Let no man deceive you by any means...2 Thessalonians 2:3

[Timtofly]

No, I didn't. You are making a fool of yourself here by completely misrepresenting what I said. I don't appreciate it at all.


Why are you equating "the man of sin" with Satan? That's ridiculous.

Or you don't mean the temple of the body of Christ, the church, ie each individual redeemed believer on earth.

 

[claninja]

Again...again....again...again. Obviously, we're just repeating ourselves here. I have no interest in continuing to do so. Thanks for the discussion but it's time to agree to disagree. I have nothing to add to what I've already said and nothing you've said here changes anything since you obviously just stated what you had previously stated "again".

I just think it’s just interesting that Paul didn’t go “duh Thessalonians, the heaven and earth haven’t literally been destroyed yet, so the day of the Lord has not occurred yet.”

Considering how many times the “duh Claninja, the literal heavens and earth haven’t passed away yet” argument has been used against me, it seems that should have been an obvious response from Paul.


I’ll take the argument of silence (not always a fallacy) over the argument of ignorance (always a logical fallacy) any day

*my argument is more related to the argument from silence: The Thessalonians had the correct understanding of what the day of the lord AS Paul didn’t correct this aspect.

*your argument is more related to argument from ignorance: the Thessalonians didn’t have the correct understanding of what the day of the lord entailed. There is zero evidence of this in the passage. Only one’s eschatological presupposition of what he or she believes the day of the Lord is, would determine this conclusion.
—for example: IF the Thessalonians had believed the day of the Lord, in 2 Thessalonians 2, entailed what you or other futurist amils believe (visibly and bodily descending of Christ for literal every eye to see, dead and alive believers flying into the air, and the literal heaven and earth being destroyed), then how in the world could they be deceived it already occurred? So then you must argue they must also not have had the right understanding of what it entailed, thus creating an argument from ignorance.

But as it is, you don’t seem interested in Addressing your “argument from ignorance” logical fallacy, which is rather disappointing.

 

[DavidPT]

LOL. I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, but you're saying this is common sense? I don't interpret those time periods literally like you do, so we're already not on the same page there.

LOL back in return since it obviously went over your head as to what even I meant here. What I said was this, regardless whether those days are literal or not, that does not matter, that is irrelevant. One can not come to day 1335 without it first involving the 1290 days. That's what I was applying common sense to. Because, after all, doesn't 1335 come after 1290? How can anyone count to 1335 one number at a time, for example, without it involving counting from 1 to 1290 first in order to eventually reach 1335?

And if day 1335 is meaning the end of the days meant in verse 13, one can't even get to the end of the days without it first involving the 1290 days recorded in verse 11. Even if we took these 1335 days to be involving years, thus 1335 years, even that couldn't get verse 11 to be starting with 70 AD if it has been almost 2000 years already, and that if day 1335 is meaning the end of the days recorded in verse 13.

 

[DavidPT]

The real question is still IF the Thessalonians understood that the day of the Lord entailed Christ descending from heaven for literally every eye to see, bodies of dead and alive believers literally flying into the air, and Christ setting up a literal earthly kingdom, how could they be deceived this already happened?

This choice shouldn't be a possible choice to begin with, since it is plainly obvious that the Thessalonians couldn't have taken any of these things to be involving any of that. Even though I'm Premil, this choice here is not even worthy of entertaining since it would be preposterous that if the Thessalonians took some of these things to be involving those things, and then they thinking those things already happened and that they missed seeing it at the time, thus were left behind, as if anyone could even miss any of that if it actually happened, to begin with.

If Pretribbers think that the Thessalonians thought they may have missed the rapture, how could anyone miss an event where bodies are literally ascending into the clouds? That's something you don't see happening everyday. You might see birds ascending into the clouds everyday, but you certainly don't see ppl doing that everyday. Therefore, when this does happen, this is not something others are not going to notice.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
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.
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;
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.


What I see Paul basically doing here, based on what he wrote to them in some of his other letters, that since those letters involved being raptured(1 Thess 4), involved the day of the Lord coming like a thief on those not prepared and being watchful(1 Thess 5), that they are not to be suddenly shaken in mind about any of this, that any of this is at hand, since none of these events can even happen until after there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, that this has been fulfilled.

Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6 and the 6th seal make it crystal clear to me, but maybe not to everyone else, that the day of the Lord, meaning verse 2 in 2 Thessalonians 2, and the gathering meant in verse 1, that these events are not before nor during the trib of those days, they are after the trib of those days. That means that whatever one is applying the trib of those days to, none of that involves the day of the Lord nor any gathering(rapture).

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Some of us take verse 31 to be involving the gathering meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, where we take that to be meaning the same gathering of both the dead and those still alive recorded in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. And assuming we are correct to connect these things like that, clearly then, verse 31 is meaning after the trib of those days, meaning after what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-26 has been fulfilled first. And then according to the 6th seal recorded in Revelation 6, it indicates that His wrath is come, and that Matthew 24:29 records that this is immediately after the trib of those days. Is anyone going to argue that the day of the Lord does not involve His wrath? If His wrath doesn't come until the 6th seal events, and that Matthew 24:29 records that this is immediately after the trib of those days, how could His wrath have already come prior to the 6th seal events?

Clearly, the great trib involves wrath. But who's wrath? God's wrath? Are we to then disregard what Matthew 24:29 records, and are we to also disregard what Revelation 12 records, that God is not the only one that has great wrath, satan also has great wrath? Therefore, the great tribulation is not God's wrath, it is satan's wrath. Great tribulation, though I realize many of you think otherwise, is not meaning events pertaining to 70 AD, it is meaning wrath upon the church big time once the beast ascends out of the pit and becomes fully active in the earth again.

There has already been wrath upon the church for the past 2000 years, but can anyone insist it matches the following---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be? What about the USA? Numerous Christians in this country, yet nothing involving this country, in regards to Christians being persecuted on a mass scale, matches what Matthew 24:21 records. Does that mean great tribulation is already behind us, or that the USA is spared great tribulation altogether, or that maybe great tribulation isn't even involving wrath upon the church? Or could it simply mean that great tribulation, as portrayed in verse 21, that it's still coming, that it hasn't fully arrived yet?

 

[claninja]

This choice shouldn't be a possible choice to begin with, since it is plainly obvious that the Thessalonians couldn't have taken any of these things to be involving any of that. Even though I'm Premil, this choice here is not even worthy of entertaining since it would be preposterous that if the Thessalonians took some of these things to be involving those things, and then they thinking those things already happened and that they missed seeing it at the time, thus were left behind, as if anyone could even miss any of that if it actually happened, to begin with.

Exactly! IF the first century Thessalonians understood the day of the Lord in the same manner that many modern futurist premils and/or amils do, then it would’ve seemed highly illogical that they could have possibly been deceived that it already occurred.

When I argue the OD was completely fulfilled in the first century with the temple destruction, and that was “a day of the Lord”, many premils and amils have countered my position with things like:

1.) “well the literal heavens and earth haven’t passed away yet, so that can’t be right.”

2.) “why isn’t there any historical record of Jesus visibly and bodily descending through the atmosphere for all to see? This means your wrong…”

If those presuppositions (1 and 2) are correct about the OD, then those are very fair questions to ask. But it begs the question, why didn’t Paul just present those very obvious things to first century Thessalonians?

However, if those presuppositions (1 and 2) are wrong about the OD, then, I would argue, it makes more sense why Paul didn’t mention points 1 and 2, nor correct any misunderstanding of the day of Lord. But instead provided 2 events that must first occur, so that they might not be deceived that it already happened.

your whole OP is about “not being deceived”. So you need to address:

1.) how the first century Thessalonians could be deceived IF their understanding of the day of the Lord is the same as yours.

2.) IF their understanding of day of the Lord was not the same as yours, and thus incorrect, why doesn’t Paul correct it with the obvious presuppositions 1 and/or 2, and instead only correct that it didn’t yet happen by providing 2 events that must occur first?

I don’t think these are unreasonable questions to ask.

 

[keras]

Those who expound Bible Prophecy, are part of the current generation which is mainly corrupt and ungodly. [as in the days of Noah]

They try to convince us that the cumulative research over the last century now yields a better understanding of the things of God. Conversely, our ancient Scriptures themselves do not say there will be an increase in understanding and discernment during the end times. The Bible prophets say that many will be deceived and will follow false teachings and only a few will understand. Daniel 12:10

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 1 Cor 3:18-20
Matthew 11:25 I thank You, Father for hiding the truth from the wise and revealing it to the simple.


At the time of Jesus, the people the Lord selected to preserve His Word for the rest of human kind failed to understand God’s plan and were deceived to the degree that they arrange to brutally execute the Son of God who loved them.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isaiah 53:3

Instead of telling us that mankind will progressively draw near to God because of our ability to assimilate and wisely apply knowledge to our circumstances, the Word of God tells us the Christians will repeat the ancient sin of Israel, and embrace lies.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-10 For this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie….because they received not the love of the truth.

Theological error isn’t random. In this regard, the Greek word in our New Testament, rendered delusion, and it is the Lord Himself who delivers that delusion to those He deems appropriate.



This means it is a deluding error, which the Lord Himself sends, to those who want - no: who demand God to remove them, before any holy discipline; Hebrews 12:4-13 and they reject the Spirit of humbleness which would draw them to the truth.

This fulfils an Old Testament prophecy, which is in the context of the end times:
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spoke, they did not hear: but they did evil before My eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. Isaiah 66:4

The reason the Lord places a delusion upon people, is because they practice insincere worship and maintain wrong doctrines, Jeremiah 4:22, Isaiah 58:1-7 and have confused themselves by believing fiction and false teachings. Isaiah 29:9-12, 2 Timothy 4:3-4

 

[Trivalee]

He is not warning us, he is warning 1st century Christians.
Blessings.

Paul was warning the church throughout the ages until the rapture actually happens.

 

[Trivalee]

The church is gone before the unbelieving Jews turn to Jesus.

The church will be gone before the ToD act. The ToD act by the Antichrist will be so shocking to the Jews that they will be in a state of shock. And if not for the preaching and prophesying by the two witnesses - they would be at a loss of what to do, which will be to turn to Jesus.

Things taking place at that time will happen quickly and will have a surreal aura about them.




View attachment 323208

I'm afraid you have presented a junk theory with little solid scriptural foundation. It's OK to believe the church will be whisked away BEFORE the GT, I don't believe that. In my view, the church will be on earth until the end of the GT before the rapture takes. But my rebuttal is not about the timeline of the rapture.

Another junk doctrine is the claim of a "transgression of Desolation". There's no such thing in scripture. What the scriptures say is there will be an AoD spoken of by Daniel. Antiochus 4 Epiphanes (A4E), as the antitype of the future Antichrist, already fulfilled Dan 8:12-13 when he tried to Hellenize the Jews and not only stopped the daily sacrifice but placed an image of Zeus in the temple in 164 BC. After his death and his army were defeated, the Jews cleansed the temple and commemorated their victory (over A4E) and the rededication of the temple yearly in the feast called Hanukkah.

If in doubt, research Hanukkah and you'll find it was not part of the feasts given by the Law of Moses. It was introduced after the cleansing of the temple desecrated by A4E after their return from Babylon.

Even Jesus Christ participated in this feast during his earthly ministry. John 10:22 It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah, the Festival of Dedication. (NLT). So, Dan 8:12-13 is not in the future because it has been fulfilled. There is so much misinformation in your diagram particularly your interpretation of Dan 12:11-12.

 

[Douggg]

Another junk doctrine is the claim of a "transgression of Desolation". There's no such thing in scripture. What the scriptures say is there will be an AoD spoken of by Daniel. Antiochus 4 Epiphanes (A4E), as the antitype of the future Antichrist, already fulfilled Dan 8:12-13 when he tried to Hellenize the Jews and not only stopped the daily sacrifice but placed an image of Zeus in the temple in 164 BC. After his death and his army were defeated, the Jews cleansed the temple and commemorated their victory (over A4E) and the rededication of the temple yearly in the feast called Hanukkah.

Daniel 8:12-13 says transgression of desolation, not abomination of desolation.

12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Antiochus was not time of the end.

17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

 

[Trivalee]

I guess, I would start with audience relevance and presuppositions.

1.) First I would ask: What is the day of the Lord that Paul has in mind, which the first century church would have related to? Is it:

A.) literally every eye viewing the physical and bodily descent of Christ through the atmosphere, dead and alive believers flying into the air, and Christ setting up a literal, earthly kingdom for 1,000 years?

B.) literally every eye viewing the physical and bodily descent of Christ through the atmosphere, dead and alive believers flying into the air, and the literal heaven and earth being destroyed?

C.) The destruction of Jerusalem, the removal of the obsolete old covenant, and the gathering of the good and bad into the wedding feast?

2.) Then, secondly, I would ask: IF the first century PEOPLE IN THESSALONIA TO WHOM PAUL WAS WRITING, held to presupposition 1a, 1b, or 1c above, how could they be deceived that it already had occurred?

3.) Then I would consider the events that first must occur prior to the day of the Lord, according to Paul: i.) the apostasy and ii.) the “revealing” of the man of sin.

A.) Are these new revealed events OR is Paul further elaborating on events already revealed? Such as those found in the OD. IF the apostasy and man of sin are related to the falling away and false Christs/prophets arising and misleading THEN audience relevance dictates that 2 Thessalonians 2 should be understood in light of the OD.

Matthew 24:10 10At that time many will fall away and will betray and hate one another, 11and many false prophets will arise and mislead many.

B.) Does anything in the grammar suggest the timing of the man of sin?
Yes, the man of sin’s “revealing” was being restrained in the first century according to 2 Thessalonians 2:6. The man of sin was presently existing (present tense verb) in the first century by the works of Satan according to 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

C.) Do any other gospels and epistles claim a “falling away” associated with the “end times”? Yes, John states “they left us” in association with the coming of the antichrists, and that being evidence as how they knew it was the last hour.

I am pressed for time and fear that I can't elaborate as much as I would like because of time constraints.

The Day of the Lord (DoL) that Paul referred to are the events of the eschaton. Even the OT prophets also spoke about the DoL even though it's arguable whether they understood it in the context that is now available to the church; see Isaiah 13:9-11, Joel 3:12-14, Rev 6:15-17.

Amos chided ancient Israel not to expect the DoL with glee because it is not for deliverance, but judgment. 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.

19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.
20 Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

It is easy for someone to claim these prophecies pertain to the OT age, but such a view couldn't be further from the truth as we see the corroboration in Rev 6:15-17. It is noteworthy that the DoL is not a 24hr day according to our time, but a period (we don't know if it will be weeks or months) during which the Lord will judge the Christ-denying people of the earth in the flesh. It will occur during the great tribulation. The DoL entails a series of events that will culminate in the return of the Messiah in glory.

Of course, Israel has suffered many judgments in their chequered history, including 70 AD and their dry bone period (from 70 AD to 1948), yet the DoL points to the end of the age for true fulfilment.

Throughout church history (in which Paul addressed the Thessalonians), the return of Christ has always been viewed as something that would happen in every generation. The 1st-century church viewed it that way, hence their concern given the false erroneous doctrines promoted by some false Jewish apostles that the event had already occurred. These false apostles wrongly interpreted the resurrection of those mentioned in Matt 27:52 to claim the resurrection had already occurred. But Paul quickly dispelled this belief. In our own age, we also expect the return of the Lord to occur in our lifetime and, maybe it will or it could take another 100 years. Once you look at it from the prism, you can understand the mindset of the Thessalonians.

I will have to revisit this topic to shed more clarity - have to go now....

 

[Trivalee]

Daniel 8:12-13 says transgression of desolation, not abomination of desolation.

12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Antiochus was not time of the end.

17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

Every mention of the "time of the end" in the book of Daniel has been erroneously attributed to the end of the age by those who ignore the context. There are different epochs in Jewish history and Daniel's visions addressed each of these time periods, such as the timescale of all the beast kingdoms that subjugated Daniel's people. The 'time of the end' in v-17 refers to the period marking the end of their captivity and return to their homeland.

If you insist that Dan 8:12-13 is still in the future, then please explain what Hanukkah means or the Feast of Dedication that the Lord honoured in John 10:22. Be open-minded, and find out what is being dedicated in John 10:22.

 

[Douggg]

Every mention of the "time of the end" in the book of Daniel has been erroneously attributed to the end of the age by those who ignore the context. There are different epochs in Jewish history and Daniel's visions addressed each of these time periods, such as the timescale of all the beast kingdoms that subjugated Daniel's people. The 'time of the end' in v-17 refers to the period marking the end of their captivity and return to their homeland.

If you insist that Dan 8:12-13 is still in the future, then please explain what Hanukkah means or the Feast of Dedication that the Lord honoured in John 10:22. Be open-minded, and find out what is being dedicated in John 10:22.

I don't disagree that Hanukkah was celebrated back then as it is now. But Antiochus did not stand up against the Prince of princes.

25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

 

[Trivalee]

I don't disagree that Hanukkah was celebrated back then as it is now. But Antiochus did not stand up against the Prince of princes.

25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

The desecration of the temple by Antiochus and its subsequent consecration is marked yearly by the feast of Hanukkah. It makes no sense to acknowledge what Hanukkah stands for and still deny that A4E was the little horn of Dan 8. A4E stood up against the prince of Princes when he proscribed the daily sacrifice.

 

[Zao is life]

He is not warning us, he is warning 1st century Christians.
Blessings.

This implies that Paul's letters to the Thessalonians applies to them only and is not for anyone else.

 

[Zao is life]

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
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.
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;
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.


What exactly is it that Paul is warning us about, to let no man deceive you by any means?

The first thing to acknowledge though some apparently don't, the gathering together in verse 1 is meaning during the day of Christ in verse 2. That means verse 3 should be understood as follows.

for our gathering together unto Him, the day of Christ, shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.

Since this isn't rocket science, there is no need to make something simple complex instead. If read like the following, then it is crystal clear, though it already should be to begin with---except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, our gathering together unto Him, the day of Christ, shall not come

As to Paul's warning in verse 3, this indicates there are deceivers trying to deceive others, otherwise Paul would have had zero reason to even make this warning. So, what is he not wanting these deceivers to deceive anyone about? That the rapture is before there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition? Or that the rapture is after there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition?

One thing I think we are all in agreement about, except for maybe Preterists, verse 1 is pertaining to the rapture. And since some pretribbers take---except there come a falling away first---to be meaning this same rapture, that means verse 3 would be being understood like such---for the rapture shall not come, except there come the rapture first--as if one can make any kind of sense out of that.

The way some Pretribbers try and get around this, they claim the gathering in verse 1 is not the same event as the day of Christ in verse 2. Basically then they have verse 3 saying this, as if that makes a difference since verse 2 obviously involves the same event recorded in verse 1 though they deny it---for the day of Christ shall not come, except there come the rapture first.

In verse 1 Paul talks about the gathering unto Christ. So why would he be changing the subject altogether in verse 2, assuming the day of Christ doesn't involve the gathering in verse 1?

I agree with this, and I don't believe that the temple the man will seat himself up in is a "temple" that Pre-tribbers have in mind, either. But that is a separate but related subject.

 

[Jamdoc]

Paul had previously told the Thessalonians that Christians are not appointed to the wrath of God which takes place when the Day of the Lord begins - in 1Thesslaonians5. But will be gathered in the rapture/resurrection event. That is why Paul wrote - whether we wake or sleep in verse 10.

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

2Thessalonians2 begins on the premise that there were rumors that the Day of the Lord had already begun - which were troubling to the Thessalonians because they counted on being raptured out of the world before the Day of the Lord begins.

Paul assured the Thessalonians, no it has not begun, no matter what the rumors going around were saying - because first there has to be a great falling - from believing Jesus is the messiah - implied.

And secondly, the man of sin had to be revealed by his act of going into the temple, sitting claiming to be God.

The rapture/resurrection has not happened yet. Neither has the great falling away, nor the man of sin revealed - which there has to be a temple standing for that to happen.

But this being the parable of the fig tree generation, the rapture/resurrection could happen at any moment.

Now
honestly, and prayerfully consider when the wrath begins.

Remember the 5th seal martyrs asking God how long will it be before He judges the earth and avenges them.. that is, His wrath is NOT happening at that time because God has not judged the earth yet.

Hint: Revelation 6:17

 

[Douggg]

Now
honestly, and prayerfully consider when the wrath begins.

Remember the 5th seal martyrs asking God how long will it be before He judges the earth and avenges them.. that is, His wrath is NOT happening at that time because God has not judged the earth yet.

Hint: Revelation 6:17

Jamdoc, you are saying "the wrath". But it has to be taken into consideration the timing of whether (1) the wrath of the Lamb or (2) the vials of God's judgment.

The wrath of the Lamb in Revelation 6:17 will be Jesus's direct response against them who had been persecuting and martyring the great tribulation saints (the 5th seal martyrs). It coincides with Jesus's return, at the end of the great tribulation.

Before then, within the span of the great tribulation, there are the additional vials of God's wrath that are poured out in Revelation 16. In the text of Revelation 16, those vials of wrath are referred to as God's judgments.


So the vials of God's wrath, His judgments, are during the span of the great tribulation. Then at the end of the great tribulation, Jesus the Lamb avenges the deaths of the martyred great tribulation saints of the 5th seal.

 

[Jamdoc]

Jamdoc, you are saying "the wrath". But it has to be taken into consideration the timing of whether (1) the wrath of the Lamb or (2) the vials of God's judgment.

The wrath of the Lamb in Revelation 6:17 will be Jesus's direct response against them who had been persecuting and martyring the great tribulation saints (the 5th seal martyrs). It coincides with Jesus's return, at the end of the great tribulation.

Before then, within the span of the great tribulation, there are the additional vials of God's wrath that are poured out in Revelation 16. In the text of Revelation 16, those vials of wrath are referred to as God's judgments.


So the vials of God's wrath, His judgments, are during the span of the great tribulation. Then at the end of the great tribulation, Jesus the Lamb avenges the deaths of the martyred great tribulation saints of the 5th seal.

The signs of the 6th seal are after the great tribulation according to Jesus, and they announce the wrath of the lamb, which either parallels, or precedes the 7 vials.
The great trib is over at that point, why do you so desperately cling to a bad definition?

and it's like watching someone grasp for straws when they're about to fall off of a cliff how bad you cling to "tribulation saints"

You want to hold pre-trib so badly, but it's like your mind recognizes what you're failing to admit, you can see it you just don't want to admit you see it.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

This implies that Paul's letters to the Thessalonians applies to them only and is not for anyone else.

This is about the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD not some future occurence.
This is my understanding of this passage.
Blessings

 

[Douggg]

The signs of the 6th seal are after the great tribulation according to Jesus, and they announce the wrath of the lamb, which either parallels, or precedes the 7 vials.
The great trib is over at that point, why do you so desperately cling to a bad definition?

Actually, the signs in 6th seal correspond to Matthew 24:29 - which in Matthew 24:29 is after "the tribulation of those days" - meaning that the great tribulation is almost over, but not quite. The tribulation of those days lasts 1290 days. The great tribulation lasts 1335 days.

The 6th seal event of the powers of heaven shaken, and the evil men of the world seeing the Lamb before the throne of God (the sign of the Son of man in heaven) is Matthew 24:29-30a...that will take place at the 1290 day mark (from when great tribulation begins). At the 1335th day mark, the end of the great tribulation, Jesus returns to earth and avenges the blood of the martyred great tribulation saints.

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

You want to hold pre-trib so badly, but it's like your mind recognizes what you're failing to admit, you can see it you just don't want to admit you see it.

I hold the anytime rapture view. Anytime between now and the day when the Antichrist goes into the temple, sits, claims to have achieved God-hood. The shaded window below.

The pre-trib (pre-70th week) looks like this...