50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

[FreeGrace2]

The resurrection in Rev.20:4-6 is only one phase of the first resurrection, as there are stages to it. Many people err on this because they thing that the word "first" means "only."

Have you considered 1 Cor 15:23?

But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

This was not written to suggest stages. Christ is first to be resurrected, and then "those who belong to Him".

If that isn't interesting to you, consider John 5:29.

"and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."

Both of these verses DO show that there are just 2 resurrections. One for the unsaved and one for the saved.

Every resurrection which takes place prior to the one at the end of the thousand years belongs to the first resurrection, as listed below:

* Jesus the first fruits of the first resurrection - 1 Corinthians 15:23

* The church at His appearing - 1 Corinthians 15:23 (Then those at His appearing)

I put all believers when Christ returns, per 2 Thess 2:1.

* The Male Child/144,000 (changed immortal and glorified and caught up)

Please quote a verse for these 144,000.

* The two witnesses - Revelation 11:11

Actually, while they rise and go up to heaven, there is no evidence that their receive resurrection bodies. They will get theirs when everyone else does, when Christ returns.

* The Great Tribulation saints - Revelation 20:4-6

This is when ALL believers, from Adam on, will be resurrected/raptured.

I have no problem explaining v.8 at all. Here's the scripture:

"When the thousand years are complete, Satan will be released from his prison, and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to assemble them for battle. Their number is like the sand of the seashore."

You would have a bigger problem explaining how Satan would be able to deceive those who are in their immortal and glorified bodies during the millennial kingdom. [/QUOTE]
I would never do that. Satan deceives unbelievers, again.

Those great tribulation saints who make it alive through the entire tribulation period, will enter into the millennial kingdom in their mortal bodies and will repopulate the earth.

All Tribulation saints will come with Jesus and receive their resurrection bodies, just like all the dead saints since Adam.

It is a great number of their offspring whom Satan will deceive after He is released from the abyss.

Remember the math. Depending on how you understand Rev 6:8, whether "a fourth of the earth" means population or geography, plus 9:15 that plainly says that one third of mankind will be killed, this would equal about one half of ALL the earth's population.

So, that means about 3.5 BILLION people (unsaved) would still be alive after Jesus wins the battle of Armageddon. They are the ones who enter the Millennium, and they and their offspring will resent the Lord's "rule with an iron scepter" because He will rule by the "spirit of the Law" rather than the "letter of the Law", per Matt 5. People will be judged based on their INTENTIONS, not their actions.

You have a more healthy attitude than many posters = your not contending against me with the real truth.

Thank you.

Neither the inhabitants marching across the breadth of the earth, nor how the rebellion ends, has any bearing on whether they are mortal or immortal.

I know the Bible says they are residents of earth, un-resurrected. So they can't have immortal bodies yet.

Here's a hint: Satan will not be able to deceive those who are already in their immortal and glorified bodies.

My view is that they will be reigning with Christ, just as Rev 20:4 says about the trib martyrs.

I know from 2 Tim 2:12 and Rom 8:17b that only the enduring faithful believers will "reign with Christ", and that includes the trib martyrs. As for all the rest of the believers, many of whom didn't live faithful or enduring lives, like King Saul and many many more, they will STILL BE IN the kingdom, but not in positions of rulership. The Bible doesn't specify but they likely will be in more servitude positions of the kingdom.

If you were persuaded by scripture, you would not be believing in the things that you have been posting.

I am ABSOLUTELY persuaded by Scripture. That's the ONLY REASON I believe what I believe.

Remember, I have a healthy attitude about all this. I wa brought up believing in a pretrib rapture, but when I was finally hit between the eyes by Acts 17:11 and how the Bereans studied, I started to dig in and really study; not jus take someone's word for anything.

If what people claim cannot be supported by clear and plain language of Scripture, I won't believe it.

 

[ewq1938]

In the context of the reception of God's wrath, yes, I'd prefer to be forgiven.

Not me. I want my sins to be forgiven/erased....but I don't want to be forgiven/erased.

 

[OldSage]

Postrib is plainly taught in 2 Thes 2. Paul says that Christ can't come for the Church until the Antichrist is revealed, and destroyed. That is clear. And it originated, in its language, from Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes from the clouds to destroy Antichrist. And this language is used consistently by all of the NT authors who dealt with it. It is the very language used in the book of Revelation.

Hi RK, with a holy fist bump,
In my mind there is some doubt as to what Daniel means by "Qadosh Am".
The Holy People are Israel, so one has to decide if here is meant the Church or physical Israel. Given that Daniel 2&7 are about physical Israel, I would tend towards the latter.
Obviously a little horn who viciously persecutes Israel is at total odds with a False Messiah in a Temple. I tend to think this Thessalonian AC idea is bogus actually.
More credible to me is an entity that persecutes physical Israel, the Jews.

 

[Absolutely]

The problem with your position is that in the same place Paul says that the Antichrist will be revealed first Paul also says that Antichrist will be defeated first. In other words, both things happen--both the revelation of Antichrist and his destruction.

And this doctrine came to Paul by way of Dan 7, where the Son of Man is portrayed as coming only after the revelation and destruction of Antichrist. The Kingdom of Christ *follows* the destruction of Antichrist.

I did not make this up. I'm reading it in black and white, brother. Instead of being loyal to your traditional eschatology and Pretrib friends, why do you place your loyalty in the Scriptures?

2 Thes 2.3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Clearly, Paul is here talking about the *destruction of Antichrist,* and not just about his revelation!

as soon as i read your verse i knew something was off.


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;


ths tEs G3588 t_ Gen Sg f OF-THE amartias hamartias G266 n_ Gen Sg f UN-MARKing sin o ho G3588 t_ Nom Sg m THE uios huios G5207 n_ Nom Sg m SON ths tEs G3588 t_ Gen Sg f OF-THE apwleias apOleias G684 n_ Gen Sg f destruction

".....the man doomed to destruction.".....niv bad rendering

NIV is not a real bible.

the bad thing is you made that bad rendering a pivot point of doctrine....very bad mistake sir

 

[Absolutely]

The problem with your position is that in the same place Paul says that the Antichrist will be revealed first Paul also says that Antichrist will be defeated first. In other words, both things happen--both the revelation of Antichrist and his destruction.

And this doctrine came to Paul by way of Dan 7, where the Son of Man is portrayed as coming only after the revelation and destruction of Antichrist. The Kingdom of Christ *follows* the destruction of Antichrist.

I did not make this up. I'm reading it in black and white, brother. Instead of being loyal to your traditional eschatology and Pretrib friends, why do you place your loyalty in the Scriptures?

2 Thes 2.3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Clearly, Paul is here talking about the *destruction of Antichrist,* and not just about his revelation!

You should testfit before you take a position.

that niv will embarrass you

 

[Ahwatukee]

as soon as i read your verse i knew something was off.


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;


ths tEs G3588 t_ Gen Sg f OF-THE amartias hamartias G266 n_ Gen Sg f UN-MARKing sin o ho G3588 t_ Nom Sg m THE uios huios G5207 n_ Nom Sg m SON ths tEs G3588 t_ Gen Sg f OF-THE apwleias apOleias G684 n_ Gen Sg f destruction

".....the man doomed to destruction.".....niv bad rendering

NIV is not a real bible.

the bad thing is you made that bad rendering a pivot point of doctrine....very bad mistake sir

Hello absolutely,

I disagree, for I have an NIV, as well as a KJV. However, I look at and compare all translations in parallel to get a better understanding of what is being said, including the Interlinear.

The son of destruction simply means "man doomed to destruction." In fact Paul mentions the antichrist's destruction in v.8

"then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming."

The above is why he is called the man of perdition/destruction.

In further support of this, the title "son of destruction" was used one other place referring to Judas Iscariot when Jesus was praying for His disciples and said:

"While I was with them, I protected and preserved them by Your name, the name You gave Me. Not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."

The above was of course referring to Judas as unredeemable.

 

[Absolutely]

Jesus said when He returns one will be taken and another will be left. He compares His return to the days of Noah. In Matthew 13, tares are gathered first then the wheat.

When "one is taken and another left" occurs it might be more like witnessing an precedent punishment on wickedness. Something like watching billions of people struck down where they stand. Of course, this cannot happen pre-trib for numerous reasons.

nope...that is horendous made up baloney
2 places the wheat is gathered first.

mat 3
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


mat 25
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

if you count the unprofitable servant ,it makes 3 examples of righteous dealt with FIRST..THEN THE WICKED.

ok so we have ,so far, 3 witnesses against you unbiblical post.

but there is much more
Did you know Jesus knew folks would reframe and change the very meaning and timing in the parable of the tares????
so he said this;


"....and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Sorry postribs....very sorry you took a great teaching by Jesus and reframed it.
You changed Jesus Christs correct dynamic of "after the mil. tares burned" to a postrib pre mil false error of "tares removed pre mil and not burned in the lof"
postribs are unaware the "one taken/left' has zero to do with the tares. THANK YOU JESUS!!!!

For that, your punishment is to buy a bible. study it and test fit eschatology.
then post your pretrib rapture new found doctrine and position.
that is your punishment for changing the word of God.

 

[Absolutely]

Hello absolutely,

I disagree, for I have an NIV, as well as a KJV. However, I look at and compare all translations in parallel to get a better understanding of what is being said, including the Interlinear.

The son of destruction simply means "man doomed to destruction." In fact Paul mentions the antichrist's destruction in v.8

"then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming."

The above is why he is called the man of perdition/destruction.

In further support of this, the title "son of destruction" was used one other place referring to Judas Iscariot when Jesus was praying for His disciples and said:

"While I was with them, I protected and preserved them by Your name, the name You gave Me. Not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."

The above was of course referring to Judas as unredeemable.

The son of destruction simply means "man doomed to destruction."

Show me.
I think you and the niv are wrong.

You stated without basis "son of" is the exact same thing as "man doomed to"

i was seeing that the false assumption that "revealed" is to a postrib adherent the same exact thing as "in power at the end of his reign"

that poster was stating that WITHOUT A DOUBT the ac is revealed and destroyed in one motion....and got that notion from his niv.

pure baloney

 

[Absolutely]

Hello absolutely,

I disagree, for I have an NIV, as well as a KJV. However, I look at and compare all translations in parallel to get a better understanding of what is being said, including the Interlinear.

The son of destruction simply means "man doomed to destruction." In fact Paul mentions the antichrist's destruction in v.8

"then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming."

The above is why he is called the man of perdition/destruction.

In further support of this, the title "son of destruction" was used one other place referring to Judas Iscariot when Jesus was praying for His disciples and said:

"While I was with them, I protected and preserved them by Your name, the name You gave Me. Not one of them has been lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."

The above was of course referring to Judas as unredeemable.

If youkeep reading my position is even FURTHER shown correct.

2 THES 2
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed,

the holy Spirit ,or church, (whichever you prefer) removed ,the ac revealed. THAT WOULD BE AT THE START OF THE GT.....THE WHITE HORSE RIDER

you think it is not in that order?

 

[Runningman]

nope...that is horendous made up baloney
2 places the wheat is gathered first.

mat 3
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


mat 25
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

if you count the unprofitable servant ,it makes 3 examples of righteous dealt with FIRST..THEN THE WICKED.

ok so we have ,so far, 3 witnesses against you unbiblical post.

but there is much more
Did you know Jesus knew folks would reframe and change the very meaning and timing in the parable of the tares????
so he said this;


"....and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Sorry postribs....very sorry you took a great teaching by Jesus and reframed it.
You changed Jesus Christs correct dynamic of "after the mil. tares burned" to a postrib pre mil false error of "tares removed pre mil and not burned in the lof"
postribs are unaware the "one taken/left' has zero to do with the tares. THANK YOU JESUS!!!!

For that, your punishment is to buy a bible. study it and test fit eschatology.
then post your pretrib rapture new found doctrine and position.
that is your punishment for changing the word of God.

I was taking you seriously until you told me what your punishment is for me. You're not wrong... being forced to adopt a pre-trib rapture belief would be a punishment more than I could bare.

 

[Runningman]

nope...that is horendous made up baloney
2 places the wheat is gathered first.

mat 3
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


mat 25
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

if you count the unprofitable servant ,it makes 3 examples of righteous dealt with FIRST..THEN THE WICKED.

ok so we have ,so far, 3 witnesses against you unbiblical post.

but there is much more
Did you know Jesus knew folks would reframe and change the very meaning and timing in the parable of the tares????
so he said this;


"....and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Sorry postribs....very sorry you took a great teaching by Jesus and reframed it.
You changed Jesus Christs correct dynamic of "after the mil. tares burned" to a postrib pre mil false error of "tares removed pre mil and not burned in the lof"
postribs are unaware the "one taken/left' has zero to do with the tares. THANK YOU JESUS!!!!

For that, your punishment is to buy a bible. study it and test fit eschatology.
then post your pretrib rapture new found doctrine and position.
that is your punishment for changing the word of God.

I didn't change the word of God. I just said it does not occur pre-trib and I'm right on that point.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Show me.
I think you and the niv are wrong.

You stated without basis "son of" is the exact same thing as "man doomed to"

i was seeing that the false assumption that "revealed" is to a postrib adherent the same exact thing as "in power at the end of his reign"

that poster was stating that WITHOUT A DOUBT the ac is revealed and destroyed in one motion....and got that notion from his niv.

pure baloney

The NIV is just another translation. As I said, I compare all of the major translations side by side to get a better understanding of what is being said. When you camp out on one translation, you are restricting yourself. I'd rather read the Interlinear than any translation, because it give us the actual wording.

I provided the basis for you regarding Judas who was also referred to as "the son of perdition" meaning that he was condemned, i.e. unredeemable. The man of lawlessness is also referred to as 'the son of destruction" and is going to be destroyed when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age. Both him and the false prophet will be cast alive into the lake of fire, which is what is being referred to as "the son of destruction' or "the man doomed to destruction.

You guys make a lot of ado about these translations for nothing. You should use them to your advantage for a better understanding of scripture, instead of throwing them out unusable.

The following is from GotQuestions.com which I agree with:

====================================================

The title “son of perdition” is used twice in the New Testament, first in John 17:12 and again in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. The phrase simply means “man doomed to destruction” and is not reserved for any one individual. In fact, there are two people to which the title “son of perdition” is applied. In context, John 17:12 is referring to Judas Iscariot, while 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is referring to the “man of lawlessness”—the Antichrist—who will appear in the end times before Christ’s return.

The word perdition means “eternal damnation” or “utter destruction.” It can also be used as a synonym for hell. When a person is called “son of perdition,” the connotation is that of a person in an unredeemable state, someone who is already damned while he is still alive. Jesus mentions the “son of perdition” in His high priestly prayer in John 17. While praying to the Father for His disciples, Jesus mentions that He “protected them and kept them safe” and that none of them were lost except the “son of perdition,” that is, the one who was already in a damned state. The fact that the phrase is used again to describe the Antichrist shows us that forgiveness was not planned for Judas. God could have saved Judas—moved his heart to repentance—but He chose not to. He was indeed “doomed to destruction.”

A good picture of a person who is a “son of perdition” appears in Hebrews 6:4–8, which describes a person who, like Judas, has experienced a certain closeness to God and has a good understanding of salvation, but then denies it. Instead of bearing good fruit, he bears “thorns and thistles.” This is a person who sees the path to salvation, which is trusting in God’s grace to cover sin (Ephesians 2:8–9), and instead either flatly denies the existence of God or denies God’s gift of salvation, preferring to pay his own debt. Judas chose the second path, punishing himself by suicide instead of accepting grace.

However, Judas and the Antichrist are extreme cases. It is never right for a human being to label another person a “son of perdition” because only God knows the ultimate future of each human soul. Only with these two individuals did God choose to reveal His plan for their eternal damnation. With every other person, no matter how lost or evil he may seem, we are to hope and pray for his redemption (1 Timothy 2:1).

 

[GaryA]

You don't have to be condescending.

It's not as bad as you think.

I will explain later - until then, please just bear with me...

The beast from the Abyss.

Okay. Now - it makes sense that:

1) The beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit (Revelation 11:7) will not kill the Two Witnesses before ascending out of the bottomless pit.

2) That same beast will not ascend out of the bottomless pit before it is 'opened'. (Revelation 9:2)

Agree?

 

[OldSage]

This narrative would certainly fit well in that context, but I think that could also very well be a considered a microcosmic representation of 'the end.'

Studying 'Olivet' seems a never-ending challenge.
My overwhelming feeling as that there are at least 2 if not 3 discussions engendered by
Christ's declaration about the Temple.
I believe that the account in Luke happens right outside the Temple, in public.
This is the immediate reaction of the disciples.

The accounts in Matthew and Mark definitely seem to occur later, when the disciples have had time to digest
what Jesus has said and then go to him 'privately' - i.e. in a completely different locale, on the Mt of Olives
as opposed to being in public at the Temple, and I think this is noted for us to take note.
I suspect that a delegation goes to Jesus first (Mark) and then
the disciples go in collectively afterwards (Matthew).

The important thing to my mind is that Jesus's declaration would have sent shockwaves through them,
and they would have considered and discussed his prophecy many a long hour.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's not as bad as you think.

I will explain later - until then, please just bear with me...


Okay. Now - it makes sense that:

1) The beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit (Revelation 11:7) will not kill the Two Witnesses before ascending out of the bottomless pit.

2) That same beast will not ascend out of the bottomless pit before it is 'opened'. (Revelation 9:2)

Agree?

It seems you didn't bother reading what I posted about that "beast". How come?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I've asked several of the pretribbers to quote 2 Thess 2:1 and put in parentheses what they think the words "coming" and "gathering" mean. I've done it to show what I believe the words mean.

And as yet, only 1 did, some pages back, but couldn't prove why his parentheses were correct.

The reluctance or refusal to quote the verse with their understanding of the 2 words shows that they either don't have an answer or they subconsciously know the verse refutes their pretrib view, so they ignore the invitation.

 

[OldSage]

I've asked several of the pretribbers to quote 2 Thess 2:1 and put in parentheses what they think the words "coming" and "gathering" mean. I've done it to show what I believe the words mean.

And as yet, only 1 did, some pages back, but couldn't prove why his parentheses were correct.

The reluctance or refusal to quote the verse with their understanding of the 2 words shows that they either don't have an answer or they subconsciously know the verse refutes their pretrib view, so they ignore the invitation.

It's very simple - but will you listen to contradiction?

Episynagogue - gathering - means assembling together, as a Church.

Heb 10:25 - Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

In fact Paul more or less explains 2 Thess 1 in Hebrews 10. Want a lesson?

 

[Runningman]

It's very simple - but will you listen to contradiction?

Episynagogue - gathering - means assembling together, as a Church.

Heb 10:25 - Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

In fact Paul more or less explains 2 Thess 1 in Hebrews 10. Want a lesson?

What's the difference between gathering ourselves together in a church congregation and being gathered together to meet Jesus at His return?

We don't know when Jesus returns, though we always seem to hold a sense of imminency, expecting it to occur at any hour, but that isn't the purpose of gathering together in the same geographical location in what we call a "church congregation."

On Sunday, or Saturday for some denominations, they don't ring the church bells saying, "Jesus is coming, let's assemble together so we can meet Him now."

However, the coming of Christ is exactly what Paul is saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and not what the author is saying in Hebrews 10:25 which is about love and good works. What I am saying is the context is completely different.

 

[OldSage]

What's the difference between gathering ourselves together in a church congregation and being gathered together to meet Jesus at His return?

We don't know when Jesus returns, though we always seem to hold a sense of imminency, expecting it to occur at any hour, but that isn't the purpose of gathering together in the same geographical location in what we call a "church congregation."

On Sunday, or Saturday for some denominations, they don't ring the church bells saying, "Jesus is coming, let's assemble together so we can meet Him now."

However, the coming of Christ is exactly what Paul is saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and not what the author is saying in Hebrews 10:25 which is about love and good works. What I am saying is the context is completely different.

Well one is voluntary and the other involuntary.
One is in the air, one is on the earth.
One is in mortal bodies, one is in transfigured bodies.
Where do you want me to stop?

But I understand what you mean.
I think if we go by Hebrews, Paul is obviously talking about being in a Church gathering,
and in no way is he talking about the ''Last Judgment'' and such.

 

[OldSage]

What's the difference between gathering ourselves together in a church congregation and being gathered together to meet Jesus at His return?

We don't know when Jesus returns, though we always seem to hold a sense of imminency, expecting it to occur at any hour, but that isn't the purpose of gathering together in the same geographical location in what we call a "church congregation."

On Sunday, or Saturday for some denominations, they don't ring the church bells saying, "Jesus is coming, let's assemble together so we can meet Him now."

However, the coming of Christ is exactly what Paul is saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and not what the author is saying in Hebrews 10:25 which is about love and good works. What I am saying is the context is completely different.

[I am not a theological historian, but I think that 200 years ago the ideas of Gary and myself were the consensus...]
As long as the judgment of God on old covenant Israel is airbrushed by modern theology, then futile
conversations will always ensue.

I'll say this clearly at the risk of being endlessly repetitive, so that there is no ambiguity.

Paul is talking in Hebrews about the Church assembling for a specific purpose, to escape the Roman destruction
of Jerusalem. It is a very specific issue that he is dealing with, not some vague reminder to sing hymns, 'ring bells', hear a sermon and then have a collective chinwag over tea and coffee. He is reminding the Jerusalem church in Hebrews to stay very knitted and knotted together, for in order to escape as a unit, they have to remain a unit (I think Hebrews was written about 5 years before the Romans invaded). Anyway...

2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

If the Church had been raptured, what on earth would it mean if the Thessalonians then received a letter from Paul (or a message), saying, (obviously) ?

Hi Fellows,
Christ has come and I've been raptured along with some others.

Unfortunately you didn't meet the required standard.
But keep plugging away

Paul