Are the rapture and the second coming the same event?

[Danoh]

So,we must ask Lamad what he mean by Old Testament Saints ....Probably Abraham ,Isaac,Jacob....
David . Solomon ...

Who are the biblical patriarchs?

I know what I mean - Matthew thru John are still Old Testament economy [oiconomia] or Dispensation.

Luke 1:

5. THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

And look at this, as late as Matthew 23:

2. Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Mark 7:

9. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Luke 16:

29. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

That being the case, what the does this mean - John 1:

17. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Notice, it is not negating Moses, rather, it is asserting that truth of the grace that Moses prophesied through the Law would come in the person of Jesus Christ was now being confirmed within their midst.

Notice what this grace is - the promise of their Deliverer - John 1:

19. And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20. And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

25. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

Note that they are familiar with water baptism as being associated with the coming of Elijah, as well as of the coming of the Christ. Perhaps I'll touch more on that later as it is very significant.

Back to the point - that Matthew thru John are still OT ground, and that the Twelve were Messianic Believers, or Christian in that sense - as to Christ as the King of Israel, not as to His other role, Christ as Head of the Body - John 1:

45. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48. Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

he then talks of what that kingdom will be like - on earth - John 1:

51. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

The "problem" with all this, is that it is "Dispensational" - it involves times and seasons, which to Him, involve but a moment's pause within time, as a day for Him, is as a thousand for mere mortals. As in John 20, where one moment He is telling someone He has to ascend to the Father to receive His glory, before they can touch Him, and just a little while later He's back in His full glory, asking them to touch His hands, etc.

That just boggles the mind - that kind of control over time and space.

Well, Dispensationalism solves for that too - as that leads to Dispensationalism - "okay, so such much time is nothing for Him, okay, what else!"

Its is those kinds of things that differ that led to Dispensationalism - the notion that Darby invented it is an invention of his opposition...

Anyway...

 

[Rev20]

Well ,we know the disciples are the -firstborns ... in Christ - The First Christians-

True,that probably makes a throne out of 12 for a judge empty.Maybe LAMAD can apply...

Matthias took Judas' place:

"And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." -- Acts 1:23-26 KJV

 

[101]

Yes. They are.

 

[Jerico Miles]

Who EVER said a baby is sent to hell? What kind of a God do you think we serve? I think that theory was gone hundreds of years ago. However, there IS an age of accountability. For some youth in China, that has never heard the name of Jesus, perhaps it is a few years older than a youth in the US who has been to church every Sunday of his life. However, that day will surely come at some time in a youth's life, if they are sane.

I'm telling you God does not judge children and babies. You claim God sent a child to hell. If you understand or at least observant of what you read, you'll know no one said you claim God sent babies to hell.

The same question can be said about you. What kind of a God do YOU think we serve that send children to hell? Again, you claimed God sent a child to hell.

You're also using the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus to justify your foolish fabrication. Go read the story again. Note that the rich man is an adult. And he sinned. In all the posts you've written, you never described the child committing any sin. Read your stories below. You're twisting the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus to claim children are accountable for their actions when the bible clearly stated children are not subject to judgement as an adult. Read the descriptions of your own posts you wrote below of the child.

Where did the child committed any sin? Why would God send a innocent child to hell for tithing and going to church regularly?

I know a man that died four times as a 15 year old boy. Two times his spirit and soul went down to the gates of hell and two demons grabbed him and tried to get him through the gates. He SAW the gates; He SAW the fire. He heard a voice speak, but could not understand. They let him go and twice he ascended back and jumped right back into his body. There was proof that his heart stopped and his eyes were fixed. People were there in his bedroom praying at the top of their voice, stopping traffic outside! The third time as he was going down to the belly of the earth, he KNEW He must change what he did the first two times - that this was his FINAL chance.

You see, he had been telling God that he gave money in the offerings; that he attended church regularly....that he should be going up, not down: but God was not listening! The third time he began to cry out repentance, screaming at the top of his spiritual voice. The moment he began to repent, he stopped going down, and came back up. Again He went back into his body, but was screaming out repentance so loud, cars were stopping in the street. He said from out of his body to back in, he did not miss one word of prayer.

There is nothing in this story that does not line up. This happened. It is a real event...a true event. I have heard him tell this story over and over, and it never changed. It only shows us the rich man and Lazarus is a real story a story that is repeated many times every day on earth: some die and go to hell, others die and go to heaven. Why is this so hard for some to believe? The bible teaches these truths.

Why did God give this particular boy three chances? I can only guess: because his mom was praying, and God answers prayer.

By the way, MANY kids of my generation were forced to go to church against their will. I never missed a Sunday from the time I was a baby. I did not mind, but one of my older brothers did.

For a sinner, God only listens to one kind of prayer: a prayer in His will, which would be a prayer of repentance, or a prayer that God sees will lead to repentance. (1 John 5:14-16). All he was doing his first two trips is explaining to God why he should be going up and not down. How silly when he KNEW inside he needed to repent.

I confess, at 7 years old I did something very similar: I prayed night after night that Jesus would NOT come that night, because I was not ready. Why I did not just get ready I cannot explain. I knew I was a sinner, and I knew I had not given my life to Him yet. I was scared of hell! But night after night of a revival the preacher preached on hell! Thank GOD I knew enough to know I needed a savior! On the last night, I got born again.

You are wrong yet again: God knows when a child has reached the age He will hold them accountable - you don't. He was old enough to know he needed to be born again, yet had not done it.

Those are the quotes from your prior two threads. Where in any of your descriptions of this child did he committed a sin as did the Rich Man? The only thing you said he did was give offerings to church and attended church regularly. Why would God send an innocent child to hell? Why would God judge a child as an adult? Why would God not listen to a child? What kind of a God do YOU think we serve?!

I guess in your mind, it must be over 20! You are simply mistaken. At seven years old the Holy Spirit was calling me. I absolutely knew at that age that I needed Jesus if I wanted to go to heaven. However, I had been in church since I was a week old. This is something that ONLY GOD knows.

You're presumptuous. How do you know I had a particular year in mind? You're the only one throwing numbers around. Kinda like spewing manure leaving cow dung everywhere. All I've told you was God does not judge children and babies, and your story don't jive. There's a difference.

I don't care to know what happened to you at age 7. At age 7, I had the hots for my teacher and a few girls in my class. Again, you can't relate your personal life and experienced and use that as a criteria to judge others. Maybe you were the bad kid that got punished at a young age. That doesn't mean the whole world should fall under your same standard.

If I lived by your standards, I would claim every 7 year old are high on testosterone.

It is very simple why God would send a youth to hell (he was 15 years old at the time). It was because he had reached the age and maturity where God would hold him accountable. I guess you know, at 15 youths are very good at sinning! Some have committed murder by that age. Do they know the difference between right and wrong at that age? They surely do! But as I said, ONLY GOD makes that determination.

If this "insults" your intelligence, then I would question your intelligence. This is bible 101. Sin has wages. When someone has reached the age of accountability, (in this case he was 15) their name will be blotted out of the lamb's book of life.

How do you know God considers children at the age of 15 accountable? Again you're just spewing cow dungs. Just because you were gullible enough to believe the story it doesn't mean you could cover up the foolishness you keep writing with manure.

No, his name will not be blotted out. You have one twisted mind. God is not as unforgiving as you make Him.

 

[Jerico Miles]

OF COURSE I have not changed my mind. The proper TIME for the marriage is exactly where John put it, AFTER the 70th week has ended.

That's wrong. The marriage is not after the 70th week. It happens during the second half of the tribulation, not after.

Christ leaves heaven before the tribulation end to fight in the battle of Armageddon. (Rev 16:15, Rev 19:11-21). All this happens during latter part of the second half of the tribulation. The marriage supper happens before Christ descends from heaven to Armageddon (Rev 19:7-10). He's not going back up to heaven for a marriage you supposedly think happens after the tribulation. Gotta becareful of cow dungs buddy.

 

[Jerico Miles]

You are twisting my words yet again.
Where did I said that the White Throne Judgement is before the Millennium?

Then, you have to change the meaning of Revelation 20:4-6 which said that those who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus during the Antichrist(Beast) reign will be priests and rulers with Jesus during the 1,000 years(Rev 20:4-6).

You need also to add a Resurrection Pre-Tribulation which is not in the Bible.

Revelation 20:4-6 --

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

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

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

It's rare I would support the arguments of a post-tribber over that of a pre-tribber but under this circumstances he's wrong and you're right this time.

Rev 20:4 very specifically identifies those resurrected at the end of the tribulation are solely the ones that died during the tribulation. It mentions nothing of old testament saints. Adding OT there is just fabricated nonsense, as is injecting that notion from Daniel 12:1-2.

 

[Jerico Miles]

From Dr. David Reagan's article:
"
Using this imagery, the Bible presents the resurrection of Jesus as the "first fruits" of the resurrection of the righteous. The gathering of the Church Age saints, living and dead, at the appearing of the Lord (the Rapture) is thus the general harvest stage of the resurrection of the righteous (John 14:1-3 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
But there is a third and final stage to this resurrection of the righteous. It is the gleanings, and it occurs at the end of the Tribulation when the Lord's Second Coming takes place. At that time two final groups of the righteous will be resurrected: 1) the Tribulation martyrs (Revelation 20:4), and 2) the Old Testament saints (Dan 12:2)."
(Articles - Prophecy - Eternity - Resurrections and Judgments)

This fits what Daniel wrote, that he would rise at the end. The 7th vial is what ENDS Daniel's 70th week.

From: The Bible Knowledge Commentary. (Tom Constable)Then the dead in Christ will be resurrected, that is, believers of this dispensation will be raised. Old Testament saints, it seems, will be raised at the end of the Great Tribulation (Dan. 12:2), for the phrase “in Christ” usually refers exclusively to Church-Age saints. The bodies of the dead in Christ will rise before the living Christians are caught up to meet the Lord in the air.
Of course if God made this very clear, we would not be having this discussion. I will go with the majority here and believe the Old Testament saints rise on the last 24 hour day of the 70th week.

That's wrong Lamad. I follow David Reagan on Lion and Lamb Ministry with Nathan Jones from time to time also and know he's does make occasional mistake once in awhile. Though he's mostly right, this time he isn't.

The OT saints does not get resurrected at the end of the tribulation. Rev 20:4 is very specific as to who gets resurrected. You and him are in error on Daniel 12. Sometimes it's good to read the whole chapter and not just the first two verses to help prevent the accumulation of cow dungs. Daniel 12:1-2 is a figurative description of the time of the end not specifically the end of the tribulation. 1-2 is the resurrected part of the rapture of those dead in Christ throughout time. The OT saints were justified by their faith and grafted into the body of Christ. (Romans 4).

12 “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

It is just more ignorance and nonsense to deprive true saints like Abraham and David placing them as guest and not part of the Bride of Christ during the marriage supper

 

[Interplanner]

Rapture beliefs should not obscure the more dominant NT doctrine that there is a judgement of all mankind at the end of time. If they are going to muddle that, they should not be pursued. Our object is to present the message of justification (which has to do with that final judgement) to all men. Whether we are correct about raptures matters hooey.

 

[iamlamad]

That's wrong Lamad. I follow David Reagan on Lion and Lamb Ministry with Nathan Jones from time to time also and know he's does make occasional mistake once in awhile. Though he's mostly right, this time he isn't.

The OT saints does not get resurrected at the end of the tribulation. Rev 20:4 is very specific as to who gets resurrected. You and him are in error on Daniel 12. Sometimes it's good to read the whole chapter and not just the first two verses to help prevent the accumulation of cow dungs. Daniel 12:1-2 is a figurative description of the time of the end not specifically the end of the tribulation. 1-2 is the resurrected part of the rapture of those dead in Christ throughout time. The OT saints were justified by their faith and grafted into the body of Christ. (Romans 4).

12 “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

It is just more ignorance and nonsense to deprive true saints like Abraham and David placing them as guess and not part of the Bride of Christ during the marriage supper

They were never "in Christ" since Christ had not come at that time. They do not qualify for the rapture of the church. They were never born again, as that experience was impossible back then. Untold millions of believers today do not just add them to the church. However, they will certainly participate at the marriage as guests. I guess you forgot!

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Romans 7:1
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

1 Corinthians 7:39
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

When Jesus died, the marriage to Judah was ended. Do you really think He will marry Judah again? I don't think so.

 

[iamlamad]

It's rare I would support the arguments of a post-tribber over that of a pre-tribber but under this circumstances he's wrong and you're right this time.

Rev 20:4 very specifically identifies those resurrected at the end of the tribulation are solely the ones that died during the tribulation. It mentions nothing of old testament saints. Adding OT there is just fabricated nonsense, as is injecting that notion from Daniel 12:1-2.

I don't think you read verse 4 very clearly. In chapter 20: verse 4a, WHO are those on the thrones judging? This is a DIFFERENT group than those who died the days of great tribulation.

Will you agree with the post-tribber that the Old testament saints will not rise until AFTER the thousand year reign of Christ? Jesus told the disciples that THEY would be judges during this time. They are included in the "they" of Rev. 20:4a.

 

[Interplanner]

That's a good final point, Lamad. He's already married to the proper wife, some of whom were in the previous group.

 

[riverrat]

Rapture beliefs should not obscure the more dominant NT doctrine that there is a judgement of all mankind at the end of time. If they are going to muddle that, they should not be pursued. Our object is to present the message of justification (which has to do with that final judgement) to all men. Whether we are correct about raptures matters hooey.

If it matters hooey then do not concern yourself with it!

 

[iamlamad]

That's wrong. The marriage is not after the 70th week. It happens during the second half of the tribulation, not after.

Christ leaves heaven before the tribulation end to fight in the battle of Armageddon. (Rev 16:15, Rev 19:11-21). All this happens during latter part of the second half of the tribulation. The marriage supper happens before Christ descends from heaven to Armageddon (Rev 19:7-10). He's not going back up to heaven for a marriage you supposedly think happens after the tribulation. Gotta becareful of cow dungs buddy.

If you wish to make sense, the true title the bible gives is the 70th week of Daniel. This 70th week INCLUDES "those days" of "great tribulation." (Matthew 24:21-22)

Next, the 70th week is "clearly marked" (quotes because these are God's exact words to me as He was teaching me about the 70th week) by the 7's: the 7th seal opens the week with 30 minutes of silence; the 7th trumpet marks the midpoint, and the 7th vial ends it. If you will notice, the marriage does not take place until AFTER the 70th week - and for good reason: God absolutely will wait for the Old Testament saints to rise. They rise at the 7th vial that ends the week. (Notice the world's worst earthquake there and consider Mat. 27: "the death did quake...and the graves were opened") There is still MORE TIME takes place after the 7th vial which we read in chapters 17 & 18. Finally, after all those events, the destruction of Jerusalem (Babylon) included, then it is time for the marriage.

Finally, Jesus does NOT COME TO EARTH during the 70th week at all, any where or any time. He does not come until AFTER the week has finished and then after the marriage. Consider the extended times Daniel gives us of 1290 days and 1335 days. Could it be that the marriage takes place on one of these days?

This cake walk is not in a cow pasture, so no worries of pies.

 

[iamlamad]

That's a good final point, Lamad. He's already married to the proper wife, some of whom were in the previous group.

Sorry, when a person dies, he is no longer married! In case you forgot, JESUS DIED, thus ending the marriage to Judah.

There is another marriage coming in the future.

 

[iamlamad]

I'm telling you God does not judge children and babies. You claim God sent a child to hell. If you understand or at least observant of what you read, you'll know no one said you claim God sent babies to hell.

The same question can be said about you. What kind of a God do YOU think we serve that send children to hell? Again, you claimed God sent a child to hell.

You're also using the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus to justify your foolish fabrication. Go read the story again. Note that the rich man is an adult. And he sinned. In all the posts you've written, you never described the child committing any sin. Read your stories below. You're twisting the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus to claim children are accountable for their actions when the bible clearly stated children are not subject to judgement as an adult. Read the descriptions of your own posts you wrote below of the child.

Where did the child committed any sin? Why would God send a innocent child to hell for tithing and going to church regularly?





Those are the quotes from your prior two threads. Where in any of your descriptions of this child did he committed a sin as did the Rich Man? The only thing you said he did was give offerings to church and attended church regularly. Why would God send an innocent child to hell? Why would God judge a child as an adult? Why would God not listen to a child? What kind of a God do YOU think we serve?!




You're presumptuous. How do you know I had a particular year in mind? You're the only one throwing numbers around. Kinda like spewing manure leaving cow dung everywhere. All I've told you was God does not judge children and babies, and your story don't jive. There's a difference.

I don't care to know what happened to you at age 7. At age 7, I had the hots for my teacher and a few girls in my class. Again, you can't relate your personal life and experienced and use that as a criteria to judge others. Maybe you were the bad kid that got punished at a young age. That doesn't mean the whole world should fall under your same standard.

If I lived by your standards, I would claim every 7 year old are high on testosterone.



How do you know God considers children at the age of 15 accountable? Again you're just spewing cow dungs. Just because you were gullible enough to believe the story it doesn't mean you could cover up the foolishness you keep writing with manure.

No, his name will not be blotted out. You have one twisted mind. God is not as unforgiving as you make Him.

WAKE UP, Jerico! AT what age does a Jewish boy go through bar mitzvah?

Wikipedia says "Jewish coming of age ritual." Paul wrote "but when I became a man, I put away childish things." When? For a Jew, at age 13.

He was not a child at 15. He was a youth, but no longer a child. It is a good thing He repented and got saved: he preached the gospel for 69 years and had a huge affect on the body of Christ worldwide.

I don't care if you believe this true story or not. It happened. You can peddle your doubt if you please; it will no effect what so ever on what is happening in the world today because this man lived and preached the gospel. Today the sun never sets (meaning around the world) on students hearing the gospel because of this man's ministry.

By the way, did you ever hear of original sin, and "for ALL have sinned?"

 

[Postvieww]

Previous statement from Juelrei: In the same chapter, 2 Thess. 2:7-8 it states "He that restrains shall taken away AND THEN the man of sin be revealed."
From Postvieww: Here you assume the “he” that is taken out of the way or the one restraining the man of sin is the church. Your doctrine teaches you that. The scriptures do not say the “he” is the church. How do you explain the word “he” as a reference to the church? How do you arrive at the conclusion, the “he” that is removed is the church.
From Juelrei: I have no problem with you saying to me that my doctrine teaches me that. You have answered your own question. Since you seem to be aware of it, then I need not re-state it.

Nice dodge. You didn’t address the question on how do you scripturally make the church a “he” to fit your interpretation of 2 Thess. 2:7-8. You can believe anything you wish, but don’t you think if one promotes a doctrine they should be able to explain scripturally how they arrive at their conclusion?

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Let me restate. How do you scripturally arrive at the conclusion that the “he” that restrains and is taken out of the way is the church? Below is an example of an angel of God (Michael) exercising power over the devil and his angels. Could not Michael be the “he” that restrains the antichrist? What scripture can you provide that the church is the “he” that does this? I know of no example in scripture where the church is refererred to as “he”.

Rev. 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Previous statement from Juelrei: I do wonder why you say that our gathering together would not take place before the man of sin be revealed.
On the contrary, Revelation which is all about the Tribulation, mentions a time of wrath.
From Postvieww: Yes it mentions The wrath of the devil and the wrath of God it is obvious you make no distinction between the two.
Rev. 12: 12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
Rev 15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
The wrath of God does not start until the seven last plagues!

From Juelrei: I made very little mention of wrath because that was not the topic.

But you did mention it, that makes it a topic for discussion.

However, the wrath of the Lamb is mentioned as having come in Revelation 6 at the breaking of the 6th seal of the seven seals first spoken of in chapt.5.

There are scholars that believe the book of Revelation is not in chronological order. If that be true and I believe it is, that could put the 6th seal near the end, at the same time the vials are opened. If the 6th seal is not near the end, how do you explain “the face of him that sitteth on the throne” showing up in the 6th chapter.
Rev. 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Previous statement from Juelrei: How could Paul know ahead of time that "departure" (used in connection with verse 7- the Restrainer being taken out of the way) would happen if God didn't plan or know about it ahead of time?
From Postvieww: If your “departure” refers to the” falling away” in 2 Thess 2:3, the greek word is apostasia which means apostasy. If you want to say departure from the faith you would be correct but if you try to make it mean departure of the church you would be incorrect.

Again you assume falling away means departure of the church, scripture does not state that. Some scholars disagree with that interpretation.

From Juelrei: If you try to make the "departure", "falling away" for an unspecified reason (Paul did not say why) to refer to the pre-tribbers falling from faith in Jesus Christ because of what you call the pre-tribbers incorrect doctrine, then YOU would be incorrect.

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;
Paul said in 1 Tim. 4:1 “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith” the same thing he said in 2 Thess. 2:3.
2 Thess. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

One quick check yields a Bible Hub scholar who points to 1 Tm.4:1-3 as the apostasy of saints who fall away. The reasons given do not include the pretribber's so called incorrect doctrine.

Strongs Concordance word # 646 apostasia used in 2 Thess. 2:3 is given the definition “defection from the truth, apostasy, falling away, forsake. If one chooses to use the word departure as in departure from the faith, that would be consistant with the meaning of the word. To add the word church here is only a desparate attempt to alter this passage to fit the pre-trib theory. The Geneva 1599 translation does use the word “departure” but does not add the words of the church.

Previous statement from Juelrei: I maintain that the context is not the church departing from faith, but the church departing from earth before the man of sin can be revealed. As clearly stated in verses 7-departure of the Restrainer. 8-revealing of the man of sin.
From Postvieww: Context does not change the meaning of this word here, your doctrine does.

The context here is two signs to happen before “our gathering unto him” 1. The apostasia 2. The” man of sin be revealed”.

From Juelrei: Post-trib doctrine states that the church is going to stay on the earth through the entire Tribulation period, be caught up into the air and do a U-turn right back down again to join Jesus in His Second Coming.

Please don’t try to use human reasoning to interpret scripture. Revelation clearly states many saints will have their heads chopped off during the tribulation period. Jesus stated in John 6:39,44 & 54 that the resurrection was at the last day not 7 years before.

That does NOT agree with 2 Thess.2:7-departure of the Restrainer. Verse 8-revealing of the man of sin.
Verse, 6 You know who restrains him now. Verse 7, He who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

Even if you use the word departure it goes in verse 3 not in verse 7, please let’s be consistent. No matter how hard you try to make it so, the church is not the restrainer. The restrainer is a “he”.

Previous statement from Juelrei: No thanks, I don't want to believe for instance that 2 Thess.2:1-3 is all one event. I'd have to work really hard at trying to explain that one to Prophecy scholars that have a greater understanding of scripture than I do. None of them ever come here of course, since compared to them we are all kindergarteners.
I'm curious. Have any of you presented your post-trib views to them, to be critiqued? (rhetorical question. we all know that answer).
From Postvieww: Herein lies the problem. You apparently rely on “scholars” to think for you.
From Juelrei: They're obviously teaching doctrine in agreement with context of scripture, I agree with them, which is much better than allowing you to think for me.

I’m not trying to think for you. I am trying to point out error just as you believe you are attempting to do. There is only one church and those who are saved by His blood are a member of that church, regardless of which of these two views we hold. I’m not against you as an individual I am against what I believe is an erroneous doctrine that I once believed. The purpose of a forum like this is to make the best scriptural case you can for what you believe, but in the end we all have to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, and be honest with ourselves as to what the scripture really say and not what we want, or have been told they say. That is how I believe I changed my view on this topic. God Bless
__________________

 

[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."

"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."

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (GNV)
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

 

[Interplanner]

The Thess passage is about the historic events of the 60s in 1st century Judea. The evil person was the leader of the 'rebellion that desolates.' of Dan 8:13. It was an abomination, too. No hope was held out for Israel as Daniel knew it, except through unity with Messiah and what he would accomplish. this was the answer to how Israel would make things right, which was his prayer. They would not. Messiah would. Many in Israel would actually go the way of the rebellion.

 

[Jack Terrence]

The Thess passage is about the historic events of the 60s in 1st century Judea.

Correct! Paul said that the man of sin had already been seated in the temple.

Young's Literal Translation:

let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,

4 who is opposing and is raising himself up above all called God or worshipped, so that he in the sanctuary of God as God has sat down, shewing himself off that he is God -- [the day doth not come].

The man of sin had already been seated in the temple, but he had not yet been openly revealed. His identity was known only to Paul and the Thessalonians when Paul wrote his epistle.

 

[Interplanner]

So does "seated" mean part of the Sanhedrin? I doubt it. That's seems pretty openly known.

I would have to check the grammar, but I don't see that emphasis coming through in the NIV or TEV. Just that it would happen very soon, not distant. And in that temple.