The Rapture theory is true?

[iamlamad]

He has multiple themes in the passage. The second coming of Christ itself is one theme, the timing of certain events in relation to His coming (a falling away from the faith and the man of sin being revealed) is another theme, and another theme relates to the fact that people who rebel against Christ will be destroyed and condemned.

I disagree: Paul sets the theme in his first sentence:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him:
This entire passage is concerning His coming and the gathering. Notice how this verse gives a strong hint that there will be coming JUST for a gathering.

And it seems his letter was necessary because they wrote and asked him. They had his first letter, and so knew the rapture will come before wrath, but now with the persecution they may have thought it was GOD'S wrath. Then either a forged letter or a prophecy seemed to confirm to them that they WERE In God's wrath! Yet from the first letter they were told they would escape His wrath. It is no wonder they were so upset.

On the other hand, if they knew they had to survive God's wrath, but it would be only for 7 years or perhaps 3.5 years - and then they would be rescued by His coming - why would they be so upset they would have to send a letter and ask Paul? Verse 2 is very pertinent.

Since the people were believing that they were now in the Day of the Lord, Paul has to add the Day of the Lord to his answer. His main theme still remains: the coming and the gathering.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Paul's intent is clear: three times in this passage he said when the restrainer is removed, then the man of sin is or will be revealed.

I have no problem with that. But, did you forget that I disagree that it is the church who does the restraining? We agree that it's the Holy Spirit, but in my view the church isn't taken out of the way, but rather a weakening of the church, because of a mass falling away from the faith, is what contributes to the restraint being removed.

In verse 3, he wrote as if it had already happened, the restrainer already taken out of the way, and the man of sin already revealed (IS revealed as the above verses show us) - and Paul then shows what He will do and HOW he will be revealed.

You're talking about the man of sin already being revealed at that point (which I don't agree with) just because you see the phrase "the man of sin IS revealed". That isn't the way to determine context.

I read it as Paul saying that the day of the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him can't happen before the man of sin is revealed. See how I said "the man of sin is revealed" in that sentence? Does that mean I'm saying the man of sin is revealed after the rapture? No, right? So, I don't get how you think you are proving anything about the timing of the man of sin being revealed in verse 3 just because it mentions "the man of sin IS revealed".

Let me give you a hypothetical illustration of why your logic here is flawed.

What if I somehow knew that someone was going to come over to your house to deliver a new computer and you wouldn't be home when it was delivered, so it would be left in a box on the front porch? But, I also knew that someone (identity unknown) was planning to steal your computer before you got home. And then I wrote this to you about that event so that you would be aware of it ahead of time:

2 Thessalorinthians 2:1 Concerning the capture and arrest of the thief of iamlamad's new computer, 2 he should not become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that his new computer already arrived and was stolen and the thief got away before he could be caught and arrested. 3 He should not let anyone deceive him in any way, for that day of the thief being caught attempting to steal iamlamad's computer will not come until the delivery of his computer happens first and the thief is revealed.

Would this be saying that the identity of the thief is already revealed at this point? No, right? This is just saying that that the delivery of the TV has to happen first and the thief would have to come to steal the computer first before the thief could be caught in the act and the identity of the thief would be revealed.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I disagree: Paul sets the theme in his first sentence:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him:
This entire passage is concerning His coming and the gathering.

I wish we would not waste time with semantics like this. Yes, that is the main theme of the passage and I never said otherwise. But, it's not the only one. That's my point.

 

[iamlamad]

Can you understand that it was a simple question only if I understood the man of sin and the falling away the same way as you, which I don't? It wasn't a simple question at all because our understanding of the passage is very different. So, to understand your question requires me to understand your viewpoint, which is not easy because it's very different from mine.
.

What I do understand is, I must have done a poor job of asking you the question! I should have make it much clearer. Now that you know the question and the answer to the question, it seems you still don't believe Paul when he wrote "is revealed." I think there is proof that is his meaning, for then he tells us what the man of sin will do once the restraining force holding him back from being revealed is taken out of the way.

But, as I said before, chance are very good we will disagree on Paul's meaning here.

 

[iamlamad]

I have no problem with that. But, did you forget that I disagree that it is the church who does the restraining? We agree that it's the Holy Spirit, but in my view the church isn't taken out of the way, but rather a weakening of the church, because of a mass falling away from the faith, is what contributes to the restraint being removed.

The Holy Spirit has no authority on earth to do anything outside of the church. God gave the church His authority. You probably won't believe that either. WE are the hands and mouth of God. Whatever God does on earth He must do using the church's authority. (That will end at the 7th trumpet when He can begin reigning over the world!)

I understand your point of view. Yes, if 75 or 95% of believers "fell away" that would weaken the church and would weaken what the Holy Spirit could do through the church.

But can you find any other scripture to support this massive falling away? I can't. As I see it, when one believer falls away, two more are born again. I personally think this massive falling away is a myth.
Just thinking ahead, when the image and mark are enforced, and angels have warned the danger of taking the mark, I see people COMING rather than falling away.

What do you see as causing this great falling away? Next, how can you relate a falling away - done individually by a person's will - and a "taking out of the way" that seems to speak of an outside force?

 

[iamlamad]

You're talking about the man of sin already being revealed at that point (which I don't agree with) just because you see the phrase "the man of sin IS revealed". That isn't the way to determine context.

You are thinking reality and Paul was only using a verbal argument. Of course Paul was not saying that in fact the man of sin had been revealed.
Paul could have written anything, but what he did write was very carefully thought out. He wrote "is revealed" as part of His argument, to show WHO or WHAT was the restrainer.

In verse 3, He wrote of something being "taken out of the way" but used the word apostasia to mean a departing. And then he wrote that now the restrainer had departed, the man of sin is revealed - which is exactly what will happen in reality when it does happen.

Then, he explains how a restraining force has been holding back the man of sin and preventing his revealed before the proper time. And then explains that once the restraining power is taken out of the way, then the man of sin will be revealed.
In fact, Paul wrote three parallels: Most readers ignore these:
Restrainer - revealed verse 3
Restrainer - revealed verse 6
Restrainer - revealed verses 7 & 8

 

[iamlamad]

duplicate

I wish this server had a delete

 

[iamlamad]

I have no problem with that. But, did you forget that I disagree that it is the church who does the restraining? We agree that it's the Holy Spirit, but in my view the church isn't taken out of the way, but rather a weakening of the church, because of a mass falling away from the faith, is what contributes to the restraint being removed.

You're talking about the man of sin already being revealed at that point (which I don't agree with) just because you see the phrase "the man of sin IS revealed". That isn't the way to determine context.

I read it as Paul saying that the day of the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him can't happen before the man of sin is revealed. See how I said "the man of sin is revealed" in that sentence? Does that mean I'm saying the man of sin is revealed after the rapture? No, right? So, I don't get how you think you are proving anything about the timing of the man of sin being revealed in verse 3 just because it mentions "the man of sin IS revealed".

Let me give you a hypothetical illustration of why your logic here is flawed.

What if I somehow knew that someone was going to come over to your house to deliver a new computer and you wouldn't be home when it was delivered, so it would be left in a box on the front porch? But, I also knew that someone (identity unknown) was planning to steal your computer before you got home. And then I wrote this to you about that event so that you would be aware of it ahead of time:

2 Thessalorinthians 2:1 Concerning the capture and arrest of the thief of iamlamad's new computer, 2 he should not become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that his new computer already arrived and was stolen and the thief got away before he could be caught and arrested. 3 He should not let anyone deceive him in any way, for that day of the thief being caught attempting to steal iamlamad's computer will not come until the delivery of his computer happens first and the thief is revealed.

Would this be saying that the identity of the thief is already revealed at this point? No, right? This is just saying that that the delivery of the TV has to happen first and the thief would have to come to steal the computer first before the thief could be caught in the act and the identity of the thief would be revealed.

Which verse do we read of what the man of sin will do to be revealed?

4. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits in God’s temple, proclaiming that he himself is God.

This is how he will be revealed: He will broadcast to the world "I AM GOD." But this cannot happen until.......

Now, How in the word can he accomplish sitting in the temple and proclaiming himself as God if the restrainer is still restraining him? It would be impossible unless the restrainer was not good at his job.

This is why I insist that in Paul's argument in 3b is is revealed, exactly as Paul wrote it. The truth is, the restrainer is already taken out of the way BEFORE 3b, and that is how he can enter the temple. This is acomplished in the word apostasia: either a departing or a falling away (of the church).

I will paraphrase Paul and I think you will agree:
Verse:
3. The DAY cannot come until a great apostasia comes first, and then the man of sin is revealed.
4. He will enter the temple and declare to the world that he is god.
5. I already told you these things before.
6. Now you know who the restrainer is, so that the man of sin will be revealed at the right time.
7. Sin is already at word, but the restrainer will continue until he is taken out of the way.
8. Then that wicked one will be revealed.

 

[iamlamad]

What part of they are NOT dead NOR sleeping did my post fail to convey?

Soul sleep is false doctrine. Laying dead in the grave and bodily resurrection is false doctrine. Both these human teachings reject the physical resurrection of all in Christ when Christ physically raised from the Dead. That was 1990 years ago and was the physical Resurrection for all in Christ, both OT and NT believers.

Soul sleep is false doctrine. Right. Good job.
Laying dead in the grave and bodily resurrection is false doctrine. WRONG. It is written, "the graves were opened..." Job said he would see God in HIS BODY. God will empty the graves. That is why it is written, "the dead [bodies] in christ will rise first..." RISE from where? From their grave sites!

Both these human teachings reject the physical resurrection of all in Christ when Christ physically raised from the Dead. That is because this theory is MYTH. Yes, when Jesus died we all died FIGURATIVELY. And when Jesus rose we all rose FIGURATIVELY. But that is all. Only a figure of the day of Resurrection when we all get the same kind of body Jesus got.

What does "In Christ" mean to you? Paul said those "In Christ" would rise.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Is it possible to have a serious problem and just not know it? I think it is. Your answer was that Paul really didn't get the man of sin revealed. Yet I showed many English translations that disagree with that.

No, your interpretation of those English translations disagrees with that.

Why do you equate "the second coming of Christ" with "The day of the Lord." Can you find a verse that makes these terms synonymous? In 1 Thes. 4 I see a coming and I see Paul tell us 3 verses later about the Day of the Lord. I understand that the rapture will be the trigger (so to speak) for the start of the Day of the Lord. But this is not making the terms synonymous. One comes before the other. Ah! Perhaps it is the "sudden destruction" that comes with the rapture? What do you make of that sudden destruction? Perhaps you think they all happen at the same time with Christ's coming to Armageddon?

Have you somehow not seen the many times I have explained this already? I'm not going to go into as much depth on it right now as I have already done before, but, first, it's important to point out that there were no chapter breaks in the original Greek text. I think it was a mistake to put a chapter break between the end of 1 Thess4 and beginning of 1 Thess 5.

Notice in 1 Thess 5:1 that Paul, right after talking about the coming of the Lord to meet His people in the air, says, "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you". About times and dates of what? In my view, he was clearly referring to what he had just been talking about, namely the second coming of Christ. There was no point in writing to them about times and dates because he knew that Jesus said that no one knows the day or hour of His coming. And then in verse 2 he proceeds to contrast what will happen to unbelievers on that day compared to what he had already said would happen to believers.

The only thing verse 3b is saying about timing in relation to the second coming of Christ...
3b only tells us that the man of sin is revealed (not in reality but in Paul's argument.)

The entire verses tells us that the day of the Lord (that dark day of destruction) cannot come until there is a significant departing first and then the man of sin is revealed.

And this is the exact timing I see in Revelation: the rapture or departing just before the Day, or a moment before the 6th seal, then the Day begins, and then the man of sin will be revealed. So at the time of the revealing, the DAY is certainly present.

At the sixth seal the time of Christ's wrath is about to come down at that point. That's why it figuratively talks about people wanting mountains and rocks to fall on them to avoid His wrath. The reason there is silence in heaven at the 7th seal is because Jesus and His angels will have left heaven to gather His people and to deliver His wrath upon unbelievers at that time.

the man of sin being revealed can't happen after the rapture and the falling away from the faith happens first.
Since the man of sin cannot be revealed until the Holy Spirit is taken out of the way (It sounds strange to say the second person of the Godhead is "taken" anywhere) - and His really is taken out of the way as the CHURCH is taken out of the way - because He resides in each believer, then it makes sense that the departing (of the church) must come before the revealing.

It's not that the Holy Spirit will literally be taken out of the way. It's His influence over people that will be taken out of the way. Do you know how the Bible elsewhere talks about God being patient with people but eventually no longer wanting to contend with Him through His Spirit? That's what I believe the Holy Spirit being taken away is about - something similar to what God has done before when He has run out of patience with people and gives them over to their wickedness.

Do you really believe there is going to be a very significant falling away from the faith?

Of course I do. Haven't I made that clear by now? What do you think that Jesus meant when He said the days before His coming would be like the days of Noah? What do you think He meant by this:

Matt 24:12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Worldwide the church is GROWING, not falling away. I believe it will continue in that direction. Sure, some fall away, but two come in when one falls away. I think the KJV did a terrible job of translating there. There is a huge difference in "some shall depart" and a very significant departing.

I believe you are delusional to believe that. Homosexuality is becoming acceptable to the masses. Sexual immorality is clearly on the rise. I can discern that wickedness is on the rise and, honestly, it's troubling to me that you can't see it.

This brings up a question: how in the world would anyone trying to follow Paul's "formula" know when enough had fallen away to say: "Ah! This is what Paul was talking about!" It would seem it would have to be sudden and much of the church at the same time. On the other hand, no one will have to guess if the rapture came.

There is no magic formula for that and nothing in the text indicates as such. We need to do what he and Jesus said by watching what's going on and using discernment.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Which verse do we read of what the man of sin will do to be revealed?

4. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits in God’s temple, proclaiming that he himself is God.

This is how he will be revealed: He will broadcast to the world "I AM GOD." But this cannot happen until.......

Why do you speak to me as if I see things the way you do? Good grief. Please stop doing that. I'm not going to agree with this when I don't understand what it means for the man of sin to sit in the temple of God the way you do. Have you not seen my explanation for how I understand that? Did I write all of that to you for nothing?

 

[iamlamad]

I believe 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 shows the rapture of believers and destruction of unbelievers occurs on the same day. What other "gathering to Him" is there that Paul ever talked about besides the rapture?

It isn't just that. It's only a dark day for unbelievers.

I believe 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 shows the rapture of believers and destruction of unbelievers occurs on the same day And you believe that because of Paul's "sudden destruction?"

Yet as I have pointed out, John saw the great crowd in heaven before and trumpet judgment and before the vial judgments. Who will God be judging if all sinners are dead?

Paul only talked of one gathering. But Matthew talked of a different one.

It will be a dark day for all the believers left behind because they were not born again.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

What I do understand is, I must have done a poor job of asking you the question! I should have make it much clearer.

I have to agree with that. You ask me questions as if my perspective and my approach to the passage is the same as yours and it should be obvious by now that it's not.

Now that you know the question and the answer to the question, it seems you still don't believe Paul when he wrote "is revealed."

If you're going to start speaking to me like this then we are done. Is that what you plan to do, to tell me I don't believe Paul? If so, this discussion is over.

 

[iamlamad]

I just disagree with your understanding. I don't see any indication whatsoever within 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 that there is a long time period between the rapture and the destruction of unbelievers.

How do you interpret his passage:

2 Thess 1:6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Remember, we are returning WITH Him at His Rev. 19 coming. We will BE THERE witnessing, perhaps HELPING Him. I see no reason to think this is the rapture. His work will not be finished until the Justice side of Him is satisfied. Punishing the wicked is just as much a part of His work as saving those who love Him.

Notice, "he will pay back trouble to those who trouble you..." Our happiness will not be complete until those who troubled us are punished.

Again, we read a scripture with preconceptions. And again we disagree on the meaning.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I believe 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 shows the rapture of believers and destruction of unbelievers occurs on the same day And you believe that because of Paul's "sudden destruction?"

Yes. As I have pointed out multiple times, I believe that sudden destruction comes in the way of fire upon the entire earth, as Peter points out in 2 Peter 3:10-13.

Yet as I have pointed out, John saw the great crowd in heaven before and trumpet judgment and before the vial judgments. Who will God be judging if all sinners are dead?

You have pointed out your opinion on that, but I disagree with your interpretation.

Paul only talked of one gathering. But Matthew talked of a different one.

How is it different? Don't forget to look at Mark 13:24-27 for more info about the event that Matthew wrote about in Matthew 24:29-31. Tell me what is different about what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse about the angels gathering the elect from heaven and earth (Mark 13:27) and what Paul said about Jesus bringing the souls of the dead in Christ with Him (1 Thess 4:14) and gathering His people from the earth to Him? I see no basis whatsoever for seeing those as separate events.

 

[iamlamad]

Why do you think you proved anything here? None of those translations mention a departing from the earth. I believe they are referring to a departing from the faith just like all the rest of the translations indicate. So, there are no translations that translate it as a departure from the earth but many translations translate it as a rebellion or a falling away/departure from the faith.

Did you not notice that you too are adding meaning? Apostasia carries NO INFORMATION as to what is being departed from. That is why in another passage someone wrote depart from Moses.

No, it does not say depart from earth, nor does it say depart from the faith. Does that not make you wonder if you have the right idea here? Why would Paul write and not complete his thought? Or maybe he did but did it in an unusual way. It is a departing, but from WHAT? Paul gives us nothing - UNLESS we understand it is the church departing. Then we know the answer.

Understand, ANY English translation that say a departing "from the faith" has added meaning.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You are thinking reality and Paul was only using a verbal argument. Of course Paul was not saying that in fact the man of sin had been revealed.
Paul could have written anything, but what he did write was very carefully thought out. He wrote "is revealed" as part of His argument, to show WHO or WHAT was the restrainer.

In verse 3, He wrote of something being "taken out of the way" but used the word apostasia to mean a departing. And then he wrote that now the restrainer had departed, the man of sin is revealed - which is exactly what will happen in reality when it does happen.

Then, he explains how a restraining force has been holding back the man of sin and preventing his revealed before the proper time. And then explains that once the restraining power is taken out of the way, then the man of sin will be revealed.
In fact, Paul wrote three parallels: Most readers ignore these:
Restrainer - revealed verse 3
Restrainer - revealed verse 6
Restrainer - revealed verses 7 & 8

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. And that's okay. We just think very differently which makes it difficult to get our ideas across to each other.

My takeaway from your post is that it's amazing to me that you can see parallels within this passage but cannot see parallels within the book of Revelation. I honestly don't get that at all.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Did you not notice that you too are adding meaning? Apostasia carries NO INFORMATION as to what is being departed from. That is why in another passage someone wrote depart from Moses.

No, it does not say depart from earth, nor does it say depart from the faith. Does that not make you wonder if you have the right idea here? Why would Paul write and not complete his thought? Or maybe he did but did it in an unusual way. It is a departing, but from WHAT? Paul gives us nothing - UNLESS we understand it is the church departing. Then we know the answer.

Understand, ANY English translation that say a departing "from the faith" has added meaning.

I have NEVER said otherwise. And you know it. All I've pointed out is that many English translators have translated it as a falling away or departing from the faith or a rebellion while none have specifically translated it as a departing from the earth (departing, yes, but without specifiying the meaning - departing from what?). I think that's worth taking into consideration.

I also have pointed out that in Acts 21:20-21 the word is used in reference to a departing from faith in the teachings of Moses, which I believe supports my understanding of the word as it's used in scripture. I know it's not absolute proof of anything, but it's still worth pointing out.

 

[iamlamad]

Have you somehow not seen the many times I have explained this already? I'm not going to go into as much depth on it right now as I have already done before, but, first, it's important to point out that there were no chapter breaks in the original Greek text. I think it was a mistake to put a chapter break between the end of 1 Thess4 and beginning of 1 Thess 5.

Notice in 1 Thess 5:1 that Paul, right after talking about the coming of the Lord to meet His people in the air, says, "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you". About times and dates of what? In my view, he was clearly referring to what he had just been talking about, namely the second coming of Christ. There was no point in writing to them about times and dates because he knew that Jesus said that no one knows the day or hour of His coming. And then in verse 2 he proceeds to contrast what will happen to unbelievers on that day compared to what he had already said would happen to believers.

Perhaps it was because I could not believe what I was reading, because it was so far from what I believe.

I think it was a mistake to put a chapter break between the end of 1 Thess4 and beginning of 1 Thess 5. I agree. Perhaps you have not seen the many times I show this:

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. [the classic rapture verse]
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
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 so cometh as a thief in the night.
[Three verses after the classic rapture verse, Paul mentions the Day of the Lord. WHY? Unless the DAY follows right after the rapture.]

3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. Is this really speaking of total destruction? All sinners dead? Does "they shall not escape" mean all dead? Suppose this was a worldwide earthquake. No matter where someone was living, their ground was shaking. That would fit: "they shall not escape" but would not necessarily mean all died. Women that are very pregnant cannot escape labor pains either, but they don't all die.

Is Paul hinting that this "sudden destruction" is the start of the Day of the Lord?
I don't know.

Is Paul hinting that this "Sudden Destruction" is part of the rapture scenario?
I think so. I think it will be an earthquake caused when God raises the dead in Christ.

4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
[it will be just as sudden for us, but we get caught up, while they get sudden destruction.]
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. [An encouragement for the necessity of being born again.]
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Is Paul hinting that the "sudden destruction" is the start of Wrath?
I think so.

I don't see all sinners destroyed here, by my preconceived glasses show me that this comes just before the 6th seal and after this the trumpets will sound, and certainly people will be around for the trumpets.

We will probably disagree here too.

In my view, he was clearly referring to what he had just been talking about, namely the second coming of Christ. Here I agree. He is still on the subject of the rapture. I think he is going to give us timing information on the rapture, in spite of what he just wrote.

he proceeds to contrast what will happen to unbelievers on that day compared to what he had already said would happen to believers. I agree!

 

[iamlamad]

I have NEVER said otherwise. And you know it. All I've pointed out is that many English translators have translated it as a falling away or departing from the faith or a rebellion while none have specifically translated it as a departing from the earth (departing, yes, but without specifiying the meaning - departing from what?). I think that's worth taking into consideration.

I also have pointed out that in Acts 21:20-21 the word is used in reference to a departing from faith in the teachings of Moses, which I believe supports my understanding of the word as it's used in scripture. I know it's not absolute proof of anything, but it's still worth pointing out.

But have you wondered why Paul did not tell us more? Why not write depart from the faith? Why did He just not say "no, the rapture has not come yet. Don't worry." We can only guess. Perhaps he wanted to teach them how to know when the DAY has come. But why bother if they were not going to be here?

By the way, since we both see the main theme as the rapture, where do you see Paul getting to the rapture? It would seem to me strange that He would say Day of the Lord if He meant rapture. In his first letter, the Day seems to follow the rapture. And in His second letter, it was their great tribulation that made them THINK they were in the Day. In other words, they were comparing the Day with bad tribulation, not the rapture. They were upset because they thought they had MISSED the rapture or else thought Paul was mistaken and the DAY would come first.

I think the KJV caused massive preconceived ideas: from that time on no translation wrote "Departing."

If I say departing from the earth, and you say departing from the faith, we are both adding meaning.