Necessity of an Interval between the Rapture and the 2nd Coming

[BABerean2]

Then you should always confirm your sources before you use them to beat someone over the head.

At one time Benjamin Newton and John Nelson Darby worked together in the early Plymouth Brethren movement. Later on, Darby adopted the "Secret Rapture" doctrine of the Irvingites and then Darby divided scripture into that for the Church and that for the Jews.
When Newton would not accept Darby's new doctrine, Darby made a personal attack on Newton.

Since that time the promoters of Darby's doctrine have continued to use condemnation and personal attacks to defend their doctrine.

Your attempt below to correct me is minor to what I have experienced on this forum.

"It is disingenuous to post a translation and say it is from a particular bible and not provide supporting evidence of that."

........................................................................

Why do the promoters of Darby's doctrine continue with the condemnation and personal attacks on those who dare to doubt their doctrine?

In many cases that is their only recourse when faced with what is plainly written in God's Word.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26

http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

.

 

[Revealing Times]

Ok let’s put you theory to test in context.

2 Thessalonians 2

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering (departure) 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 (day of departure) is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (Day of departure) shall not come, except there come a falling away (departure) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Verse 3 makes no sense with your definition.

That's because you have confused two points in time. The Day of the Lord (Christ) starts at the 3.5 Year mark of Jacobs Troubles, yet you have confused the two and managed to not understand what the whole passage is even about.

What were the Thessalonians fearing? That they were in PERIL of going through the Day of the Lord (Gods coming WRATH) which they feared was going to come upon them. This is why Paul wrote to them again saying we Beseech (Request) by the coming of the Lord and the Gathering unto him (Rapture), THAT YOU NOT FEAR !! or be TROUBLED....neither by Spirit (Demonic LYING SPIRITS) nor by word (Lying Preachers) nor by letter AS FROM US that the Day of the Lord (3.5 Years into Jacobs Troubles/Tribulation) is upon you.

You even placing DEPARTURE HERE shows that you aren't hip to what this means brother, the (Departure) comes before the Tribulation Period, not 3.5 Years into the Tribulation Period as does the Day of the Lord.

LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU !!! That Day (Day of the Lord or Gods Coming Wrath) CAN NOT COME UNTIL..........The Church Departs and the Anti-Christ comes forth. Paul is telling the Thessalonians, men, you are being LIED TO, stop listening to the liars, and we sent no such letter telling you these things.

Rapture

Anti-Christ is the FIRST SEAL..........The Day of the Lord starts with the Anti-Christ COMING FORTH. So the Day of the Lord CAN NOT HAPPEN until the other two things come to pass.

The Holman version tells it better, but they also are wrong on the APOSTASY BIT.

The Man of Lawlessness

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him: We ask you, brothers, 2 not to be easily upset in mind or troubled, either by a spirit or by a message or by a letter as if from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord, has come. [upon you]

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way. For that day will not come unless the apostasy (DEPARTURE OF THE CHURCH) comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed (BOTH have to happen before the Day of the Lord), the son of destruction. 4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits in God’s sanctuary, publicizing that he himself is God.

5 Don’t you remember that when I was still with you I told you about this? 6 And you know what currently restrains him, so that he will be revealed in his time.


The Church and the Man of Sin comes before the Day of the Lord, so Paul is saying, STOP WORRYING.

 

[Postvieww]

It only makes no sense in that you have put in departure twice. That day is clearly a reference to the Day of the Lord / time of Jacob's trouble / Great Tribulation / 70th week of Daniel.

You arrive at that conclusion from the text exactly how?

You were correct in replacing falling way with departure. Verse 2 previous to that set the context as being the day of the Lord.

You are assuming your interpretation of the day of Christ/ the Lord is correct. I do not believe you can prove Paul jumped back and forth in these three verses.

In your zeal to argue the position, you stepped all over yourself. You engaged your typing fingers before you put your brain in gear.

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

The topic of this passage the coming of our lord and our gathering.

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.

The day of Christ in this context is the same day as in verse 1. Paul gave no indication in the text he was switching topics here.

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;

Actually if you care to be precise the words “that day shall not come” are not in the original text so your zealous claim “that day” refers to “the Day of the Lord / time of Jacob's trouble / Great Tribulation / 70th week of Daniel” is not supported by anything written here, only your desire for it to be so.

Now you have to go back to verse 2 and try to make the day of Christ fit your narrative. You have to make a lot of assumptions here to make this all work.

Here is another of your problems try and convince us the following passages refer to the time of tribulation.

Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Philippians 1:10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ.

Philippians 2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither

Now this method has failed, do we go back and try to argue the day of Christ in 2 Thess. Is really the day of the Lord and that is the time of tribulation.

Paul makes no allusion to the day of Christ ot that day referring to the time of tribulation that my friend is in your imagination.

Don’t talk to me about zeal, typing fingers and putting my brain in gear, let’s stick to what scripture actually says.

I believed this false doctrine for better that 30 years, I’ve heard just about every argument to prop up this false teaching. Let’s stick to debate on the scripture without personal attack diversions.

 

[jgr]

That's because you have confused two points in time. The Day of the Lord (Christ) starts at the 3.5 Year mark of Jacobs Troubles, yet you have confused the two and managed to not understand what the whole passage is even about.

What were the Thessalonians fearing? That they were in FEAR that the Day of the Lord (Gods coming WRATH) was going to come upon them. This is why Paul wrote to them again saying we Beseech (Request) by the coming of the Lord and the Gathering unto him (Rapture), THAT YOU NOT FEAR !! or be TROUBLED....neither by Spirit (Demonic LYING SPIRITS) nor by word (Lying Preachers) not by letter AS FROM US that the Day of the Lord (3.5 Years into Jacobs Troubles/Tribulation) is upon you. (You even placing DEPARTURE HERE shows that you aren't hip to what this means brother, the (Departure) comes before the Tribulation Period, nor 3.5 Years into the Tribulation Period as does the Day of the Lord.

LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU !!! That Day (Day of the Lord or Gods Coming Wrath) CAN NOT COME UNTIL............The Church Departs and the Anti-Christ comes forth. Paul is telling the Thessalonians, men, you are being LIED TO, stop listening to the liars, and we sent no such letter telling you this.

Rapture

Anti-Christ is the FIRST SEAL..........The Day of the Lord starts with the Anti-Christ COMING FORTH. So the Day of the Lord CAN NOT HAPPEN until the other two thongs come to pass.

The Holman version tells it better, but they also are wrong on the APOSTASY BIT.

The Man of Lawlessness
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him: We ask you, brothers, 2 not to be easily upset in mind or troubled, either by a spirit or by a message or by a letter as if from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord, has come.

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way. For that day will not come unless the apostasy (DEPARTURE OF THE CHURCH) comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed (BOTH have to happen before the Day of the Lord), the son of destruction. 4 He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits in God’s sanctuary, l publicizing that he himself is God.

5 Don’t you remember that when I was still with you I told you about this? 6 And you know what currently restrains him, so that he will be revealed in his time.

Following is a response from the New American Standard Bible (NASB, acclaimed for translation accuracy) translators at the Lockman foundation, to a question regarding the validity of "rapture" rather than "apostasy" in 2 Thess. 2:3:

The online article cited offers arguments which are incorrect. The verb that apostasia comes from has several meanings, but the main meanings include "revolt," "desert," "fall away," and even "become a backslider." The noun apostasia is not automatically capable of having all of the meanings that the verb does. The way the meaning of a word is determined is by examining how it is used, and apostasia is consistently used of revolting, rebellion, and abandoning a belief system. Aside from 2 Thess 2:3 it is only found in Acts 21:21 in the New Testament, where it is used of abandoning the Law of Moses. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, it occurs in Josh 22:22, 2 Chr 29:19, and 1 Macc 2:15, and in each verse it refers to apostasy or rebellion.

It is interesting that the writer also cites Liddell and Scott (now LSJM) in support, observing that the first definitions are "defection" and "revolt." He fails to mention that LSJM immediately add, "especially in a religious sense, rebellion against God, apostasy," and then go on to cite not only Josh 22:22 but also 2 Thess 2:3. So what the writer states is simply a misleading presentation of the evidence. The argument about the translation shift is irrelevant in view of the evidence for the correct meaning, and this argument is also questionable. "Departure" seems not to have meant simply to leave a place, but to separate from someone or something. For these and other reasons the NASB translators are confident about the meaning "apostasy" in 2 Thess 2:3.

 

[Postvieww]

What were the Thessalonians fearing? That they were in FEAR that the Day of the Lord (Gods coming WRATH) was going to come upon them.

I would say they feared the coming of the Lord was soon upon them.

Look you have inserted your interpretation of the Day of the Lord In parenthesis and assumed without proof it is correct.

That my friend appears to be the root of our disagreement.

This is why Paul wrote to them again saying we Beseech (Request) by the coming of the Lord and the Gathering unto him (Rapture), THAT YOU NOT FEAR !! or be TROUBLED....neither by Spirit (Demonic LYING SPIRITS) nor by word (Lying Preachers) not by letter AS FROM US that the Day of the Lord (3.5 Years into Jacobs Troubles/Tribulation) is upon you. (You even placing DEPARTURE HERE shows that you aren't hip to what this means brother, the (Departure) comes before the Tribulation Period, nor 3.5 Years into the Tribulation Period as does the Day of the Lord.

I have been around this same old block numerous times as I know you have. If we can’t settle this day of the lord/day of Christ issue there will be no settling 2 Thess. 2:1-3.

Take every passage in the NT that says Day of the Lord or Day of Christ and see if you can insert 3.5 years or even 7 years without creating problems. Here is just one example:


2 Corin 1: 13 For we write none other things unto you, that what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end;

14 As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are our's in the (time of tribulation) day of the Lord Jesus.

A time of tribulation just does not work here.

I get it, I understand your argument, I just do not agree the day of the Lord is an extended period of time.

Here is another one:

1 Corin 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the (time of tribulation) day of the Lord Jesus.

Let’s do another one:

2 Peter 3:10 But (time of tribulation) the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I contend the same is true for all of them. I do not accept your premise for 2 Thess. “that day” “the day of Christ” is an extended time of tribulation. If we can’t resolve that there is no resolving our debate.

I’m open to yours or anyone’s argument but show me don’t just say the day of the Lord is 7 years and move on as if it is settled. It is not.

 

[Copperhead]

At one time Benjamin Newton and John Nelson Darby worked together in the early Plymouth Brethren movement. Later on, Darby adopted the "Secret Rapture" doctrine of the Irvingites and then Darby divided scripture into that for the Church and that for the Jews.
When Newton would not accept Darby's new doctrine, Darby made a personal attack on Newton.

Since that time the promoters of Darby's doctrine have continued to use condemnation and personal attacks to defend their doctrine.

Your attempt below to correct me is minor to what I have experienced on this forum.

"It is disingenuous to post a translation and say it is from a particular bible and not provide supporting evidence of that."

........................................................................

Why do the promoters of Darby's doctrine continue with the condemnation and personal attacks on those who dare to doubt their doctrine?

In many cases that is their only recourse when faced with what is plainly written in God's Word.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26

http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

.

I have paid so little attention to anything having to do with Darby that he never existed as far as I am concerned. There are many others that came to possibly the same conclusions that Darby did, and some of us that hold to proof texts that probably Darby never even saw.

The point being, since many others, both before and after Darby saw the same thing, it is not Darby's doctrine. He is not the grand poobah of pre-trib thought. Not sure how Benjamin Newton plays into this. I mentioned Isaac Newton. You seem to have Darby on the brain syndrome. You are going to have to broaden your approach if you are going to make any headway.

And while many that hold to Darby's doctrine may make personal attacks, I never did. I simply stated that by not providing the source of the Geneva Bible translation you provided, you were being disingenuous, as I did provide the source links. If you wanted to make the case that what I posted was an error, then the sound thing to do would be provide the source link so it could be checked out, like I did. That you took that as a "personal attack" speaks more to you than it does to me. If I am going to counter a person, say a scientist regarding physical speed of light, I must provide source material to prove that position. But if that basic standard doesn't come thru regarding a theological debate, and it is brought up, then it now becomes a personal attack. What a double standard.

But the Geneva Bible org site has taken great pains to maintain the accurate rendition of the 1560/1599 Geneva Bible and it still has that original "departure" in it as opposed to some later "falling away" stuff.

 

[Copperhead]

You arrive at that conclusion from the text exactly how?

I explained it in the post. You inserted "departure" in two places where the orginal Greek only allows for one. You were inserting a commentary as opposed to representing the original text.

Now this method has failed, do we go back and try to argue the day of Christ in 2 Thess. Is really the day of the Lord and that is the time of tribulation.

Paul makes no allusion to the day of Christ ot that day referring to the time of tribulation that my friend is in your imagination.

Don’t talk to me about zeal, typing fingers and putting my brain in gear, let’s stick to what scripture actually says.

I believed this false doctrine for better that 30 years, I’ve heard just about every argument to prop up this false teaching. Let’s stick to debate on the scripture without personal attack diversions.

Tell me... is Yeshua the Messiah (Christ)? Is Yeshua the Lord? Is Yeshua the 2nd person of the Triune God?

Yes, again, I say that you engaged you fingers before your brain was in gear. You didn't think the matter thru and decided to only focus on words instead of who they mention, which is the same God. Just like the creation is attributed to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, collectively and to each individually in various scripture passages, we should all know that it was the one Lord that created the heavens and the earth. So Day of Christ and Day of Lord is interchangeable. They both refer to the same Lord. I am not LDS or JW and don't believe in separate gods.

 

[BABerean2]

I have paid so little attention to anything having to do with Darby that he never existed as far as I am concerned. There are many others that came to possibly the same conclusions that Darby did, and some of us that hold to proof texts that probably Darby never even saw.

The point being, since many others, both before and after Darby saw the same thing, it is not Darby's doctrine. He is not the grand poobah of pre-trib thought. Not sure how Benjamin Newton plays into this. I mentioned Isaac Newton. You seem to have Darby on the brain syndrome. You are going to have to broaden your approach if you are going to make any headway.

And while many that hold to Darby's doctrine may make personal attacks, I never did. I simply stated that by not providing the source of the Geneva Bible translation you provided, you were being disingenuous, as I did provide the source links. If you wanted to make the case that what I posted was an error, then the sound thing to do would be provide the source link so it could be checked out, like I did. That you took that as a "personal attack" speaks more to you than it does to me. If I am going to counter a person, say a scientist regarding physical speed of light, I must provide source material to prove that position. But if that basic standard doesn't come thru regarding a theological debate, and it is brought up, then it now becomes a personal attack. What a double standard.

But the Geneva Bible org site has taken great pains to maintain the accurate rendition of the 1560/1599 Geneva Bible and it still has that original "departure" in it as opposed to some later "falling away" stuff.

There has been a tremendous effort in recent years by those promoting modern Dispensational Theology to disconnect the history of the doctrine from the version being promoted today.

Many can honestly say they have never heard of Darby, because the doctrine spread like a virus through the modern evangelical Church, after the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Some can also honestly say they did not get it from Scofield, because bits and pieces of the doctrine have been adopted by many today without them knowing the original source of the teaching.

Based on thousands of pages of commentary and sermons, no American pastor taught a pretrib removal of the Church at the time of the Revolutionary War.

Many today do not know why Dispensational Theology needs a pretrib removal of the Church.
The original "Classic" version of the doctrine claimed that God would go back and deal with the modern nation of Israel under the Old Covenant system, during a future time period of 7 years, after the end of the "Church Age".


The New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, completely destroys the doctrine found in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

.

 

[jgr]

But the Geneva Bible org site has taken great pains to maintain the accurate rendition of the 1560/1599 Geneva Bible and it still has that original "departure" in it as opposed to some later "falling away" stuff.

Here is the Geneva Bible 2 Thess. 2:3 commentary, written by Calvin himself:

The Apostle foretelleth that before the coming of the Lord, there shall be a throne set up clean contrary to Christ’s glory, wherein that wicked man shall sit, and transfer all things that appertain to God, to himself, and many shall fall away from God to him.

 

[Postvieww]

I explained it in the post. You inserted "departure" in two places where the orginal Greek only allows for one. You were inserting a commentary as opposed to representing the original text.

Looks like you either didn’t read the post or you just don’t get it. I didn’t insert departure in those scripture because I thought they went there I put them there to show how departure (from the planet ) doesn’t make sense in the context of the passage.

Tell me... is Yeshua the Messiah (Christ)? Is Yeshua the Lord? Is Yeshua the 2nd person of the Triune God?

Yes!

Yes, again, I say that you engaged you fingers before your brain was in gear. You didn't think the matter thru and decided to only focus on words instead of who they mention, which is the same God. Just like the creation is attributed to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, collectively and to each individually in various scripture passages, we should all know that it was the one Lord that created the heavens and the earth. So Day of Christ and Day of Lord is interchangeable. They both refer to the same Lord. I am not LDS or JW and don't believe in separate gods.

Did you just do what you accuse me of? Maybe you should try to understand what you are responding to before responding. I agree the day of the Lord and day of Christ are interchangeable that has been my point all along, I just do not agree they refer to something other than what the context suggest and that is the coming of the Lord and our gathering and yes His wrath too which He will pour out when He comes and gathers us and defeats the armies on earth who come against Him. Yes, all on the same day, the day of the Lord. Please don’t just tell me I don’t understand, I understand you perfectly I just think you are wrong. There is no pre-trib rapture in scripture!

 

[Copperhead]

Looks like you either didn’t read the post or you just don’t get it. I didn’t insert departure in those scripture because I thought they went there I put them there to show how departure (from the planet ) doesn’t make sense in the context of the passage.





Yes!





Did you just do what you accuse me of? Maybe you should try to understand what you are responding to before responding. I agree the day of the Lord and day of Christ are interchangeable that has been my point all along, I just do not agree they refer to something other than what the context suggest and that is the coming of the Lord and our gathering and yes His wrath too which He will pour out when He comes and gathers us and defeats the armies on earth who come against Him. Yes, all on the same day, the day of the Lord. Please don’t just tell me I don’t understand, I understand you perfectly I just think you are wrong. There is no pre-trib rapture in scripture!

If I got the gist of what you were getting at, then my bad. I apologize. I read it wrong.

 

[Copperhead]

There has been a tremendous effort in recent years by those promoting modern Dispensational Theology to disconnect the history of the doctrine from the version being promoted today.

Many can honestly say they have never heard of Darby, because the doctrine spread like a virus through the modern evangelical Church, after the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Some can also honestly say they did not get it from Scofield, because bits and pieces of the doctrine have been adopted by many today without them knowing the original source of the teaching.

Based on thousands of pages of commentary and sermons, no American pastor taught a pretrib removal of the Church at the time of the Revolutionary War.

Many today do not know why Dispensational Theology needs a pretrib removal of the Church.
The original "Classic" version of the doctrine claimed that God would go back and deal with the modern nation of Israel under the Old Covenant system, during a future time period of 7 years, after the end of the "Church Age".


The New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, completely destroys the doctrine found in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

.

I can appreciate all the effort that has gone into doing a history thing about dispensationalism in America, it still has little bearing on the fact that it was a position held by many before Darby. And certainly before the American Revolution, and even the crusades for that matter. I realize that it has not been a staple of many churches over the centuries, but that doesn't negate it as a viable position. And there are variations on the doctrine, so it is not a one size fits all deal.

Tradition is not a good measuring stick to use regarding doctrines. There are many examples of misplaced doctrinal positions held by most of the church over the centuries. The church couldn't even get out of the 1st century before it was already having doctrinal problems.

 

[Copperhead]

I am really surprised that no one took the Revelation 12:5 bait I laid out as showing a pre-trib removal of the righteous.

And on this dispensation thing....

Did God apply the Mosaic Law in dealing with Adam, Noah, or Abraham? Was that the revelation that He used to guide them?

And after the Law was given Moses, was the standard of the New Covenant in view for Moses, David, and the all Israel? Were they under the Law or under Grace? Or did God just ignore what He gave Moses and stick with the same playbook as in dealing with those that came before Moses?

It is clear that God dealt with different people in different times utilizing different revelation of Himself to them, just as now, where we have been given the revelation of the Messiah. He has come, has fulfilled the Law and the sacrifice for our reconciliation to the Father.

That makes God a dispensationalist. That's right... He used a different order or standard in dealing with different peoples of differing times based on the level of revealing of Himself He gave them. That is a dictionary definition of dispensation.

 

[BABerean2]

I can appreciate all the effort that has gone into doing a history thing about dispensationalism in America, it still has little bearing on the fact that it was a position held by many before Darby.

To this date, I have never been provided with any source before Darby which claimed that modern Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church.

This is the major error of the doctrine.

.

 

[Postvieww]

I am really surprised that no one took the Revelation 12:5 bait I laid out as showing a pre-trib removal of the righteous.

Maybe that is because the passage is not about a pre-trib removal.

 

[Revealing Times]

I would say they feared the coming of the Lord was soon upon them.

Look you have inserted your interpretation of the Day of the Lord In parenthesis and assumed without proof it is correct.

That my friend appears to be the root of our disagreement.

No sir, the Scripture is obvious. No FAITH is spoken of in the ENTIRE PASSAGE and the first Seven English translations and the Latin Vulgate has it meaning a Departure. The subject in the Passage is the Church gathering unto Christ. You can protest all you want but that facts they a'int a changing. There is no question what the Day of the Lord is. I have studied every place its mentioned in the entire bible.

The root of your disagreement is you refuse to believe there is a Rapture, so you can't go along with facts that are presented clearly, because it endangers your "position" of course.

I have been around this same old block numerous times as I know you have. If we can’t settle this day of the lord/day of Christ issue there will be no settling 2 Thess. 2:1-3.

Take every passage in the NT that says Day of the Lord or Day of Christ and see if you can insert 3.5 years or even 7 years without creating problems. Here is just one example:


2 Corin 1: 13 For we write none other things unto you, that what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end;

14 As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are our's in the (time of tribulation) day of the Lord Jesus.

That might be because this passage isn't Speaking about The Day of the Lord.

I get it, I understand your argument, I just do not agree the day of the Lord is an extended period of time.

Here is another one:

1 Corin 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the (time of tribulation) day of the Lord Jesus.

Tribulation is NOT the Day of the Lord, Jacobs Troubles lasts for 7 years. The Day of the Lord starts with the First Seal being broken and ends with the Last Vial being poured out. That's 3.5 Years, the exact time that the BEAST Rules over Jerusalem. So try it in like manner instead.

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (From Gods Wrath)

Let’s do another one:

2 Peter 3:10 But (time of tribulation) the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I contend the same is true for all of them. I do not accept your premise for 2 Thess. “that day” “the day of Christ” is an extended time of tribulation. If we can’t resolve that there is no resolving our debate.

I’m open to yours or anyone’s argument but show me don’t just say the day of the Lord is 7 years and move on as if it is settled. It is not.

LETS DO.............

2 Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord (GODS WRATH) will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

So as we shall see below the Day of the Lord is associated with Gods Wrath, and Paul tells the Thessalonians they are not children of the Dark that they should be caught up in this EVENT !! Many people totally miss what this passage means, even when they kind of get it.

1 Thess. 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord (Gods Wrath of 3.5 Years) so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when THEY(NOT US) shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon THEM (NOT US), as travail upon a woman with child; and THEY shall not escape.

4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day(Gods Wrath) should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. 8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God hath not appointed us to WRATH, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

This isn't really talking about Night and Day per se. Its speaking about Christians being OF GOD (OF THE LIGHT) and THEM/THEY being of Satan (Of the DARK) thus they are DRUNKEN of the Evil Wine/Satan and we are Sober in Christ Jesus and cognizant of where our salvation lies, in Christ Jesus, unless we fall back into DARKNESS.

So the EVIL/WICKED people will be caught Sleeping while the THIEF PLUNDERS but we in Christ Jesus have our Salvation because we are HIP to what is going on, we have had our eyes on the THIEF for years, we are therefore under the Blood of Christ and we will not be caught unawares like they will, thus THAT DAY (Wrath of God) will not come upon us because we are Children of the Light (of God) but they being Children of the Dark will go through the WRATH OF GOD !!

The Day of the Lord is GODS COMING WRATH, its a 3.5 Year period.

 

[Postvieww]

There is no question what the Day of the Lord is. I have studied every place its mentioned in the entire bible.

Then it should be an easy thing for you to post scriptures that support the day of the Lord is not a day but 7 years or 3.5 or whatever.

 

[Copperhead]

To this date, I have never been provided with any source before Darby which claimed that modern Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church.

This is the major error of the doctrine.

.

But does the church save anyone? Once a person is saved, they become part of the church, now, but there is no need for "the church" for a person to be saved. The "church" didn't exist prior to the Pentacost after Messiah's resurrection, yet I am pretty confident that many folks prior to that were saved. David, Moses, et al. There is indeed a need for the Messiah for one to be saved, as there is no other way of salvation than thru Him. Moses, David, the Prophets, etc all spoke of the coming Messiah and recognized that. I haven't seen the verse that says there is no other way of salvation than thru the church. The church is simply the ecclesia or "called out" ones.

 

[Copperhead]

Maybe that is because the passage is not about a pre-trib removal.

That could be so. But might be. Who is it referring to then? The Messiah, right?

Problem one. When was the Messiah forcibly snatched up to God and His Throne at birth? He wasn't as I recall. Nor was He forcibly snatched up at His ascension. The word here for caught up is Harpazo. The same word that would be used if we spoke Greek and would be used if you were standing in a street and about to be run over by a truck and I grabbed you and yanked you out of harm's way. That would be Harpazo.

Revelation 12:5 (NKJV) She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

 

[Postvieww]

The Day of the Lord is GODS COMING WRATH, its a 3.5 Year period.

1 Corinthians 1:8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Does this sound more like when Jesus gathers us or a 3.5 year period of time.

Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Does this really sound like a 3.5 year period?

Philippians 1:10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ.

Does this sound like a reference to a 3.5 year period?

Philippians 2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

Do you think there will be rejoicing when Christ gathers us?

2 Thessalonians 2:2 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.

The context here is our gathering not a 3.5 year period.

Yes, the Day of the Lord involves wrath on the wicked, but the same day is rejoicing for the righteous.

This is supported in the passage below.


2 Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.