What does "except there come a falling away first" in 2 Thess. 2:3 mean?

[Quasar92]

Apostasy as rapture first appeared in 1895. It was unheard of before then.

There were no mistranslations.

Here is the elaboration on 2 Thes. 2:3 in the Wycliffe translation:

3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition

Note that dissension (consistent with apostasy, separation, schism) is the elaboration. Rapture is unseen.

Departing/departure means departure from the truth i.e. apostasy, not rapture; falling away, not flying away.

Wycliffe himself identified the man of sin as the papacy, at whose hands the true church was suffering. He did not believe in a pretrib rapture.


And from Calvin's Geneva Study Bible:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling awayfirst, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Calvin also identified the man of sin as the papacy, and did not believe in a pretrib rapture.
Same with Tyndale. He was martyred by the papacy.
Same with Cranmer. He too was martyred by the papacy.
Coverdale was an associate of Tyndale's, and of like persuasion.
Beza was also of like persuasion.

There is no Reformer who defined the word as anything other than apostasy.

A definition of "discessio," the word used in the Vulgate, is found at this site.

Included near the end is a specific ecclesiological subdefinition:
"In the church, a separation, schism (eccl. Lat.), Vulg. Act. 21, 21; id. 2 Thes. 2, 3."

Occurrences are cited as being Acts 21:21 and 2 Thes. 2:3.

Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, the use of the word in Acts 21:21 is translated "forsake," which is fully consistent with the subdefinition above, and has nothing to do with rapture.

Apostacia: What Modern Greeks say about "Apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3.

Excerpt: "I could find no debate among Greek speaking Christians on how to interpret this verse. They all interpret "apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3 to mean "apostacy"."

Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’ (i.e. the Rapture)?

2 Thess 2:3 in the Early Church Writings; How early Greek, Latin and Aramaic speaking Christians interpreted "Apostacia"/"Apostacy

The Latin Influence on 2 Thess 2:3


The early church believed that the imperial Roman empire, under which the church was then living, was the restrainer which would eventually be "taken out of the way", but which was forestalling the emergence of the papal Roman empire, which Paul describes as the lawless one; and its ensuing apostasy. Notice in the related verses in 2 Thess. 2 that Paul does not reveal the identity of the restrainer. If Paul had believed that the Holy Spirit or the Church was the restrainer, there would have been no reason for him not to explicitly name either one. But Paul did have a reason. John Chrysostom, an apologist of the later early post-apostolic era, reveals it:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him...But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end."

Paul did not wish to jeopardize the Church by attracting the attention of the Roman authorities.

History subsequently confirmed the validity of Paul's inspired prescience.

The epistles of Paul in 1 Thess.4:14-18 and 2 Thess.2:1-8 is his teachings about the rapture of the Church and has nothing whatever to do with the mistranslation as an apostasy, falling away or a rebellion of the Church. As the historic translation fully confirms in the following:

In verse 3: "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that Day [The Day of the Lord, the 70th and final Week, the seven year tribulation] will not come, until the "apostasia" [Greek term in which the original translation was "to depart," or "departure," meaning, the rapture of the Church] occurs and the man of lawlessness [The antichrist, and all three of the "he's" in Dan.9:27] is revealed [Who triggers the Day of the Lord/the 70th and final Week/the seven year tribulation], the man doomed to destruction." Which reveals the "apostasia" [Departure] will take place before the antichrist is revealed, who triggers the 70th Week/seven year tribulation. Confirmed in verses 7 and 8 below.

Translation History of apostasia and discessio: By Thomas Ice, PhD.
The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either " departure" or " departing." They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608) . This supports the notion that the word truly means " departure." In fact, Jerome' s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of 325 A.D. renders apostasia with the " word discessio, meaning ' departure.' Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of "departure" in 1611 A.D.? [It is more than likely due to overzealous RCC scribes who altered the original wording of vs 3. to accommodate their teachings of Amillenialism, which rejects both the pre-trib rapture of the Church as well as Jesus Millennial reign here on earth].

"He [The antichrist] will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." Vs 4. [The abomination of desolation, confirming Dan.9:27 and Mt.24:15]. See also 2 Thes.2:4.

The rapture of the Church and verse 3 confirmed:
In vs 7: "For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so until he [The saints - Church] is taken out of the way."

The "he" who will be taken out of the way, is the one body of Christ, who bear the Holy Spirit within each of us [Eph.1:13-14], the Church of Jesus Christ. The very same as those who will participate in the "apostasia," the "departure," [the rapture] of the Church, in vs 3. Immediately following that:

In vs 8: "And then the lawless one [The antichrist] will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of His mouth and destroy by the splendor of His coming." Vs 8. [See Rev.19:17-21].

Let me see you try making an apostasy out of any of the above!


Quasar92

 

[Revealing Times]

This all started because you said the Day of the Lord begins at the 1st seal. I say it does not. And by your words you now prove im right. Whether before or in the presense, the Day of the Lord does NOT begin at the 1st seal but at the very end of the 6th seal.

No, the Day of the Lord begins at the First Seal, just because we are in the PRESENCE of the Day of the Lord when the Sun is darkened, the moon turns blood red and the stars (angels) fall from Heaven doesn't mean we weren't in the PRESENCE of the Day of the Lord when the Anti-Christ came forth also !!

The events described by Joel, in Matthew 24 and in Rev. 6 is the first supernatural event, but its the SIXTH SEAL. God is always perfect symmetrically speaking, He doesn't start things in the Middle. The Wrath of the Lamb begins with the very First Seal, the people on earth only UNDERSTAND they are in the DOTL at the Sixth Seal. Jesus RELEASES the Beast upon the nations !! Do you not get that?

The Lambs Wrath = the SEALS.

The Holy Spirits Wrath = the Seven Trumpets Prayers go up to the throne and an Angel mingles those PRAYERS with FIRE ad casts them back down unto earth (The Holy Spirit is our Comforter).

Gods/Fathers Wrath = the Seven Last Vials.

Its Symmetrical.

 

[Douggg]

No, the Day of the Lord begins at the First Seal, just because we are in the PRESENCE of the Day of the Lord when the Sun is darkened, the moon turns blood red and the stars (angels) fall from Heaven doesn't mean we weren't in the PRESENCE of the Day of the Lord when the Anti-Christ came forth also !!

In 1Thessalonians5, the Day of the Lord is preceded by the world saying peace and safety.

It is not until the second seal the rider on the red horse that peace is taken from the earth. So peace must be present on the earth before then.

The Day of the Lord in Revelation, when peace is taken from the earth begins with the rider on the red horse, nor the rider on the white horse.

3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.

4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

The rider on the white horse is the Antichrist when he is anointed the King of Israel, the world thinking he is messiah. When he commits the transgression of desolation ending his time in the role of being the Antichrist, some nations will come against him for his claim of being God (Ezekiel 28:7, Isaiah 14:16-17). Apparently to stop him, which he reacts to going to war against them, going forth conquering and to conquer, becoming the rider on the red horse, taking peace from the earth.

 

[Douggg]

The rapture of the Church and verse 3 confirmed:
In vs 7: "For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so until he [The saints - Church] is taken out of the way."

The "he" who will be taken out of the way, is the one body of Christ, who bear the Holy Spirit within each of us [Eph.1:13-14], the Church of Jesus Christ. The very same as those who will participate in the "apostasia," the "departure," [the rapture] of the Church, in vs 3. Immediately following that:

In vs 8: "And then the lawless one [The antichrist] will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of His mouth and destroy by the splendor of His coming." Vs 8. [See Rev.19:17-21].

Let me see you try making an apostasy out of any of the above!

Verse 7 is the rapture. Before the Day of the Lord. Before the person commits the act.

But you are wrongly taking the apostasy as being the rapture. The apostasy is a falling away from Christianity, followed by the person going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God. Those two things precede the Day of the Lord - which begins when the person commits the act.


The Church may still be here Q, when the falling away takes place. The Day of the Lord still not begun.

The Church being here during the initial stages of the 70th week, it could be argued means there are people to fall away from and leave Christianity, denying Jesus, thinking the Antichrist person is the real messiah instead.

The Day of the Lord begins when the person commits the act. The rapture will be before then.

Q, the person does not commit the act until near the middle of the 70th week, so even if one wrongly interprets the apostasy as the rapture - the church could still be here after the 70th week begins.

 

[Quasar92]

Verse 7 is the rapture. Before the Day of the Lord.

But you are wrongly taking the apostasy as being the rapture. The apostasy is a falling away from Christianity, followed by the person going into the temple, sitting, claiming to be God. Those two things precede the Day of the Lord - which begins when the person commits the act.


The Church may still be here Q, when the falling away takes place. The Day of the Lord still not begun.

The Church being here during the initial stages of the 70th week, it could be argued means there are people to fall away from and leave Christianity, denying Jesus, thinking the Antichrist person is the real messiah instead.

The Day of the Lord begins when the person commits the act. The rapture will be before then.

I am posting NOTHING wrongly! Review my post #161 for the historic translation of 2 Thess.2:3 that verse 7 confirms. It is a rapture of the Church, NOT AN APOSTASY as was mistranslated in 1611!

Verse 3 = departure. Verse 7 = taken out of the way.


Quasar92!

 

[Douggg]

I am posting NOTHING wrongly! Review my post #161 for the historic translation of 2 Thess.2:3 that verse 7 confirms. It is a rapture of the Church, NOT AN APOSTASY as was mistranslated in 1611!

Verse 3 = departure. Verse 7 = taken out of the way.


Quasar92!

Not intentionally wrongly, but wrongly nonetheless.

Regardless, the church could still be here after the 70th week starts because the person does not commit the act until near the middle of the 70th week.

The person, as the Antichrist, King of Israel, confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years, beginning the 70th week................................................................................
.........................................................................................
........................................................................................
The falling away from Christianity takes place during this time (you say rapture)
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
The person commits the act. The Day of the Lord begins.

So, as you can see, the rapture doesn't necessarily have to be pre-trib, pre-70th week. Just pre-Day of the Lord. Differently, I think you have it fixed in your mind that the revealing of the man of sin is when he confirms the covenant to begin the 70th week ?

Q, your interpretation of the apostasy as the rapture - means there is no falling away from believing that Jesus is the messiah in large numbers forthcoming, 2Thessalonians2:3 - by your interpretation.

Yet, already falling away from Christianity seems to be increasing. I notice videos on You Tube of people who have left Christianity, more in number.

 

[Quasar92]

Not intentionally wrongly, but wrongly nonetheless.

Regardless, the church could still be here after the 70th week starts because the person does not commit the act until near the middle of the 70th week.

The person, as the Antichrist, King of Israel, confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years, beginning the 70th week................................................................................
.........................................................................................
........................................................................................
The falling away from Christianity takes place during this time (you say rapture)
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
The person commits the act. The Day of the Lord begins.

So, as you can see, the rapture doesn't necessarily have to be pre-trib, pre-70th week. Just pre-Day of the Lord. Differently, I think you have it fixed in your mind that the revealing of the man of sin is when he confirms the covenant to begin the 70th week ?

Q, your interpretation of the apostasy as the rapture - means there is no falling away from believing that Jesus is the messiah in large numbers forthcoming, 2Thessalonians2:3 - by your interpretation.

Yet, already falling away from Christianity seems to be increasing. I notice videos on You Tube of people who have left Christianity, more in number.

My post #161 refutes you - I have posted NOTHING wrongly!

Scriptural proof for the pre-trib rapture of the Church - BEFORE the Antichrist is revealed in Dan.9:27 - confirmed in 2 Thess.2:3 and 7-8:

The Scriptures are crystal clear where Jesus will meet His Church, in 1 Thess.4:17: "After that, we who are still alive and are left, WILL BE CAUGHT UP TOGETHER with them in the clouds TO MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR. And so we will be with the Lord forever." In the FIRST of His TWO comings, recorded in 1 Thess.4:16, yet to take place, confirming Jn.14:2-3, 28! From where the Church is seen in heaven BEFORE the tribulation begins, in Rev.4:1-2. Where Jesus used John to symbolically represent the Church. Confirming 2 Thess.2:3 and 7-8! Where the Church is seen in heaven later, at the marriage of the Bride/Church to the Lamb/Jesus. While the tribulation is taking place on earth, recorded in Rev.19:7-8. From where Jesus will return to the earth in the SECOND, of His TWO comings, yet to take place, WITH HIS CHURCH, riding white horses, dressed in fine linen, white and clean, in His armies from heaven, recorded in 19:14, confirming Zech.14:4-5 and Acts 1:6; 1:11; 2:29-30 and 15:16! From which the above Scriptures leave no other options!

The difference between the pre-trib rapture of the Church, as delineated above, and the SECOND coming of Jesus are the following facts:

1. Jesus returns to the earth in His second coming, recorded in Zech.14:4-5 and in Acts 1:11.

2. No one meets Jesus in the sky when He returns in His second coming, recorded in Rev.19:14, as they will when He returns for the first time, recorded in 1 Thess.4:16!.

3. Jesus will return from the marriage of the Bride/Church to the Lamb/Jesus, in heaven, in His second coming, to the earth, with His Church, recorded in Rev.19:14, He came for in His first coming, in the clouds of the sky, seven years before, recorded in Jn.14:2-3, 28, 1 Thess.4:16-17 and 2 Thess.2:3 and 7-8.

4. No one returns to the present heaven at Jesus second coming to the earth, because He has come to establish His 1,000 year reign on the throne of David, in the restored kingdom of Israel, as recorded in Acts 1:6; 2:29-30; 15:16; Zech.6:12-13 described in Ez.40-47 and Rev.20:6. In addition to the present heaven and earth being destroyed and will pass away, as recorded in 2 Pet.3:7 and in Rev.21:1.

The pre-trib rapture of the Churdh fully endorsed by the following:


1. Frank L. Gaebelein, A.M., Litt.D., Headmaster Emiritus, The Stoney Brook School; 2. William Culbertson, D.D., L.L.D., President, Moody Bible Institute; 3. Charles L. Feinberg, ThD., PhD., Dean, Talbot Theological Seminary; 4. Allan A. Mac Rae, A.M., PhD., President, Biblical School of Theology; 5. Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Th.M., D.D., Dean, Philadelphia College of Bible; 6. Alva J. Mc Clain, Th.M., D.D., President Emeritus, Grace Theological Seminary; 7. Wilbur M. Smith, D.D., Editor, Peloubet's Select Notes; 8. John F. Walvoord, A.M., Th.D., President, Dallas Theological Seminary; 9. C.I. Scofield, D.D., Editor, Scofield Bible; 10. Editorial Committee Chairman, J. E. Schuyler English, Litt.D.

Chuck Missler, Koinonia House, Charles Stanley, Baptist minister, Zola Levitt, Levitt's Ministries, Miles Weiss, Zola Levitt's Ministries, Moishe Rosen, Jew's For Jesus Org., David Bickner, Jew's For Jesus Org., Mitch Glaser, His Chosen People Minisries Dwight Pentecost, Dean at Dallas Theological Seminary, Harold Wilmington, Dean at Liberty Seminary, Arno Froese, Editor and CEO of Midnight Call Ministries, Thomas Ice, PhD., Author, Jack Van Impe, TV Ministry, Tim Le Haye, Author, Jerry Fallwell, Baptist minister, Billie Graham, TV ministry, Franklin Graham, TV ministry, Dr. Ron Carlson, Dr. Wilfred Hahn, Dave Hunt, Ed Decker and Dr. Norbert Lieth.



Quasar92

 

[Douggg]

Scriptural proof for the pre-trib rapture of the Church - BEFORE the Antichrist is revealed in Dan.9:27 - confirmed in 2 Thess.2:3 and 7-8:

Q, I am not disagreeing that Jesus coming for the rapture is not the Second Coming. So there is no reason for you to post on that - to me, because I don't disagree.

And the rapture might happen pre-trib, pre-70th week. But different from you, I think it may possibly happen after the 70th week begins as well. But before the Day of the Lord begins.

Regarding Daniel 9:27 and 2Thessalonians2:4 - it is not when the person is revealed as the Antichrist in 2Thessalonians2:4 , but the Antichrist (the King of Israel) revealed as the man of sin.

revealed as the man of sin - son of perdition - involves betrayal. The Antchrist, the King of Israel at the time, will betray the Jewish people and the covenant - by stopping the daily sacrifice and going into the temple sitting claiming to be God.

That happening will not be until the middle part of the 70th week - not the beginning.

Q, at the center of the problem with your interpretation is that you, as most people do, associate the term "Antichrist" as a blanket term for the person, the arch villain of the end times - as the person being the Antichrist for the entire 7 years. That's another error - sorry to say.

Q, case in point. In some of your commentary on Revelation 13, do you refer to the person as the Antichrist in that chapter?

Q, being the Antichrist is only for when the person is the King of Israel, for the first 3 years plus, because the Jews will have anointed him as their King, thinking he is their messiah. His time as the Antichrist ends when he reveals himself as the man of sin, betraying the Jewish people.

 

[jgr]

The epistles of Paul in 1 Thess.4:14-18 and 2 Thess.2:1-8 is his teachings about the rapture of the Church and has nothing whatever to do with the mistranslation as an apostasy, falling away or a rebellion of the Church. As the historic translation fully confirms in the following:

In verse 3: "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that Day [The Day of the Lord, the 70th and final Week, the seven year tribulation] will not come, until the "apostasia" [Greek term in which the original translation was "to depart," or "departure," meaning, the rapture of the Church] occurs and the man of lawlessness [The antichrist, and all three of the "he's" in Dan.9:27] is revealed [Who triggers the Day of the Lord/the 70th and final Week/the seven year tribulation], the man doomed to destruction." Which reveals the "apostasia" [Departure] will take place before the antichrist is revealed, who triggers the 70th Week/seven year tribulation. Confirmed in verses 7 and 8 below.

Translation History of apostasia and discessio: By Thomas Ice, PhD.
The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either " departure" or " departing." They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608) . This supports the notion that the word truly means " departure." In fact, Jerome' s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of 325 A.D. renders apostasia with the " word discessio, meaning ' departure.' Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of "departure" in 1611 A.D.? [It is more than likely due to overzealous RCC scribes who altered the original wording of vs 3. to accommodate their teachings of Amillenialism, which rejects both the pre-trib rapture of the Church as well as Jesus Millennial reign here on earth].

"He [The antichrist] will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God." Vs 4. [The abomination of desolation, confirming Dan.9:27 and Mt.24:15]. See also 2 Thes.2:4.

The rapture of the Church and verse 3 confirmed:
In vs 7: "For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so until he [The saints - Church] is taken out of the way."

The "he" who will be taken out of the way, is the one body of Christ, who bear the Holy Spirit within each of us [Eph.1:13-14], the Church of Jesus Christ. The very same as those who will participate in the "apostasia," the "departure," [the rapture] of the Church, in vs 3. Immediately following that:

In vs 8: "And then the lawless one [The antichrist] will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of His mouth and destroy by the splendor of His coming." Vs 8. [See Rev.19:17-21].

Let me see you try making an apostasy out of any of the above!


Quasar92

How could the Reformers have believed in rapture when they declared that the Church was already suffering under antichrist?

 

[Douggg]

Apostasy as rapture first appeared in 1895. It was unheard of before then.

There were no mistranslations.

Here is the elaboration on 2 Thes. 2:3 in the Wycliffe translation:

3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition

Note that dissension (consistent with apostasy, separation, schism) is the elaboration. Rapture is unseen.

Departing/departure means departure from the truth i.e. apostasy, not rapture; falling away, not flying away.

Wycliffe himself identified the man of sin as the papacy, at whose hands the true church was suffering. He did not believe in a pretrib rapture.


And from Calvin's Geneva Study Bible:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling awayfirst, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Calvin also identified the man of sin as the papacy, and did not believe in a pretrib rapture.
Same with Tyndale. He was martyred by the papacy.
Same with Cranmer. He too was martyred by the papacy.
Coverdale was an associate of Tyndale's, and of like persuasion.
Beza was also of like persuasion.

There is no Reformer who defined the word as anything other than apostasy.

A definition of "discessio," the word used in the Vulgate, is found at this site.

Included near the end is a specific ecclesiological subdefinition:
"In the church, a separation, schism (eccl. Lat.), Vulg. Act. 21, 21; id. 2 Thes. 2, 3."

Occurrences are cited as being Acts 21:21 and 2 Thes. 2:3.

Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, the use of the word in Acts 21:21 is translated "forsake," which is fully consistent with the subdefinition above, and has nothing to do with rapture.

Apostacia: What Modern Greeks say about "Apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3.

Excerpt: "I could find no debate among Greek speaking Christians on how to interpret this verse. They all interpret "apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3 to mean "apostacy"."

Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’ (i.e. the Rapture)?

2 Thess 2:3 in the Early Church Writings; How early Greek, Latin and Aramaic speaking Christians interpreted "Apostacia"/"Apostacy

The Latin Influence on 2 Thess 2:3


The early church believed that the imperial Roman empire, under which the church was then living, was the restrainer which would eventually be "taken out of the way", but which was forestalling the emergence of the papal Roman empire, which Paul describes as the lawless one; and its ensuing apostasy. Notice in the related verses in 2 Thess. 2 that Paul does not reveal the identity of the restrainer. If Paul had believed that the Holy Spirit or the Church was the restrainer, there would have been no reason for him not to explicitly name either one. But Paul did have a reason. John Chrysostom, an apologist of the later early post-apostolic era, reveals it:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him...But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end."

Paul did not wish to jeopardize the Church by attracting the attention of the Roman authorities.

History subsequently confirmed the validity of Paul's inspired prescience.

jgr, while I agree the falling away or departure in 2Thessalonians2:3 is not the rapture - it does not eliminate the possibility of the rapture taking place before the 70th week begins.

The real issue is the Day of the Lord. Will the church still be here when the Day of the Lord begins - when the Antichrist (King of Israel) goes into the temple sits, claiming to have achieved God-hood ? The answer to that question is no.

 

[Quasar92]

How could the Reformers have believed in rapture when they declared that the Church was already suffering under antichrist?

When are you going to address my post #161 that refutes you. I am not a bit interested in the attempts to interpret eschatology from those who try, by osmosis, who are impervious to the Scriptural truths that refute them.


Quasar92

 

[jgr]

When are you going to address my post #161 that refutes you. I am not a bit interested min the attempts to interpret eschatology from those who try, by osmosis, who are impervious to the Scriptural truths that refute them.


Quasar92

I see nothing in your post that answers my question. If there is, please extract and post it as an excerpt.

Here is my question again: How could the Reformers have believed in rapture when they declared that the Church was already suffering under antichrist?

 

[Douggg]

Here is my question again: How could the Reformers have believed in rapture when they declared that the Church was already suffering under antichrist?

Well, I think that is a reasonable question. Perhaps they did not believe that the great tribulation had started yet? What do we have in writng regarding what the reformers thought of the rapture?

 

[jgr]

Well, I think that is a reasonable question. Perhaps they did not believe that the great tribulation had started yet? What do we have in writng regarding what the reformers thought of the rapture?

As historicists, the Reformers believed that tribulation was a recurring phenomenon. By the time of the Reformation, the death toll attributable to the antichrist of the papacy was already in the tens of millions, ultimately reaching an estimated 50 million.

There is no reference to rapture in any Reformation writings.

 

[Quasar92]

I see nothing in your post that answers my question. If there is, please extract and post it as an excerpt.

Here is my question again: How could the Reformers have believed in rapture when they declared that the Church was already suffering under antichrist?

You received my response in post #171. You have no argument and try fielding one with vivid imagination, in the field of eschatology you clearly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about!


Quasar92

 

[Quasar92]

Q, I am not disagreeing that Jesus coming for the rapture is not the Second Coming. So there is no reason for you to post on that - to me, because I don't disagree.

And the rapture might happen pre-trib, pre-70th week. But different from you, I think it may possibly happen after the 70th week begins as well. But before the Day of the Lord begins.

Regarding Daniel 9:27 and 2Thessalonians2:4 - it is not when the person is revealed as the Antichrist in 2Thessalonians2:4 , but the Antichrist (the King of Israel) revealed as the man of sin.

revealed as the man of sin - son of perdition - involves betrayal. The Antchrist, the King of Israel at the time, will betray the Jewish people and the covenant - by stopping the daily sacrifice and going into the temple sitting claiming to be God.

That happening will not be until the middle part of the 70th week - not the beginning.

Q, at the center of the problem with your interpretation is that you, as most people do, associate the term "Antichrist" as a blanket term for the person, the arch villain of the end times - as the person being the Antichrist for the entire 7 years. That's another error - sorry to say.

Q, case in point. In some of your commentary on Revelation 13, do you refer to the person as the Antichrist in that chapter?

Q, being the Antichrist is only for when the person is the King of Israel, for the first 3 years plus, because the Jews will have anointed him as their King, thinking he is their messiah. His time as the Antichrist ends when he reveals himself as the man of sin, betraying the Jewish people.

There are no ands, ifs or buts in the interpretation of Scriptura; eschaqtology. It is not interpreted by osmosis, but rather, by the Scriptures that clearly support it, you are ignoring, in hopes of making them say what you want them to say, and denying what they do say. The Scriptural facts are found in my post #161.


Quasar92

 

[jgr]

You received my response in post #171. You have no argument and try fielding one with vivid imagination, in the field of eschatology you clearly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about!


Quasar92

You're right, I have no argument. I only have a question, which hasn't been answered yet.

So here it is again: How could the Reformers have believed in rapture when they declared that the Church was already suffering under antichrist?

 

[jgr]

There are no ands, ifs or buts in the interpretation of Scriptura; eschaqtology. It is not interpreted by osmosis, but rather, by the Scriptures that clearly support it, you are ignoring, in hopes of making them say what you want them to say, and denying what they do say. The Scriptural facts are found in my post #161.


Quasar92

Well Douggg, if you or I ever wondered about the meaning of indoctrination, there's a prime example.

 

[Revealing Times]

In 1Thessalonians5, the Day of the Lord is preceded by the world saying peace and safety.

It is not until the second seal the rider on the red horse that peace is taken from the earth. So peace must be present on the earth before then.

The Day of the Lord in Revelation, when peace is taken from the earth begins with the rider on the red horse, nor the rider on the white horse.

3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.

4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

The rider on the white horse is the Antichrist when he is anointed the King of Israel, the world thinking he is messiah. When he commits the transgression of desolation ending his time in the role of being the Antichrist, some nations will come against him for his claim of being God (Ezekiel 28:7, Isaiah 14:16-17). Apparently to stop him, which he reacts to going to war against them, going forth conquering and to conquer, becoming the rider on the red horse, taking peace from the earth.

You have everything right Douggg except the timing, an Israel never accepts the Anti-Christ as their King. The peace or fake peace is the first 3.5 years, then the Anti-Christ is REVEALED In that he Conquers Jerusalem and becomes the BEAST for 42 months. Thus the FIRST SEAL is the Wrath of God (the Lamb) who allows him to COME FORTH. Its like Jesus is saying unto the world, HERE, this is your hearts desire, an Man to worship since you all love yourselves more than God !!

By this time Israel is protected in the Wilderness, they never anoint this man as their King. He goes forth to Conquer in the FIRST SEAL. The 2nd Seal, 3rd Seal, 4th Seal and 5th Seal are side effects of the Anti-Christ Conquering Jerusalem and becoming the BEAST, as well as Conquering Islam and all the world.

These people of this world HATE GOD they don't want a Jewish Messiah, they want to worship mankind.

 

[Revealing Times]

Q, I am not disagreeing that Jesus coming for the rapture is not the Second Coming. So there is no reason for you to post on that - to me, because I don't disagree.

And the rapture might happen pre-trib, pre-70th week. But different from you, I think it may possibly happen after the 70th week begins as well. But before the Day of the Lord begins.

Regarding Daniel 9:27 and 2Thessalonians2:4 - it is not when the person is revealed as the Antichrist in 2Thessalonians2:4 , but the Antichrist (the King of Israel) revealed as the man of sin.

revealed as the man of sin - son of perdition - involves betrayal. The Antchrist, the King of Israel at the time, will betray the Jewish people and the covenant - by stopping the daily sacrifice and going into the temple sitting claiming to be God.

That happening will not be until the middle part of the 70th week - not the beginning.

Q, at the center of the problem with your interpretation is that you, as most people do, associate the term "Antichrist" as a blanket term for the person, the arch villain of the end times - as the person being the Antichrist for the entire 7 years. That's another error - sorry to say.

Q, case in point. In some of your commentary on Revelation 13, do you refer to the person as the Antichrist in that chapter?

Q, being the Antichrist is only for when the person is the King of Israel, for the first 3 years plus, because the Jews will have anointed him as their King, thinking he is their messiah. His time as the Antichrist ends when he reveals himself as the man of sin, betraying the Jewish people.

He is telling you the FALLING AWAY is a fallacy, its based off of a bad translation, HOWEVER, the World will get more and more evil just as Peter and Paul both stated. REMEMBER, Satan mixes truths with lies. Just because the world gets more evil and some bring fort bad Christian Teachings, that STILL DOES NOT MEAN the Falling Away in 2 Thess. 2 is a proper teaching as written by Paul. That is his point I think. No on is denting the world becomes more and more evil as we go, just look at it, but that does not mean 2 Thess. 2 means what most people say, that its about APOSTASY, its not, its about the RAPTURE.