What is your end times view on the rapture?

[iamlamad]

Perhaps .... but regardless a future falling away from the faith is still a prophecied to take place which is revealed in many passages.

Your theory suggests that the rapture takes place first and the man of sin comes after this event took place as if the rapture event gives the man of sin power to be revealed and received. Why? What does the rapture event do for this man?

The rapture event removes all believers that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, (or almost all of them) and also those who have the Holy Spirit upon them. When they are departed and taken to heaven, suddenly the Holy Spirit will have NO ONE on earth for a short period of time, to work through, and this small time of reprieve - a time with no true believers on earth - will be just what the devil will be waiting for to reveal his man.

 

[iamlamad]

In:

1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Paul was referring to:

2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Currently Christianity is the fastest growing belief in the world so the falling away has yet to happen. It will happen very soon however when Satan appears looking just like Jesus and tell the world that the Muslims are right and the Christian's are wrong. Be ready.

No, I don't think Paul was referring to 2 Thes. 2. There in 2 Thes. 2, it is a very SIGNIFICANT departure. In Timothy, it is "some." In truth, all the time there are "some" falling away but more coming. The church has been growing daily for decades.

If Paul meant a falling away, why did he not state "from what?"

Next, if you insist on its meaning being a falling away, then that falling away must be equated to the one restraining being "taken out of the way." I don't think that is a good fit. A departing (of the church) fits "taken out of the way" far better.

Then, if indeed Paul meant the very significant departing (the gathering) then the theme of the passage is satisfied: the theme being "the gathering."

 

[iamlamad]

1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Does "some" and a very significant equate? There always has been "some" falling away while more come.

Next, how would anyone know when enough had fallen away to know it was what Paul was talking about?

 

[iamlamad]

May I?

I believe when Israel has a found their messiah and king and established a new temple and new covenant with all nations in which the New Testament of Jesus is thrown out because no one wish to believe in it anymore because of the rise of teachings against them which will cause persecution and hate towards one another ..then the fallen away will be in full effect...

Sorry, but by that time, the "gathering" of 2 thes.2 will have become history.

 

[iamlamad]

can I just say that Christianity is the fastest growing belief in the world and the falling away has yet to happen.

it is for sure, the "departing" (apostasia) has yet to happen. But indeed, some have fallen away as Timothy states. But while they were falling away, many more were coming!

 

[iamlamad]

The pre and mid-tribulation rapture theories were introduced into the Church by John Nelson Darby b.1800 d.1882 and then widely expanded on and promoted by Cyrus Scofield b.1843 d.1921 in his own reference Bible that he made a lot of money from. It never existed before this.

Nonsense! It has been in the bible all along! You have just missed it. Preconceptions problem?

 

[dfw69]

The rapture event removes all believers that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, (or almost all of them) and also those who have the Holy Spirit upon them. When they are departed and taken to heaven, suddenly the Holy Spirit will have NO ONE on earth for a short period of time, to work through, and this small time of reprieve - a time with no true believers on earth - will be just what the devil will be waiting for to reveal his man.

Will see.... peace

 

[dfw69]

Sorry, but by that time, the "gathering" of 2 thes.2 will have become history.

I'm not so sure ...

 

[iamlamad]

Lamad said:

Paul said there would come an apostasia first. You only think that means a falling away. ..

You try to make this too complicated, nothing requires we know exactly how many will fall away, all we need to know is it will happen to some degree and the man of sin will be revealed before our gathering. That “man of sin” part is really what is making you so desperate to interpret this passage out of the bible.

Your preconceptions are slipping into your argument. I.E. the "gathering" is equated with "the day of the Lord." That is a preconception you come with. I come with just the opposite: that the rapture will come before the Day of the Lord, which is why they were so upset: they thought they had MISSED the pretrib rapture.

Lamad said:

The passage clearly says that an apostasia must come first - and THEN the man of sin will be revealed. But it goes on to say that whatever is restraining will be "taken out of the way."...

No, it is your theory that equates the two, "falling away" to be equivalent to the someone or something "taken out of the way." Which is not the Church or Holy Spirit.

Sorry, not my theory at all. Paul is the one who wrote verses 6-8 to clarify what he had written in 3-5. It is all about the same thing: HOW someone can tell when the "Day of the Lord" has arrived and they are in it. There are parallels that it seems you are blind to (those preconceptions again).

Verse 3: don't be deceived that the Day of the Lord has arrived and you are already in it!
The apostasia must come first and then after that, the man of sin will be revealed.

Verse 6: SOMETHING (the apostasia) is restraining or holding back this revealing.
(from verse 3 we know it is the apostasia that is restraining)

Verses 7 & 8:
The mystery of lawlessness it secretly at work, but not revealed yet, because there is ONE (the apostasia) (now it is not a thing but a ONE) restraining who will continue to restrain until He is taken out of the way.

Then, after He is taken out of the way, the man of sin will be revealed.

So three times Paul gives us this parallel. If words mean anything, "apostasia" must be equated to the one taken out of the way.

You just reject the true definition of “apostasia” and force it into your theory.

Words can have different meanings - especially compound words. Our English word, "paradigm" used to mean bringing two things up as in parallel (para) so as to compare them (digm) . Now the meaning has changed to mean a pattern or an example.
(Late Latin paradigma, from Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknynai to show side by side, from para- + deiknynai to show) We must take more that just the one word to know how Paul meant to use it. We must leave it in its context. The context is something that is restraining but will be removed and taken out of the way.

Lamad said:

Therefore in your argument, the "falling away" ("from the faith" Is meaning you are adding) has to be the one restraining being "taken out of the way."

It is you who is changing the meaning.

Lamad said:

Next, what you are really saying is that the Church of Jesus Christ will get weaker, not stronger, if people are falling away....

I am saying some will fall away and depart from the faith, that is what scripture teaches.

1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Hebrews 6:6, Hebrews 10:29

But in 2 Thes. 2, it is not a general departing, it is THE significant departing...and this significant departing must be equated to what is "taken out of the way." This simply does not compare to "some departing from the faith."

Lamad said:

There is no doubt this word can mean a separation. A slightly different form is used for divorce...

You are working too hard to massage this text to your liking; it is you who have added to the definition to make this work in your favor.

No, I am only trying to find a definition that fits the context.

Strong’s
Short Definition: defection, apostasy
Definition: defection, apostasy, revolt.

646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."

This could very well mean a departing of the church from where they were previously standing. "leave" fits the rapture. "Depart" as in "taken out of the way" fits the rapture. "Depart away from" as in the church leaving this world fits the rapture. It is his theory that departure means desertion! Sorry, desertion does not fit "taken out of the way."

Lamad said:

You will note that Paul (or whoever) and to add "MOSES" so we would know what was being separated from what....

What we DO KNOW is that is is the one restraining being "taken out of the way."

Ok let’s use your translation “departing”. The problem with your argument here is the fact that Paul said our gathering will not take place until after the “departing” which makes absolutely no sense at all, the way you try to use it. Let’s insert your word definition in the text for clarity.

Your preconceptions are interfering with a good argument here! It is NOT "our gathering" will not take place until after, it is the man of sin REVEALED that will take place after the gathering.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together (departing, rapture) 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 the Lord or God's wrath poured out on an unrepentant world) has already started and is here.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (the day of the Lord or the time of God's wrath) shall not come, except there come a falling away (departing) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Houston we have a problem!
No problem whatsoever! When we interpret "day of the Lord" by the many Old Testament scriptures, it fits perfectly and makes good sense. It is the Holy Spirit, working through the church, that prevents the devil from getting his man revealed. But very soon after the church is gone, and the Holy Spirit has no one to work through on earth, the man of sin will be revealed.

 

[Postvieww]

Since the only other use of the word “apostasia” in the New Testament is in Acts 21:21 and it is translated forsake and in context is a “departure “ from a belief, There is no textual or contextual reason in 2 Thessalonians to translate “apostasia “ departure from the planet.


Strongs 646 apostasia


Short Definition: defection, apostasy


Definition: defection, apostasy, revolt.


There are only a pitiful few translations that use the word “departure” and none of them say or imply departure from what and definitely do not say departure from the planet. If it is a valid argument to say 2 Thessalonians does not say falling away from what then it is equally a valid argument to say departure from what.


The only way to arrive at the correct conclusion logically is to use the accepted definition of the Greek word and the other instance where the same word is used as reference.





Now since Paul unequivocally states “some will depart from the faith“ in 1 Timothy 4:1 with no room for argument on what he meant it is equally logical since he use the word from the Greek which is defined as defection, revolt or apostasy and the same word was used in Acts as “forsake” from a belief to argue he meant departure from the planet in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is without scriptural backing or logic.


The argument “how would anyone know when enough had fallen away to know it was what Paul was talking about” is irrelevant because nothing in the text is tied to how many would fall away. These events will happen whether or not we know how many will fall away. The fact is Paul stated some will depart from the faith in 1 Timothy 4:1 and we do not need to know how many some is or how many will fall away.


The reason why some in the pre-trib camp try so hard to alter this text from its clear meaning should be obvious to all. If this text is allowed to stand on its own and left to say what it clearly says it is a complete refutation of the pre-trib doctrine.


When the claim that ”falling away must be equated to the one restraining being "taken out of the way" is made, on what is that based contextually? The only way to make that leap is to assume the Church has departed in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and also assume the Church with the Holy Spirit within is the restrainer. Neither of those assumptions is borne out in the text.


In fact since the falling away and the revealing of the man of sin are clearly stated to happen before the “gathering” it makes no sense to define falling away as the “gathering” or “departure” from the planet.


At the very least this whole “apostasia” equals the pre-trib rapture argument is very weak, and relies on much maneuvering and manipulation of word definitions to achieve the desired result. Even some pretribber do not go this route, but we are no told how many some is in this case either.

 

[Postvieww]

Your preconceptions are slipping into your argument. I.E. the "gathering" is equated with "the day of the Lord." That is a preconception you come with. I come with just the opposite: that the rapture will come before the Day of the Lord, which is why they were so upset: they thought they had MISSED the pretrib rapture.
Sorry, not my theory at all. Paul is the one who wrote verses 6-8 to clarify what he had written in 3-5. It is all about the same thing: HOW someone can tell when the "Day of the Lord" has arrived and they are in it. There are parallels that it seems you are blind to (those preconceptions again).

Verse 3: don't be deceived that the Day of the Lord has arrived and you are already in it!
The apostasia must come first and then after that, the man of sin will be revealed.

Verse 6: SOMETHING (the apostasia) is restraining or holding back this revealing.
(from verse 3 we know it is the apostasia that is restraining)

Verses 7 & 8:
The mystery of lawlessness it secretly at work, but not revealed yet, because there is ONE (the apostasia) (now it is not a thing but a ONE) restraining who will continue to restrain until He is taken out of the way.

Then, after He is taken out of the way, the man of sin will be revealed.

So three times Paul gives us this parallel. If words mean anything, "apostasia" must be equated to the one taken out of the way.


Words can have different meanings - especially compound words. Our English word, "paradigm" used to mean bringing two things up as in parallel (para) so as to compare them (digm) . Now the meaning has changed to mean a pattern or an example.
(Late Latin paradigma, from Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknynai to show side by side, from para- + deiknynai to show) We must take more that just the one word to know how Paul meant to use it. We must leave it in its context. The context is something that is restraining but will be removed and taken out of the way.
But in 2 Thes. 2, it is not a general departing, it is THE significant departing...and this significant departing must be equated to what is "taken out of the way." This simply does not compare to "some departing from the faith."

No, I am only trying to find a definition that fits the context.
This could very well mean a departing of the church from where they were previously standing. "leave" fits the rapture. "Depart" as in "taken out of the way" fits the rapture. "Depart away from" as in the church leaving this world fits the rapture. It is his theory that departure means desertion! Sorry, desertion does not fit "taken out of the way."
Your preconceptions are interfering with a good argument here! It is NOT "our gathering" will not take place until after, it is the man of sin REVEALED that will take place after the gathering.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together (departing, rapture) 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 the Lord or God's wrath poured out on an unrepentant world) has already started and is here.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (the day of the Lord or the time of God's wrath) shall not come, except there come a falling away (departing) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Houston we have a problem!
No problem whatsoever! When we interpret "day of the Lord" by the many Old Testament scriptures, it fits perfectly and makes good sense. It is the Holy Spirit, working through the church, that prevents the devil from getting his man revealed. But very soon after the church is gone, and the Holy Spirit has no one to work through on earth, the man of sin will be revealed.

Lamad said:

Your preconceptions are slipping into your argument. I.E. the "gathering" is equated with "the day of the Lord." That is a preconception you come with. I come with just the opposite: that the rapture will come before the Day of the Lord, which is why they were so upset: they thought they had MISSED the pretrib rapture.

My ”preconceptions” on this topic are formed by scripture.


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:


Would you argue this passage does not refer to His return hence our gathering? Do you have a scriptural reason to argue this day of Jesus Christ is a different day than in 2 Thessalonians 2:2?


What about these scriptures?

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 laboured in vain.


Are the above passages a different day than the day in 2 Thessalonians 2:2?


Try inserting tribulation in Philippians 2:16 and see how that works out. Let’s try it.

Philippians 2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the (“tribulation”), that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.


Doesn’t quite work there does it?

Sorry, not my theory at all. Paul is the one who wrote verses 6-8 to clarify what he had written in 3-5. It is all about the same thing: HOW someone can tell when the "Day of the Lord" has arrived and they are in it. There are parallels that it seems you are blind to (those preconceptions again).

Verse 3: don't be deceived that the Day of the Lord has arrived and you are already in it!

It seems your preconceptions are showing through here as well, you are trying to make the day of Christ some lengthy time period that they thought they were in like maybe the tribulation period, rather than the day Christ returns to gather His own.

The apostasia must come first and then after that, the man of sin will be revealed.

Actually all the passage says is that both will occur first! First before what is the question here.

Verse 6: SOMETHING (the apostasia) is restraining or holding back this revealing.

Your preconception and liberty taken with the text!

(from verse 3 we know it is the apostasia that is restraining)

Another of your preconceptions not born out in the passage.

Verses 7 & 8:

The mystery of lawlessness it secretly at work, but not revealed yet, because there is ONE (the apostasia) (now it is not a thing but a ONE) restraining who will continue to restrain until He is taken out of the way.

You take a lot of liberty with the text to do what you have just done here.

Then, after He is taken out of the way, the man of sin will be revealed.

Now you have taken the liberty to make a feminine noun a “He”!


apostasia: 646 defection, revolt


Original Word: ἀποστασία, ας, ἡ


Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine

Was this a sex change operation?

So three times Paul gives us this parallel. If words mean anything, "apostasia" must be equated to the one taken out of the way.

Apparently some can make words mean anything they need them to mean.


2 Thessalonians 2: 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


We have long ago established that the words “that day shall not come” are not in the original text. They are implied by the text and the translators agree, because they added them to clarify what was being said.

So something has to happen first before the implied day. That something is both the “falling away” and the “man of sin” being revealed. My question to you is what is it that is implied that both of the events will happen before?


The context demands that it is either the coming of our Lord, our gathering together or the day of Christ there is nothing else in the context it could possibly be.


Now since a very good scriptural case can be made that all three of those possibilities are one and the same day, what would be your case from scripture that they are not? If they are not one in the same day what is the scriptural case to show which one is referred to? Then what is the scriptural case to define what that means? Preconceptions are not allowed!


The truth here is 2 Thessalonians is in no way a proof text for a pre-trib rapture it is quite the opposite!

 

[Revealing Times]

WRONG......As I have stated ma

The pre and mid-tribulation rapture theories were introduced into the Church by John Nelson Darby b.1800 d.1882 and then widely expanded on and promoted by Cyrus Scofield b.1843 d.1921 in his own reference Bible that he made a lot of money from. It never existed before this.

WRONG as I have stated many times. People with agendas amuse me.

The word Paul used was a Greek word called Harpazo, it means to be "SNATCHED AWAY" or "TO SEIZE" or carry off by force in English. The Romans transcribed the Latin Vulgate, of course, and they translated Harpazo as the Latin rapiemur (the first person plural future passive indicative tense of rapio then the English translations referred to the word Harpazo as Snatched away, or in some translations to be Seized.

So the ole talking point of "John Darby" inventing the Rapture is a pure fantasy/joke at best and outright deception at worst.

WORD.....HARPAZO.....WRITTEN BY PAUL 2000 YEARS AGO......

Rapio is the word used by the Romans in 400 AD....It derives from the word HARPAZO..........PAUL WROTE IT !! Not John Darby...LOL.

Snatched Away is the word King James used....it derives from the word HARPAZO, a word Paul used, not King James himself or Darby...LOL.

This stiff boggles my mind.

 

[Revealing Times]

May I?

I believe when Israel has a found their messiah and king and established a new temple and new covenant with all nations in which the New Testament of Jesus is thrown out because no one wish to believe in it anymore because of the rise of teachings against them which will cause persecution and hate towards one another ..then the fallen away will be in full effect...

Who said Israel will "find" a Messiah ? No where in the bible does it say Israel accepts this "Anti-Christ" as their Messiah. I know that gets repeated by many men, so it gets ingrained in the culture, but is is not factual.

The Peace/Security deal they make is akin to what small European countries now have with the USA under the auspices of NATO, and a "COVENANT" only means an agreement, the church is raptured, that is what Falling Away means, departure. Their is a sort of departure of the faith, but that is not what this passage refers to........it is referring to the "Gathering together of the Lord" or the Church gathering unto Jesus. So the Departure is clearly about the Church. Someone show me anywhere in this passage where the FAITH is even mentioned, it isn't there.

Those leaving the Faith etc. in other passages are referring, imho, to what is happening now. People in churches accepting the practice of homosexuality as "Normal" some even marrying Sodomites. Many church members advocating abortion etc. etc.

Israel never accepts the Anti-Christ as their Messiah. They accept Jesus just before the Abomination of Desolation or Day of the Lord, Malachi 4:4-6 says so along with Zechariah chapters 12 and 13.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Nonsense! It has been in the bible all along! You have just missed it. Preconceptions problem?

You say tomato, I don't. But if it did happen it would be a lovely surprise.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

WRONG......As I have stated ma


WRONG as I have stated many times. People with agendas amuse me.

The word Paul used was a Greek word called Harpazo, it means to be "SNATCHED AWAY" or "TO SEIZE" or carry off by force in English. The Romans transcribed the Latin Vulgate, of course, and they translated Harpazo as the Latin rapiemur (the first person plural future passive indicative tense of rapio then the English translations referred to the word Harpazo as Snatched away, or in some translations to be Seized.

So the ole talking point of "John Darby" inventing the Rapture is a pure fantasy/joke at best and outright deception at worst.

WORD.....HARPAZO.....WRITTEN BY PAUL 2000 YEARS AGO......

Rapio is the word used by the Romans in 400 AD....It derives from the word HARPAZO..........PAUL WROTE IT !! Not John Darby...LOL.

Snatched Away is the word King James used....it derives from the word HARPAZO, a word Paul used, not King James himself or Darby...LOL.

This stiff boggles my mind.

I'm not saying Paul didn't write it. I'm saying that up until Darby et al. The harpazo was always understood that it would
happen on the same day as Jesus returns.

 

[Revealing Times]

I'm not saying Paul didn't write it. I'm saying that up until Darby et al. The harpazo was always understood that it would
happen on the same day as Jesus returns.

Not so. The passage is very clear. We change in the Twinkling of an eye, at the same time the dead in Christ arise. Daniel 12:2 tells us that this RAPTURE/Harpazo/Catching Away happens at the same time as the TIME OF TROUBLE in Daniel 12:1. This was basically a secret to old testament readers, this is why its not woven throughout the bible, it happens mostly to the Gentile Church, but the Dead in Christ and the Dead Saints (Pre-Jesus) of Israel all go to Heaven at the same time. The Rapture actually happens before the Time of Trouble, but "at about the same time" so Daniel really didn't even understand it.

Revelation 19 clearly tells us the Saints are in Heaven, Marrying the Lamb, then we ride back to earth on White Horses, and destroy the Anti-Christ. This book has been around almost 2000 years. There can be no Revelation 19 without a rapture, that's simple logic.

We have all the scriptures, we can use our computers to study root-words etc. etc. We can see the Rapture, it is interwoven throughout the bible.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Not so. The passage is very clear. We change in the Twinkling of an eye, at the same time the dead in Christ arise. Daniel 12:2 tells us that this RAPTURE/Harpazo/Catching Away happens at the same time as the TIME OF TROUBLE in Daniel 12:1. This was basically a secret to old testament readers, this is why its not woven throughout the bible, it happens mostly to the Gentile Church, but the Dead in Christ and the Dead Saints (Pre-Jesus) of Israel all go to Heaven at the same time. The Rapture actually happens before the Time of Trouble, but "at about the same time" so Daniel really didn't even understand it.

Revelation 19 clearly tells us the Saints are in Heaven, Marrying the Lamb, then we ride back to earth on White Horses, and destroy the Anti-Christ. This book has been around almost 2000 years. There can be no Revelation 19 without a rapture, that's simple logic.

We have all the scriptures, we can use our computers to study root-words etc. etc. We can see the Rapture, it is interwoven throughout the bible.

Well actually the dead rise first then those who remain are gathered up to be with the Lord too. But that's a minor point.

I actually have a somewhat different view of the rapture than most. I believe that when the Two Witnesses are Raptured/resurrected the 144,000 will also be raptured with them, about a couple of months before Jesus returns, similar to when the holy men of God were raptured with Jesus at his resurrection:

Matthew 27:52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

The 144.00 will be Christians who are also descendants of Judah (please watch this if you think the 144,000 have to be Jewish):

And I believe the raptured 144,000 will be the holy ones who return with Jesus on the white horses:

Jude1:14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones.

Then when Jesus returns the great multitude of dead Christians (and the few who survive the tribulation) are then resurrected/raptured too, to meet Jesus in the air, coming with the 144,000.

 

[Revealing Times]

If one happens in the Twinkling of an Eye, and the other happens first, the basically they both happen at the same time. God commands and it is done. You have one done in a MOMENT so I imagine the first order also takes a MOMENT, so its two moments back to back.

Greek word for Twinkling = rhipe which means:
1) a throw, stroke, beat
2) a moment of time

From G4496; a jerk (of the eye, that is, (by analogy) an instant):—twinkling.

So lets face it, they basically happen at the same time, it only takes God an INSTANT to call our soul unto him. Our bodies do not go, we die.

I actually have a somewhat different view of the rapture than most. I believe that when the Two Witnesses are Raptured/resurrected the 144,000 will also be raptured with them, about a couple of months before Jesus returns, similar to when the holy men of God were raptured with Jesus at his resurrection:

The Two-witnesses do die a short time before Jesus' return, the Seven Vials are the LAST WOE and the two-witnesses die and ascend at the end of the Second Woe. I think the Last Seven Vials will be very quick, a month or less.

The 144,000 could be many things, but one thing is certain, they are virgin Jews. But the Rapture happens way (SEVEN YEARS) before the Second Coming.

Matthew 27:52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

I have thought this also, but either way, it doesn't really matter, so I never press it. The one thief was said to be with Jesus in paradise that very day, there were Saints who arose when Jesus died etc. etc. But the facts are the DEAD IN CHRIST RISE FIRST....Then we that are Alive....

The Dead in Christ arise first THEN WE MEET THEN IN THE AIR. You have to study this..... BELOW:
THE JEWISH WEDDING PATTERN (The Jewish Wedding Pattern)

This holds the Key to understanding the Rapture.......

 

[dfw69]

Who said Israel will "find" a Messiah ? No where in the bible does it say Israel accepts this "Anti-Christ" as their Messiah. I know that gets repeated by many men, so it gets ingrained in the culture, but is is not factual.

The Peace/Security deal they make is akin to what small European countries now have with the USA under the auspices of NATO, and a "COVENANT" only means an agreement, the church is raptured, that is what Falling Away means, departure. Their is a sort of departure of the faith, but that is not what this passage refers to........it is referring to the "Gathering together of the Lord" or the Church gathering unto Jesus. So the Departure is clearly about the Church. Someone show me anywhere in this passage where the FAITH is even mentioned, it isn't there.

Those leaving the Faith etc. in other passages are referring, imho, to what is happening now. People in churches accepting the practice of homosexuality as "Normal" some even marrying Sodomites. Many church members advocating abortion etc. etc.

Israel never accepts the Anti-Christ as their Messiah. They accept Jesus just before the Abomination of Desolation or Day of the Lord, Malachi 4:4-6 says so along with Zechariah chapters 12 and 13.

Jesus said if "another comes in his own name" the Jews will receive him...John 5:43... Jesus came to offer the kingdom of heaven to the Jews and they did not accept him as the messiah. To this day they still await another...

Jesus prophecied that another would come "in his own name" and not sent from the father that the Jews will accept...

The Jews have never accepted a messiah or claim the messiah has come because no son of David has yet fulfilled messianic prophecies...

In order for the Jews to receive "another who comes in his own name", this man must fulfill messianic prophecies which they believe the messiah must fulfill to be genuine....

When one day a man comes and seems to fulfill messianic prophecies and the Jews receive his new covenant and hail him as the messiah then he will fulfill Jesus prophecy as the one who "comes in his own name" and not sent from the "fathers name" as Jesus was sent who they reject

This prophecy of Jesus has yet to be fulfilled...

Other scriptures reveals many false messiahs yet to come after he who "comes in his own name" that the Jews accept as the true messiah ...Matthew 24:24 reveals more than one false messiah ... This scripture implies that when this messiah and king of Israel reigns and eventually dies, his sons will reign after him as newly anointed messiah and king of Israel

Each false messiah to come during this false messianic age and anointed to rule will be anti-messiah

It is not known how long this false messianic era will last but it will last until the final anti-messiah comes..

The final anti-messiah will sit in the throne room of the temple and claim to be the God of Israel....he will end the daily sacrifices and set up a golem of himself in the temple. This is known as the abomination of desolation

The great tribulation will then begin and Israel must flee to Petra for safety

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

I believe in the pretrib rapture which may take place in 2030 which is the 40th jubilee from the start of Jesus ministry in which the dead in Christ will rise on the same day Jesus arose (firstfruits)

The dead in Christ who have risen will walk the earth for 40 days as Jesus did after his resurrection to invite all willing to come to the fathers house in heaven...

Then on the 40th day, Jesus will appear in the clouds and we will be changed in a blink of an eye to put on a heavenly body and so shall we ever be with the lord

Jesus death, resurrection and ascension was a foreshadowing of the church (the body of Christ)

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

I also believe in the falling away from the faith yet to take place in which the rise of the final antichrist will be punishment for the falling away from the faith

Personally I believe Paul was reminding the Thessalonians of a teaching he taught them about a departure of the faith and rise of the man of sin because of the departure which will result in the day of the lord which they feared was taking place or taken place

 

[iamlamad]

Since the only other use of the word “apostasia” in the New Testament is in Acts 21:21 and it is translated forsake and in context is a “departure “ from a belief, There is no textual or contextual reason in 2 Thessalonians to translate “apostasia “ departure from the planet.

Strongs 646 apostasia

Short Definition: defection, apostasy

Definition: defection, apostasy, revolt.

There are only a pitiful few translations that use the word “departure” and none of them say or imply departure from what and definitely do not say departure from the planet. If it is a valid argument to say 2 Thessalonians does not say falling away from what then it is equally a valid argument to say departure from what.

The only way to arrive at the correct conclusion logically is to use the accepted definition of the Greek word and the other instance where the same word is used as reference.





Now since Paul unequivocally states “some will depart from the faith“ in 1 Timothy 4:1 with no room for argument on what he meant it is equally logical since he use the word from the Greek which is defined as defection, revolt or apostasy and the same word was used in Acts as “forsake” from a belief to argue he meant departure from the planet in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is without scriptural backing or logic.


The argument “how would anyone know when enough had fallen away to know it was what Paul was talking about” is irrelevant because nothing in the text is tied to how many would fall away. These events will happen whether or not we know how many will fall away. The fact is Paul stated some will depart from the faith in 1 Timothy 4:1 and we do not need to know how many some is or how many will fall away.


The reason why some in the pre-trib camp try so hard to alter this text from its clear meaning should be obvious to all. If this text is allowed to stand on its own and left to say what it clearly says it is a complete refutation of the pre-trib doctrine.

When the claim that ”falling away must be equated to the one restraining being "taken out of the way" is made, on what is that based contextually? The only way to make that leap is to assume the Church has departed in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and also assume the Church with the Holy Spirit within is the restrainer. Neither of those assumptions is borne out in the text.

In fact since the falling away and the revealing of the man of sin are clearly stated to happen before the “gathering” it makes no sense to define falling away as the “gathering” or “departure” from the planet.

At the very least this whole “apostasia” equals the pre-trib rapture argument is very weak, and relies on much maneuvering and manipulation of word definitions to achieve the desired result. Even some pretribber do not go this route, but we are no told how many some is in this case either.

As always CONTEXT is king. "Departure from what?"

What is the THEME of the passage? The gathering. In first Thes. we know the "gathering" will be a departure from this world. John 14 tells us the very same thing: our destination will be to the homes, mansions, abodes that Jesus went to heaven to prepare us for.

You are still ignoring the obvious: verses 6-8 is explaining verse 3 in more detail. Of course you don't wish to admit this for then it will be very obvious that in verse 3 it is "apostasia" that allows the man of sin to be revealed; in verse 6 it is "what "withholdeth" or is restraining or holding back, "so that he will be revealed in his time, and it verses 7 & 8 it is the one "taken out of the way" "and then the lawless one will be revealed."

If you know anything about the rules of math, you should recognize that "Apostasia," and "Restraining" and ""taken out of the way" are all equivalent in meaning for in each case the result is the same: the man of sin revealed.

Paul is setting up an argument so that anyone would be able to KNOW when they are IN the Day of the Lord. Therefore, the significant apostasia MUST be easily recognized or Paul's argument is weak. People would be wondering: has enough fallen away so that the man of sin will be revealed? Indeed, they would have to wait for revealing, and then they would know that enough had fallen away.

On the other hand, if Paul was talking about the departure of the church, now that would be a very significant event that ALL WOULD recognize, and know. And, after all, that is the THEME of the passage.