaiah 34:8
For it is the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.

Jeremiah 46:10
For this is the day of the Lord God of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord God of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.

Ezekiel 30:3
For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.

Joel 1:15
Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Joel 2:11
And the Lord shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Amos 5:18
Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light.

Amos 5:20
Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

Zephaniah 1:7
Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord God: for the day of the Lord is at hand: for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.

Zephaniah 1:18
Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord's wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.

Zechariah 14:1
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

I just cannot see the rapture in any of these verses. On the contrary, it seems impossible that the Day of the Lord is about the rapture or has anything to do with it! The day of the Lord is all about God bringing judgment. In fact, all these line up perfectly with what John wrote of the DAY beginning at the 6th seal, then continuing on through the entire 70th week. The truth is, your embarrassment should be for yourself. You seem to have no real bible understanding of the Day of the Lord. It will START as a day of destruction. You have it starting with the rapture! HOw does Jesus come in Rev. 19? He comes with brightness and splendor that lights up the earth like lightning. How then do you equate your theory with "darkness and no brightness in it?"

So what does Paul REALLY say? He tells them not to be so upset that the Day of the Lord (God's wrath poured out) had already started. (They were living in some very difficult times.) Paul tells them how to know for SURE the Day has come: wait until you see the man of sin revealed: THEN you will know the Day has come. But He also said that the man of sin could not be revealed until the restrainer was departed or taken out of the way. He also said that the man of sin could not be revealed until the apostasia came first [the restrainer removed] or the church being "taken out of the way."

You still have huge problems to solve. You still have not explained why these people were so upset, thinking the Day had come. If your theory was truth, they would have been jumping up and down shouting for joy - they were about to go home! Therefore your theory has some real explaining as to why they were upset.

You have even more problems: Paul's parallels. Verse 3, the apostasia comes first, then the revealing.
Verse 6, the restrainer holding back so the revealing would come at the right time
Verses 7 & 8: He who is restraining will continue restraining until he is taken out of the way, and then the man of sin will be revealed.

The way Paul wrote this, the apostasia equals the restrainer being taken out of the way. You will have to live with this truth.

 

[Danoh]

The gathering together unto him is verse 1.

Some first century partial preterists had taken the persecutions they were enduring to mean that said gathering together unto him was past already - that they had missed it, and were headed toward the Day of His wrath, thus the persecutions.

In an attempt to straighten them out as to their understanding on this, Paul relates the Things That Differ as to how things will play out after their gathering together unto the Lord, sometime after which, things will head the towards the Day of the Lord's wrath.

It is that day - the Day of the Lord's wrath as to those Things That Differ with regard to how events will play out leading unto said wrath at some point after their gathering together unto the Lord, that Paul is noting the distinctions of.

According to Daniel; and the Lord in the Gospels; and John in the Revelation, the day of the Lord's wrath will follow after a departure from the Law, said departure from the Law culminating in the man of sin, and the Lord's return in His wrath.

Paul reminds them that he had laid all this out back when he'd been with them. This would be Acts 17, where he first met them. There, he asserts through Scripture that Jesus had been very Christ - Israel's Prophesied Messiah.

2 Thessalonians makes it obvious he had gone into Daniel 9 with them. It is there that we read that Messiah would be cut off, etc., and Daniel is a good place from which to share with Jews to this very day [those who take Daniel to have been inspired], why Christ did not restore their kingdom again unto them, Dan, 2:44; Acts 1:6,7.

As is evident in Acts 17 and Romans 9-11, Paul would have gone into the fact of an interruption in their promise; God having set aside the times of Gentile ignorance, to visit them and call out a people from among both Jew and Gentile without distinction nor according to Israel's covenant now on hold til the fulness of what was essentially now a Gentile salvation, reach its intended fullness, Acts 15: 16, 17; Rom.11:25-27; Gal. 2:7-9.

Paul then elates that said events prior to the Lord's return in His wrath - iniquity no longer restrained - "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold," Matt. 24: 12 - are being held back by a restrainer whom Paul refers to as "he."

In this, it is obvious who this restrainer is, as that is part of Paul's Mystery truth, but I'll leave this for now; let you guys fight the preterists even Paul had to contend with in his day regarding these issues...

Nothing new under the sun, that's for sure - other then the Things That Differ as to these issues that many continue to refuse to look into...

 

[Danoh]

And very little of that touched on what basis as to the Things That Differ a Pre-Trib Rapture would even be based on, to begin with

 

[n2thelight]

destroyed....how's that punishment? or torment? If one ceases to exist then frankly that's not a punishment- If you don't exist you can't experience anything because your non existent. No lack of God nor repercussions of disobeying Him or not accepting His Son as our Lord, frankly if those opposed to God just get destroyed then answer the question- What have they lost?

The punishment is in not having life.....What did they lose?Everlasting life!!!!!

The wages of sin is death,period.........The death of the soul!!!!