What is your end times view on the rapture?

[Guide To The Bible]

Oh Brother! You are going to turn into a copy and paste expert as another on this forum? I guess you really did not want an honest answer to your question.

And you don't want an honest reality.

My friend, were you alive in the first, second, third, forth, etc centuries to know what was preached then about the rapture? No, you weren't and neither was anyone else that is alive today, save Jesus Christ.

Neither where you alive then. What a pointless statement!

Perhaps these theories were not popular back then, and these men made their theories more popular.....i could agree with that.

Perhaps this, perhaps that, anything is possible with 'perhaps' at the front of a sentence.

However, God was pretrib, and then Paul became pretrib, and there have been believers since then that have been pretrib in their belief.

You need to provide scripture to prove that bizarre statement.

Why did the Scofield Reverence bible "made a lot of money?" It was because people bought them....millions of them. WHY did so many people buy this bible? Because the references were well written. People WANTED a bible with references.

No, he was tickling their itchy ears with promises of an easy way out. Broad is the road to destruction.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Mar 9:11　 And they asked Him, saying, "Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"　
Mar 9:12　 Then He answered and told them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and restores all things. And how is it written concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt?　
Mar 9:13　 But I say to you that Elijah has also come, and they did to him whatever they wished, as it is written of him."
　

Jesus said John the Baptist was a fulfillment of the verse from Malachi.

.

That's Mark, look what Matthew says:

Matthew 17:11Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Malichi4: 5“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.

The day of the Lord has yet to happen but very soon will. Elijah is alive today and Christians are currently looking for his public ministry. The problem Elijah has today is the same as John the Baptist had that Jesus pointed out and that is 'they did not recognise him'. In other words Elijah today is a Christian with an end times ministry but he won't be recognised as Elijah until it's too late.

 

[Postvieww]

[quote-Postvieww]
We don’t know how many some are in 1 Timothy 4:1 nor do we need to know, just as we don’t know how may are involved in the falling away, nor do we need to know. That number is not relevant since when the man of sin is revealed everyone will know it and the number that fell away is irrelevant at that point. You are attempting to come up with some kind of argument to detract from what the passage actually says because you are desperate to eliminate the clear meaning of this passage from the discussion on this topic.

[/QUOTE]

Lamad said:

It seems we must back up to an even more basic question.

Do you agree that Paul's basic argument in this passage is to explain how people can know they are IN the Day (it has already stated and they are in it)?

I disagree it has been stated “they are in it”. Verse 2 says they may have received a forged letter saying the “day of Christ” has already come. Paul was simply saying that day has not yet come, Christ has not yet come and you have not missed the gathering. There will be a a falling away and the man of sin will be revealed first before that happens.


Subtle the way you go for a point but I’ll play along.


The people don’t need to know they are “in it”. I object to that phrase. You are trying to establish the “day of the Lord” is some extended time period such as a 7 year tribulation. When actually in the “CONTEXT” of 2 Thessalonians 2 the day of Christ which is the same as the day of the Lord which is one day , the day of the coming of our Lord which is the same day as our gathering.


Words mean things and the way you are trying to word this is not agreeable with the text. If we can not establish what the day of the Lord is we will continue to go around this same old bush.


In the New Testament we have four phrases “1. Day of the Lord 2.Day of Christ 3.Day of the Lord Jesus Christ and 4.Day of the Lord Jesus.


I contend these are one in the same day, it is a day, the day the Lord returns, the day of our gathering.


I am sure you disagree so you need to prove to us they are not 4 different days and show how scripturally and textually you arrive at your conclusion. I believe you are going to have a hard time proving the day of the Lord as used in the New Testament is a 7 year period. I insist we stay with the New Testament use of the phrase because that is the CONTEXT around which or discussion is focused.


I repeat, when the man of sin is revealed everyone who knows the scripture will know the time of our Lords coming and our gathering is near and 1. Day of the Lord 2.Day of Christ 3.Day of the Lord Jesus Christ and 4.Day of the Lord Jesus, will soon happen. That is all we need to know from this passage.

 

[Goatee]

Preterists have the correct view on end times.

/thread

 

[Postvieww]

OVERWHELMINGLY ? Only if you want to start biblical history with the KJV, I don't the Latin Vulgate for 1000 years had departure, the First Seven English translations had DEPARTURE. The Subject is the Rapture or GATHERING TOGETHER UNTO THE LORD......So why do we get all nonsensical and say its about FAITH ? Traditions of men.

Ahhhhhhhh it never mentions FAITH but we are going to FORCE IT anyway because that's what the KJV implied because of course King James wanted to take a POT SHOT at the Papacy, and we know how much they loved (joke...really hated) each other back in the day.

The basis of my statement was from every English translation listed on the Bible Gateway site and that is a lot of them. It is obvious I have not checked every translation ever published but I did check all of those mentioned here and it is overwhelming.

Even when considering the ones that do use departure how many point out a departure to heaven, or is that just assumed?

 

[Postvieww]

This is not "fuzzy math," it is just understanding basic English sentence structure. For example, if A equals B and B equals C then A MUST equal C. I hope you learned this back in the 6th grade or so. Paul does something very similar in our passage of scripture.

So HOW does this relate? I have showed it at least three times now, and it seems you have missed it all three times. But I will try again.

Paul made a statement of truth three different times in this passage, but used different words. Each time has an A part and a B part. In the A part something prevents the man of sin from being revealed, or something allows him to be revealed, and in the B part he is or will be revealed at the right time.

In verse three Paul tells us that something must happen and then the man of sin is revealed. That something is the apostasia.

Then in verse 6 Paul repeats the same pattern: NOW we know what is doing the restraining (Paul and I know but you still don't) so that the man of sin will be revealed at the right time.

In verse 7 (the A part) the restrainer is and will continue to restrain until he is taken out of the way....
In verse 8 (the B part) the wicked man of sin will be revealed.

In case you cannot recognize this, they are parallels. The A part in verse 7 equates to the A part in verse 6 and equates to the A part in verse 3.

The B part in verse 8 equates to the B part in verse 6 and to the B part in verse 3.

Therefore the "apostasia" in verse 3 must be none other than the one restraining. It can be nothing else.

You will find it very (extremely) difficult to disagree with Paul that in verse 3B the man of sin IS REVEALED (in Paul's argument - not in reality). We know that because Paul tells us HOW he is revealed: that he will sit in the temple and declare he is god. When he does this he is revealed. If you will notice, verse 4 is the same sentence as in verse 3: Paul ends this sentence in verse 4.

Notice in verse 7, the restrainer is restraining until he is taken out of the way, and THEN the man of sin is revealed (verse 8)

In verse 6, We KNOW (you should know by now) who is restraining - preventing the man of sin from being revealed - until the right time. What then? At the right time he WILL BE revealed.

Finally in verse three, the apostasia takes place, and the man of sin IS REVEALED.

Parallels. Simple math but in English (and before that in Greek).

Therefore by "apostasia" Paul's meaning absolutely must be the restrainer "taken out of the way."

Lamad said:

In verse three Paul tells us that something must happen and then the man of sin is revealed. That something is the apostasia.

Wrong! Paul doesn’t say that you have assumed that to be the case.


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;

This doesn’t say the falling away causes the man of sin to be revealed it simply states the two signs that will happen before our gathering from verse 1. Those two signs are the falling away and the man of sin being revealed both of these will happen first before the gathering.

So HOW does this relate? I have showed it at least three times now, and it seems you have missed it all three times. But I will try again.

Wrong! I have not missed it 3 times, I fully understand what you are saying I just believe you have been wrong 3 times.


There is no parallel in the falling away and the restrainer. That is only the misguided theory you have to “REARANGE” the text so it will not refute the pre-trib doctrine.

Therefore by "apostasia" Paul's meaning absolutely must be the restrainer "taken out of the way."

Wrong! You believe it must or your theory falls in the dust.


If you answer no other point from this post answer this one.


How is it you can feel justified in rearranging this passage the way you do and preach so forcefully about rearranging the order of Revelation?

Just stop and look at what you have to do to achieve your desired result with 2 Thessalonians. You have to force a definition not even accepted by some pre-tribbers for “falling away” then you try to say the falling away is the same as the restrainer which makes no sense at all. I’ve given multiple reasons why that can’t be the case and you ignore them all. Even your own favorite translation (AMP) points out the meaning of “falling away” and you ignore that in favor of the part you think goes along with this madness.

I get it, this is a problem text for you. Just try to use some common sense when trying to make this text fit your agenda.

 

[BABerean2]

That's Mark, look what Matthew says:

Matthew 17:11Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Malichi4: 5“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.

The day of the Lord has yet to happen but very soon will. Elijah is alive today and Christians are currently looking for his public ministry. The problem Elijah has today is the same as John the Baptist had that Jesus pointed out and that is 'they did not recognise him'. In other words Elijah today is a Christian with an end times ministry but he won't be recognised as Elijah until it's too late.

I think you are on the right track here, but if you want to see that "Elijah", then go and look in the mirror, based on Revelation 1:20, and Romans 11, and Revelation 11:4.

The candlesticks are the churches.

The Two Olive Trees are found in Romans chapter 11.
They are those branches of the cultivated tree, grafted together with the branches of the wild tree. It is one tree made up of two trees.

These are the two witnesses.

 

[Postvieww]

I think you are on the right track here, but if you want to see that "Elijah", then go and look in the mirror, based on Revelation 1:20, and Romans 11, and Revelation 11:4.

The candlesticks are the churches.

The Two Olive Trees are found in Romans chapter 11.
They are those branches of the cultivated tree, grafted together with the branches of the wild tree. It is one tree made up of two trees.

These are the two witnesses.

Some time ago I heard Carl Gallups point this out and I put it on a shelf. It may be time to bring it down and dust off that shelf; this makes a lot of sense. I am sure you realize pretib will fight this tooth and nail. Do you see this as just one more evidence the resurrection is described in Revelation 11?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I think you are on the right track here, but if you want to see that "Elijah", then go and look in the mirror, based on Revelation 1:20, and Romans 11, and Revelation 11:4.

The candlesticks are the churches.

The Two Olive Trees are found in Romans chapter 11.
They are those branches of the cultivated tree, grafted together with the branches of the wild tree. It is one tree made up of two trees.

These are the two witnesses.

Of course I've heard that but it leaves out all the verses that show that the Two Witnesses are two people:

Revelation 11 8Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

Malichi says it's the prophet Elijah

Malichi4: 5“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.

Jesus says it is Elijah.

Matthew 17:11Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.

Now if you think Jesus and Malichi meant 'The Church and the Jews' That makes no sense at all and means that you think Jesus and Malichi were mistaken.

 

[Goatee]

People look at Revelations, and much of scripture and interpret it too literally. Preterism is the way to look at the end of times. It makes massive sense!!

 

[Guide To The Bible]

People look at Revelations, and much of scripture and interpret it too literally. Preterism is the way to look at the end of times. It makes massive sense!!

I have the opposite view based on scripture and the evidence of the world we live in today.

 

[Goatee]

I have the opposite view based on scripture and the evidence of the world we live in today.

Well, you ought to look into the preterism view as the scripture ties in superbly and to me, very accurately! I had never heard of preterism before and i had always had doubts about taking all scripture 'literally'. I am sure God guided me to preterism. I can think of no other answer as i have had doubts for years about the way people interpret Revelations etc.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Well, you ought to look into the preterism view as the scripture ties in superbly and to me, very accurately! I had never heard of preterism before and i had always had doubts about taking all scripture 'literally'. I am sure God guided me to preterism. I can think of no other answer as i have had doubts for years about the way people interpret Revelations etc.

It comes straight from the Devil.

 

[iamlamad]

It comes straight from the Devil.

Well said!

 

[iamlamad]

In verse three Paul tells us that something must happen and then the man of sin is revealed. That something is the apostasia.

Postview said: Wrong! Paul doesn’t say that you have assumed that to be the case.

OK, so I left out the word first.

In verse three Paul tells us that something must happen FIRST and then the man of sin is revealed. That something is the apostasia.

New American Standard Bible
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,

Can we agree now?

Make no mistake, the apostasia MUST COME FIRST. Then, AFTER the apostasia, the man of sin is revealed.

Agree or not?

Is that a cause and effect relationship? Most certainly it is by verses 6-8. You wish for verse 3 to stand alone, but it MUST BE left in its context.

Now let's write it again and include some of the context:

Lamad's enhanced version:
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the Day] will not come unless the apostasy [the restrainer taken out of the way] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Paul's argument is to show how anyone can really KNOW they are in "the day."

He could have just said, "no, the gathering has not happened yet, and you have not missed it." The Holy Spirit chose not to say this.

 

[Goatee]

It comes straight from the Devil.

Your interpretation could come from that place!

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Your interpretation could come from that place!

The Devil is a individual not a place and is very cunning.

 

[Postvieww]

Lamad said:

In verse three Paul tells us that something must happen and then the man of sin is revealed. That something is the apostasia.

Postview said: Wrong! Paul doesn’t say that you have assumed that to be the case.

OK, so I left out the word first.

In verse three Paul tells us that something must happen FIRST and then the man of sin is revealed. That something is the apostasia.

New American Standard Bible
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,

Can we agree now?

Make no mistake, the apostasia MUST COME FIRST. Then, AFTER the apostasia, the man of sin is revealed.

Agree or not?

Is that a cause and effect relationship? Most certainly it is by verses 6-8. You wish for verse 3 to stand alone, but it MUST BE left in its context.

Now let's write it again and include some of the context:

Lamad's enhanced version:
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the Day] will not come unless the apostasy [the restrainer taken out of the way] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Paul's argument is to show how anyone can really KNOW they are in "the day."

He could have just said, "no, the gathering has not happened yet, and you have not missed it." The Holy Spirit chose not to say this.

Lamad said:

OK, so I left out the word first.

In verse three Paul tells us that something must happen FIRST and then the man of sin is revealed. That something is the apostasia.

New American Standard Bible

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,

“It” in this sentence cannot refer to the apostasy, “it” refers to something previous like maybe verse 1 & 2. I am not an English professor but it appears you are not either. You should concern yourself with the “it will not come” portion of the verse.


Lamads enhanced version:

New American Standard Bible

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (apostasy, gathering) will not come unless the apostasy (gathering) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,



Can we agree now?

Why do I feel like I am being led into a maze of confusion with no way out?


I believe the more accurate way of rendering this would be to say that both the apostasy and the man of sin being revealed will come first . First referring back to the coming and gathering which will happen after first the apostasy and man of sin is revealed. Did I make that clear so no we cannot agree yet.

Make no mistake, the apostasia MUST COME FIRST. Then, AFTER the apostasia, the man of sin is revealed.

Agree or not?

No, not much agreement here , that is how you choose to see it, the apostasia could start first and continue during and after the man of sin is revealed. We are simply not given those details. I assure you both the apostasia and the man of sin will be revealed FIRST before the coming of the Lord in which He will gather. Not even gonna ask if you agree.

Is that a cause and effect relationship?

No we disagree on that point.

Most certainly it is by verses 6-8. You wish for verse 3 to stand alone,

It does stand alone.

but it MUST BE left in its context.

The context of 3 belongs with verse 1 &2 because those 2 things will happen first before the coming and gathering. This is a good place for you to answer one of those 9 questions.


How do you make a feminine noun “apostasia” in verse 3 the same as a he in verse 7?

Now let's write it again and include some of the context:

Lamad's enhanced version:

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the Day] will not come unless the apostasy [the restrainer taken out of the way] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Will you let me get away with rewriting scripture like that?

Paul's argument is to show how anyone can really KNOW they are in "the day."

Answer post #283 on “that day”

He could have just said, "no, the gathering has not happened yet, and you have not missed it." The Holy Spirit chose not to say this.

He could have said that which restrains is the church if that were the case but the Holy Spirit chose not to say that either

 

[Goatee]

The Devil is a individual not a place and is very cunning.

I used the word 'place' instead of 'it' instead of 'evil' instead of the 'devil'

 

[iamlamad]

Postview wrote:

This doesn’t say the falling away causes the man of sin to be revealed it simply states the two signs that will happen before our gathering from verse 1. Those two signs are the falling away and the man of sin being revealed both of these will happen first before the gathering.

Wrong! Paul doesn’t say that: you have assumed that to be the case. And by the way, Paul only says the apostasia must come first - not before "the day" but before the revealing. And by the time the revealing comes, THE DAY has already come and they are IN IT.

Paul tells us that one thing will happen FIRST, then the sign: the man of sin revealed.

New American Standard Bible
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,

What is "the man of sin revealed" the sign of - the rapture as you said?

NO! You ASSUME rapture. What Paul wrote is that "the man of sin revealed" is the sign of "THE DAY." You assume "the day" equals "the rapture." I don't assume that.

2 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him [almost a quote from his first letter], 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. [Obviously they thought "THE DAY" had come. Paul's purpose in this passage is to show them "THE DAY" had not come]

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

Now, if you equate THE DAY with the rapture, we could write it this way:

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

I understand why you believe as you do - it is because you equate "the day" with "the rapture." I get it.

Further, I can see how you equate "the Day of Christ" with the rapture. However, some texts use "day of Christ" and others "the day of the Lord."

Will "the day of Christ" fit the context better than "The day of the Lord?"

Most people believe the revealing will be when the man of sin says he is god. I think Paul hints strongly of this in our passage of scripture. Using Daniel 9, most people think this event will happen in the middle of the 70th week.

The big question is, where does "the day of the Lord" start in Revelation? Paul's argument as I see it is that he shows them how they can KNOW when the Day has started and they are in it. He does that by showing the man of sin revealed as the sign that the day of the Lord started, and they are in it. (With this argument they can know for sure that the day has NOT come and then are not in it, for they have not seen the man of sin revealed.)

With this in mind, the "day of the Lord" must start before Rev. 11 where the abomination [revealing?] takes place. How amazing then, to see that John starts "the day of the Lord (His wrath) at the 6th seal. This certainly comes (in the book) before chapter 11. (I guess in your mind it comes at the end - no matter where John wrote it - so we have yet another disagreement.)

I find then, that if I use "Day of the Lord" in verse 2, it fits nicely with Revelation.

3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [The Day of Christ] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Will this fit the context? It will certainly fit them being upset. If THEY acquainted the rapture with the Day of Christ, then they again thought they had been left behind. The Day of Christ came - then were IN IT - and yet they were still on earth.

Will Paul's argument still work? If they see the man of sin revealed, will they KNOW the day of Christ has started and they are IN IT? There is no "day of Christ" in Revelation, so we get no help there. You would put in in Rev. 19 at Jesus coming on the white horse, and I would put in between the 5th and 6th seals.

You see, what this comes down to is how we see many OTHER verses. I am trying hard to see this your way. But it doing that, it comes to how you see other verses! We are still at a stalemate.

I see Revelation as very Chronological. You don't.
I see the Day of the Lord as the Day of judgment and starting with judgment. You see it as starting with His coming and the rapture.

Again, stalemate.