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

[randyk]

You should testfit before you take a position.

that niv will embarrass you

Again, show loyalty to the Bible--not to your Pretrib friends. Paul, in the Scriptures, said that the *destruction of the Antichrist* precedes the coming of the Kingdom of Christ. Said plainly, Jesus will only come when he comes to destroy the Man of Sin. Don't accept any hype that the Kingdom has already come! Don't accept any hype that Christ's Coming is imminent. It is "near," relative to the fact that he has already redeemed mankind, but it is not "imminent" in the sense that it could occur at any moment.

 

[randyk]

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

No brother, I recognized this a long time ago, that Paul was pinning the coming of the Son of Man to the *destruction of Antichrist,* and not just to his revelation. Paul's point is that not only must Antichrist be defeated, but he must also be allowed some time to reign before he is eventually judged and destroyed.

The little phrase, "the man doomed to destruction," is Paul explicitly tying the end of Antichrist's reign to the coming of Christ. In case there is any mistake about this, Paul says later that Christ will destroy him *at his coming.* So not only can Christ *not* come until Antichrist is revealed, but Christ will *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist.

Christ can *not* come until Antichrist is revealed.

2 Thes 2.3 that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed.

Christ can *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist.

2 Thes 2.8 And 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.

How do I know this for sure? Not only is it explicit in this passage, but it also shows correlation to the origin of the doctrine in Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes down from heaven to establish his Kingdom. He clearly does this in the context of the defeat of the Little Horn, the Man of Sin. This is precisely what Paul is saying--he is reiterating the exact same thing!

Dan 7.8 This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully... 11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire... 13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

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

Paul is not saying that the content of a false letter would be saying that ^ ("that the RAPTURE has already happened / has taken place");

...rather, the content of a false letter he says would be this: "that the DAY OF THE LORD is already here / is already present"



Two entirely distinct ideas.

 

[Absolutely]

No brother, I recognized this a long time ago, that Paul was pinning the coming of the Son of Man to the *destruction of Antichrist,* and not just to his revelation. Paul's point is that not only must Antichrist be defeated, but he must also be allowed some time to reign before he is eventually judged and destroyed.

The little phrase, "the man doomed to destruction," is Paul explicitly tying the end of Antichrist's reign to the coming of Christ. In case there is any mistake about this, Paul says later that Christ will destroy him *at his coming.* So not only can Christ *not* come until Antichrist is revealed, but Christ will *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist.

Christ can *not* come until Antichrist is revealed.

2 Thes 2.3 that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed.

Christ can *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist.

2 Thes 2.8 And 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.

How do I know this for sure? Not only is it explicit in this passage, but it also shows correlation to the origin of the doctrine in Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes down from heaven to establish his Kingdom. He clearly does this in the context of the defeat of the Little Horn, the Man of Sin. This is precisely what Paul is saying--he is reiterating the exact same thing!

Dan 7.8 This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully... 11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire... 13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Yes
We all can see that the 2nd coming on white horses is to destroy the ac and bring the church from heaven to earth.

We can also see revealed means revealed. As in the white horseman arriving/ coming on the scene before the great trib starts.

"Son of perdition" is what he is called and what he is.

Perdition = eternal damnation...not destroyed/ no longer existing ( as you were incorrectly led to believe)

Perdition as in an object = destroyed/ or no longer existing

No extra charge for that.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

As far as Daniel 7's "another king" (Dan7:24) / "another little horn" (Dan7:8), I see this person the same as many scholars do, in the following way (I tried to find a succinct quote)... seeing it this way because of the language / description being so similar in 2Th2:4:


"Both Daniel's prophesied king and Paul's MOL [man of sin] exalt themselves exceedingly. Both passages show that he will have no regard for anything to do with worship, whether it be of the true God or some other kind of non-Christian system.268 He exalts himself above all of them.
"As noted earlier, many dispensationalists agree that a gap exists between 11:35-36, and that verses 11:36-45 reach out into the end times of Daniel's seventieth-week.269 The implication is that though verses 11:21-35 are historical in Antiochus and contain typological elements, the verses which follow are eschatological and speak about the MOL [man of sin] alone."

--Timothy L Dane


[end quoting; bold mine; bracketed inserts mine, to clarify]


____________

Dan12 refers to the second half of the trib years (with Daniel being "resurrected ['to stand again' (on the earth)] at the END of the days [the 'days' in that context]"... whereas the latter parts of Dan11 (from v.36 onward) speak of that certain "[another] KING" (that is not "A4E" of the earlier parts of that chpt)... with 12:1 worded like it is CONTINUING on with the same subject matter.

 

[Absolutely]

Again, show loyalty to the Bible--not to your Pretrib friends. Paul, in the Scriptures, said that the *destruction of the Antichrist* precedes the coming of the Kingdom of Christ. Said plainly, Jesus will only come when he comes to destroy the Man of Sin. Don't accept any hype that the Kingdom has already come! Don't accept any hype that Christ's Coming is imminent. It is "near," relative to the fact that he has already redeemed mankind, but it is not "imminent" in the sense that it could occur at any moment.

Again, show loyalty to the Bible--not to your Pretrib friends. Paul, in the Scriptures, said that the *destruction of the Antichrist* precedes the coming of the Kingdom of Christ. Said plainly, Jesus will only come when he comes to destroy the Man of Sin. Don't accept any hype that the Kingdom has already come! Don't accept any hype that Christ's Coming is imminent. It is "near," relative to the fact that he has already redeemed mankind, but it is not "imminent" in the sense that it could occur at any moment.

Oh i agree
The pretrib rapture may be years away.
Glad you see that

 

[Absolutely]

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).

I dunno
Sounds like we mostly agree.
I own a niv.
My posts are all from the textus receptus rendered from the king james ( or vis viz) ,as well as the interlinear greek itself.

 

[Absolutely]

What you just said is so important, and has been so important in my life! I believe God made this clear to me many years ago when I was having trouble with being confused about biblical statements.

God convicted me that I should ignore others, and just focus on what the black and white message in the Bible is. Some pretty outstanding Christians sometimes err in matters that aren't central to their ministry. But I should focus on what God is telling me in the clearest, most unambiguous way.

I'm not saying we should ignore commentators or those expert in these matters. I'm just saying that some pretty spiritual people can get outside of their area of expertise, and lead us astray. We need to be on guard against making people little gods.

So when I look for a teaching in the Bible on the endtimes, I look for the blueprint, the origin of the doctrine, and its development in several biblical authors. And I follow the black and white message that uses the same words consistently from one messenger to another. We get bored, and want a novel message, or prefer to avoid argument and try to find a middle ground.

Bad idea! We need to believe that God is saying in crystal clear terms. As Walter Martin used to say--God doesn't have a speech impediment. He doesn't even lisp. He spells out exactly what He wants us to know. We don't have to solve puzzles. When He wants to say something, He says it several times, and is quite blunt, and may even give several examples.

We shouldn't look for the weird isolated verses that we may take wrong. It's okay to try to figure them out. But the things we should focus on are the things God makes of a higher priority, by repeating them over and over. I can't say this enough.

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.

Since it's this unmistakable, we shouldn't fear that great men have taught Pretrib. It was their obsession, but certainly not their "cup of tea." They should've left alone what they didn't understand.

But if God shows something to you, you should believe it, and not doubt it. The Holy Spirit can be very, very clear. It's our doubt that makes things hard to decipher. Or perhaps we just pray and lose patience? Until we see clearly, we should be very humble about it!

"""Since it's this unmistakable, we shouldn't fear that great men have taught Pretrib. It was their obsession, but certainly not their "cup of tea." They should've left alone what they didn't understand."""
Please post 1 postrib rapture verse.
Should be very easy.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

As far as Daniel 7's "another king" (Dan7:24) / "another little horn" (Dan7:8), I see this person the same as many scholars do, in the following way (I tried to find a succinct quote)... seeing it this way because of the language / description being so similar in 2Th2:4:


"Both Daniel's prophesied king and Paul's MOL [man of sin] exalt themselves exceedingly. Both passages show that he will have no regard for anything to do with worship, whether it be of the true God or some other kind of non-Christian system.268 He exalts himself above all of them.
"As noted earlier, many dispensationalists agree that a gap exists between 11:35-36, and that verses 11:36-45 reach out into the end times of Daniel's seventieth-week.269 The implication is that though verses 11:21-35 are historical in Antiochus and contain typological elements, the verses which follow are eschatological and speak about the MOL [man of sin] alone."

--Timothy L Dane


[end quoting; bold mine; bracketed inserts mine, to clarify]


____________

Dan12 refers to the second half of the trib years (with Daniel being "resurrected ['to stand again' (on the earth)] at the END of the days [the 'days' in that context]"... whereas the latter parts of Dan11 (from v.36 onward) speak of that certain "[another] KING" (that is not "A4E" of the earlier parts of that chpt)... with 12:1 worded like it is CONTINUING on with the same subject matter.

Just a couple more brief quotes by this same author / article ^ :


[one of this author's footnotes]

"299The reader is reminded that Paul's use of an intensive perfect in verse 2:2 carries a present tense meaning. This present tense meaning is carried over into the apodosis of 2:3, with the resulting sense being this: "the DOL is not present." A future idea like "the DOL will not come" should not be employed. The present tense meaning creates the sense that as soon as the two events of the protasis occur, the DOL will be present, thus preserving the concept that the DOL will come upon the world like a thief in the night. That is, that period of judgement will catch the world by surprise."

--Timothy L Dane

[bold mine; I agree with the above statement and that conclusion ^ has been one of my points; however, a caveat: I disagree with his take on what 'apostasia' refers to, elsewhere in this article (which article was written in 1996); But note verse 3, as he mentions in the above quote - https://biblehub.com/text/2_thessalonians/2-3.htm ]




[and another quote by same]

"The discussion of the MOL [man of sin] indicated that this man is a future, Gentile world-ruler who comes into prominence at the beginning of Daniel's seventieth week. This man is revealed when he establishes the seven-year covenant spoken of in Daniel 9:27. It is widely acknowledged that Daniel gave considerable description of this man's character and conduct. The exegesis of 2 Thessalonians showed that Paul also had much to say about this man. He is proud, self-exalting, irreligious, and even demands that people worship him. On this Daniel and Paul find perfect agreement."

--Timothy L Dane

[end quoting; bold mine; bracketed insert mine, to clarify]

 

[Ahwatukee]

No brother, I recognized this a long time ago, that Paul was pinning the coming of the Son of Man to the *destruction of Antichrist,* and not just to his revelation. Paul's point is that not only must Antichrist be defeated, but he must also be allowed some time to reign before he is eventually judged and destroyed.

The little phrase, "the man doomed to destruction," is Paul explicitly tying the end of Antichrist's reign to the coming of Christ. In case there is any mistake about this, Paul says later that Christ will destroy him *at his coming.* So not only can Christ *not* come until Antichrist is revealed, but Christ will *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist.

2 Thes 2.3 that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed.

Christ can *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist.

2 Thes 2.8 And 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.

How do I know this for sure? Not only is it explicit in this passage, but it also shows correlation to the origin of the doctrine in Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes down from heaven to establish his Kingdom. He clearly does this in the context of the defeat of the Little Horn, the Man of Sin. This is precisely what Paul is saying--he is reiterating the exact same thing!

Good day, randyk,

Just to be clear here, you are correct in your conclusion that Christ will return to the earth to end the age after antichrist, that little horn, is given authority for 42 months i.e. the last 3 1/2 years of that seven year period. After that Christ will return to end the age, specifically after the 7th bowl judgment.

Now by saying "Christ can *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist" I don't know if you are including the Lord's appearing to gather the church here or not. If this is the case, then you should not be interpreting these them as taking place at the same time, because they are two separate events, which take place at different times.

The Lord's appearing to gather the church has always been imminent, i.e. it can happen at any time. If you have the event of the church being gathered when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age which takes place after the antichrist finishes his 3 1/2 years, then the Lord's return cannot be imminent, because that event would have to take place first. And not only that event, but all of the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments which is God's wrath.

For example, the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, as well as the beasts reign and all that the false prophet does, must take place before the Lord will return to end the age. Therefore, if I was on the earth during that time, I would know according to His word that the Lord would not be able to return until after the 7th bowl has been poured out. That being the case, the Lord's appearing to gather the church could not be imminent.

In addition to this, believers understand that God's wrath no longer rests upon them because Jesus already satisfied it on behalf of every believer. Many people overlook this by putting the church on the earth during the time of God's wrath. They also err in not recognizing that there is a difference between the common trials and tribulations that the Lord said believers would have because of their faith in Him vs. God's coming wrath, which is not the same. It is the latter that believers are not appointed to suffer. In defense of this, expositors say that God is going to protect the church during the time of His wrath. Yet, there is nowhere in Revelation that states this, nor is the church even mentioned during the narrative of God's wrath.

The erroneous claim that the church will be on the earth during the time of God's wrath via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments also stems from not understanding the severity and magnitude of those plagues of wrath.

For example, at the sounding of the 5th trumpet/1st woe, an angel unlocks the Abyss letting out demonic beings that resemble locusts, which will torment the inhabitants of the earth with stings like that of a scorpion for five months. The context states that only those who have the seal of God in their forehead are protected from this plague of wrath, which excludes only the 144,000 who will have been sealed in chapter 7. Everyone else besides them will be tormented. Where is God's protection of the church here?

Likewise, when the angel sounds the 6th trumpet, a third of the inhabitants of the earth are killed and there is nothing mentioned about anyone being excluded from this.

Or when that 4th angel pours out his bowl on the sun giving it power to scorch the inhabitants of the earth, searing them with intense heat. Everyone on the earth will be exposed to that and no one is excluded.

These are just a few examples of what is going to take place and no one is exempt. Therefore, the claim that God protects the church during that time is nowhere listed in the narrative of God's wrath. It's just an assumption on their part.

But to recap, if it was true that the gathering of the church takes place at the same time when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, then as I sit here writing this post, I would know that the Lord could not return right now, because all of those events must take place first. In that case, the example of the good man of the house who doesn't know at what time the thief is going to break in and therefore has to always watch, would not fit the scripture. In fact, I wouldn't have to watch at all. The only thing that I would have to watch for is when that 7th bowl is poured out.

 

[OldSage]

Paul is not saying that the content of a false letter would be saying that ^ ("that the RAPTURE has already happened / has taken place");

...rather, the content of a false letter he says would be this: "that the DAY OF THE LORD is already here / is already present"



Two entirely distinct ideas.

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.

Paul is equating the two here, and incidentally the NIV has the tense correct.

 

[OldSage]

No brother, I recognized this a long time ago, that Paul was pinning the coming of the Son of Man to the *destruction of Antichrist,* and not just to his revelation. Paul's point is that not only must Antichrist be defeated, but he must also be allowed some time to reign before he is eventually judged and destroyed.

The little phrase, "the man doomed to destruction," is Paul explicitly tying the end of Antichrist's reign to the coming of Christ. In case there is any mistake about this, Paul says later that Christ will destroy him *at his coming.* So not only can Christ *not* come until Antichrist is revealed, but Christ will *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist.

Christ can *not* come until Antichrist is revealed.

2 Thes 2.3 that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed.

Christ can *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist.

2 Thes 2.8 And 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.

How do I know this for sure? Not only is it explicit in this passage, but it also shows correlation to the origin of the doctrine in Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes down from heaven to establish his Kingdom. He clearly does this in the context of the defeat of the Little Horn, the Man of Sin. This is precisely what Paul is saying--he is reiterating the exact same thing!

Dan 7.8 This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully... 11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire... 13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

I don't think this is correct though. The little horn is terminated by a Heavenly court judgment and the Holy People take control of the Kingdom.

Daniel 7 26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

Also the 'lawless one' is clearly in existence in the 1st century, but the little horn only comes after the 4th beast has arrived, and the 4th beast appears to be the RCC.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Paul is not saying that the content of a false letter would be saying that ^ ("that the RAPTURE has already happened / has taken place");

...rather, the content of a false letter he says would be this: "that the DAY OF THE LORD is already here / is already present"



Two entirely distinct ideas.

Correct! The apostasy occurring and the man of lawlessness being revealed is proof that that 'the Day of the Lord' has come and not the gathering. As you well know, the gathering of the church is when the Lord resurrects those who have died in Him and the living are transformed and caught up. Where 'The Day of the Lord' is the time of God's wrath. This is the error that most people make regarding this scripture, not discerning between the two.

 

[OldSage]

Correct! The apostasy occurring and the man of lawlessness being revealed is proof that that 'the Day of the Lord' has come and not the gathering. As you well know, the gathering of the church is when the Lord resurrects those who have died in Him and the living are transformed and caught up. Where 'The Day of the Lord' is the time of God's wrath. This is the error that most people make regarding this scripture, not discerning between the two.

This makes no sense.
The Lord will destroy the lawless one by the splendor of his coming, but this is not actually his coming at all, but really something completely and utterly different, 'The Day of The Lord". Sorry. Totally wrong!!
You are encouraging each other in your fictions!

 

[Thewatchman]

Interesting. In the definition of the word I counted the word "up" 4 times. Are you getting the picture?

Those are not part of the words definition. Those are translation choices. When the dead resurrect they stand up but do not rise up into the air as you are suggesting.







Scripture is clear that is where they resurrect. There is no scripture that says they resurrect in the clouds.






The living are not resurrected. The dead resurrect and DESCEND from heaven to the clouds. The living ASCEND up to the clouds. You are confusing resurrection with rapture/going upwards physically. Resurrection only means to stand up ie: a living physical person NOT to move upwards like in a rapture.[/QUOTE]
The dead those that die before Jesus returns do go to paradice and they will be in their new spiritual body. Those that are left the good, the bad and the ugly till the 7th trump stay right here on earth and when Jesus returns in the twinkel of an eye they are changed into spiritual bodies. Every body will be here on earth during the millennium. I hope I made it clear. I don't want you to thank I belive in the rapture, left behind ect. About the clouds I was only trying to say that if you want to call our gathering to Him at the Mt. of Olives a rapture, a moving us in our new boies to have every knee bow then OK.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

Listen. Not believe.

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

Means assembling together. As anything.

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?[/QUOTE]
Sure. But first, all you've done is give a definition of "gathering together". You missed the first key word.

Do you have an understanding of "coming"?

 

[Thewatchman]

First show me the word rapture in the bible. Second take the time to read and understan The word of The Lord that came to Ezekiel in chapter 13. Verse 20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am AGAINST your pillows, wherewith ye hunt[with your false teachings and prophesy] the souls to make them fly, I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls thay ye hunt to mak them fly.
This is not what I say, this is not what Ezekiel said. No it is "Thus saith the Lord God." Just as Jesus was takn up so those that die before He returns go to The busum of Abraham. Some on the good side and some on the bad side. The time Jesus was in the tomb where did He go after being quickend by the Spirit? 1st Peter 3:19 By which He went and preached unto the spirits in prison. Why were they in prison? They died before Jesus paid the price for there sins so He went to them to preach the good word. He went to give them a chance to repent and be saved. Note it says spirits not flesh bodies.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

This makes no sense.
The Lord will destroy the lawless one by the splendor of his coming, but this is not actually his coming at all, but really something completely and utterly different, 'The Day of The Lord". Sorry. Totally wrong!!
You are encouraging each other in your fictions!

I think you're missing Ahwatukee's point.

--[8b] "the MANIFESTATION of His coming / presence / parousia" is what happens at His Second Coming to the earth, which is STILL "the Day of the Lord" time-period (and it's still "the day of the Lord" time-period clear till the end of the MK age);

--[1] "the coming/presence/parousia of OUR Lord Jesus Christ, and OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" happens when the Lord shall "descend" to "the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR" (but He is not "MANIFEST" to "EVERY EYE" at that point, like v.8b is speaking of... v.8a happens well-before that point also);




In verse 2, Paul is basically saying, don't believe anyone trying to tell you "that the day of the Lord is present / is already here" (not "that the Rapture is already here / is already present"... and not "that Christ's [OWN Personal/Physical] presence / coming / parousia" is already here / is already present... but "that the day of the Lord [A TIME-PERIOD] is already here / is already present").

It isn't.

And then he tells WHY that that [/such a claim] is NOT SO.

 

[Ahwatukee]

This makes no sense.
The Lord will destroy the lawless one by the splendor of his coming, but this is not actually his coming at all, but really something completely and utterly different, 'The Day of The Lord". Sorry. Totally wrong!!
You are encouraging each other in your fictions!

Hello OldSage,

I never post anything that I have not thoroughly studied and am not sure of.

The splendor of the Lord's coming, is synonymous with when He returns to the earth to end the age. It is at this time when the man of lawlessness/antichrist/beast will be destroyed. This is supported by the information in Revelation 19:20 where when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, both the beast and the false prophet are captured and thrown alive into the lake of fire and which is synonymous with Paul's reference to the man of lawlessness being destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming.

The Day of the Lord is the wrath of God which is what the majority of the book of Revelation is about. Once the church has been removed, the Day of the Lord, the time of God's wrath, will follow. After the 7th bowl has been poured out is when the Lord will return to the earth to end the age and when the beast and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire.

"But the beast was captured along with the false prophet, who on his behalf had performed signs deceiving those who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. Both the beast and the false prophet were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur."

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

Wail, for the Day of the LORD is near; it will come as destruction from the Almighty.

Therefore all hands will fall limp, and every man’s heart will melt.

Terror, pain, and anguish will seize them; they will writhe like a woman in labor.

They will look at one another, their faces aflame.

Behold, the Day of the LORD is coming—cruel, with fury and burning anger—to make the earth a desolation and to destroy the sinners within it.

For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light.

The rising sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light. (See Matt.24:29)

I will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their iniquity.

I will end the haughtiness of the arrogant and lay low the pride of the ruthless.

I will make man scarcer than pure gold, and mankind rarer than the gold of Ophir.

Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place at the wrath of the LORD of Hosts
on the day of His burning anger.

The Day of the Lord = God's time of wrath

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

First show me the word rapture in the bible. Second take the time to read and understan The word of The Lord that came to Ezekiel in chapter 13. Verse 20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am AGAINST your pillows, wherewith ye hunt[with your false teachings and prophesy] the souls to make them fly, I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls thay ye hunt to mak them fly.
This is not what I say, this is not what Ezekiel said. No it is "Thus saith the Lord God." Just as Jesus was takn up so those that die before He returns go to The busum of Abraham. Some on the good side and some on the bad side. The time Jesus was in the tomb where did He go after being quickend by the Spirit? 1st Peter 3:19 By which He went and preached unto the spirits in prison. Why were they in prison? They died before Jesus paid the price for there sins so He went to them to preach the good word. He went to give them a chance to repent and be saved. Note it says spirits not flesh bodies.

Ezekiel 13:20 and 1 Peter 3:19-20 have been covered in this thread, at the following posts:


[re: Ezekiel 13:20]

Post #3507 (pg 176 of this thread) - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4578261



[re: 1 Peter 3:19-20]

Post #810 (pg 41 of this thread) - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4536383