The Rapture Theory

[MahogonySnail]

re: is he that restrains, the Holy Spirit?

I don't think so. He is not capitalised, so I don't think it is talking about the Spirit who is normally referred to as He, not he.

A traditional belief from Barnes, Wesley, Matthew Henry etc, is that this restraining power was the pagan Roman Emperors, who prevented the Roman Catholic powers from having their power.

Gill commentary:


that he might be revealed in his time. The Ethiopic version renders it, "until his time appointed came": wherefore till the time that God had fixed for the appearance of this monster of iniquity, this son of perdition, the Roman empire must continue, and Roman emperors must keep their place and dignity to prevent his appearance sooner: the reason why the apostle expresses this not in plain words, but in an obscure manner, and with so much caution, was, that he might not offend the Roman emperors, and provoke them to a severe persecution of them as seditious persons, that sought the destruction of the empire: the word here used, which is rendered "withholdeth", or "letteth", as in the next verse, signifies a ruler or governor, and answers to the Hebrew word עצר, "to keep back, or restrain"; and which is used of kings, who by their laws and government restrain and withhold people from doing what they would; see 1Sa_9:17 to which the apostle, who well understood the Hebrew language, doubtless had reference; so יורש עצר, is rendered, "a magistrate", in Jdg_18:7.

 

[Rosinsky]

Just as the Jews thought there'd be one coming of their Messiah because their misundertsanding of the Scriptures, the Christians nowadays don't recognize their will be 2 "Second comings" because of their misunderstanding of the Scriptures. The first as a thief in the night, and the second following specific signs.

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Matt 24:32-33 (KJV)


But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matt 24:36-37 (KJV)


44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
Matt 24:44 (KJV)

If He's talking about one thing, that's a contradiction. No one knows the day or hour of Christ's return, but we will know it's near by the signs? That makes no sense.

I think this is only a difference in terminology. I do not see the scriptures speak of two second comings. I do, however, see a second coming in two phases. The first phase, as you point out in the post above, is unknown and imminent and the second is known. Daniel even gave an exact time of 1260 (I'll have to double check that) days. To avoid semantics and a vain discussion, I can agree with you because in truth, we are both talking about the same thing.

Just a comment to Mohogony's... It says no man knows the day or the hour. We do know of the event (we are talking about it), but we do not know exactly when it will occur. As far as the known day, we will know exactly when Christ will come. Therefore, these two events cannot be the same or happen at the same time.

 

[Baptistrw]

re: is he that restrains, the Holy Spirit?

I don't think so. He is not capitalised, so I don't think it is talking about the Spirit who is normally referred to as He, not he.

A traditional belief from Barnes, Wesley, Matthew Henry etc, is that this restraining power was the pagan Roman Emperors, who prevented the Roman Catholic powers from having their power.

Gill commentary:


that he might be revealed in his time. The Ethiopic version renders it, "until his time appointed came": wherefore till the time that God had fixed for the appearance of this monster of iniquity, this son of perdition, the Roman empire must continue, and Roman emperors must keep their place and dignity to prevent his appearance sooner: the reason why the apostle expresses this not in plain words, but in an obscure manner, and with so much caution, was, that he might not offend the Roman emperors, and provoke them to a severe persecution of them as seditious persons, that sought the destruction of the empire: the word here used, which is rendered "withholdeth", or "letteth", as in the next verse, signifies a ruler or governor, and answers to the Hebrew word עצר, "to keep back, or restrain"; and which is used of kings, who by their laws and government restrain and withhold people from doing what they would; see 1Sa_9:17 to which the apostle, who well understood the Hebrew language, doubtless had reference; so יורש עצר, is rendered, "a magistrate", in Jdg_18:7.

Traditional views aren't always the correct views. Lets just agree to disagree on this matter, since I know of a handful of Bible scholars who agree with my view on it.

 

[Baptistrw]

I think this is only a difference in terminology. I do not see the scriptures speak of two second comings. I do, however, see a second coming in two phases. The first phase, as you point out in the post above, is unknown and imminent and the second is known. Daniel even gave an exact time of 1260 (I'll have to double check that) days. To avoid semantics and a vain discussion, I can agree with you because in truth, we are both talking about the same thing.

Just a comment to Mohogony's... It says no man knows the day or the hour. We do know of the event (we are talking about it), but we do not know exactly when it will occur. As far as the known day, we will know exactly when Christ will come. Therefore, these two events cannot be the same or happen at the same time.

The 2 phases are the beginning and the end... But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10 (KJV)


It will begin unexpectedly at the beginning of the Tribulation with the rapture (like a thief, 1 Thes. 5:2) and end at the conclusion of the Millennium with the destruction of the heavens and earth (Rev. 21:1).

 

[Rosinsky]

The 2 phases are the beginning and the end... But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10 (KJV)


It will begin unexpectedly at the beginning of the Tribulation with the rapture (like a thief, 1 Thes. 5:2) and end at the conclusion of the Millennium with the destruction of the heavens and earth (Rev. 21:1).

Yes, that's right.

 

[Rosinsky]

Please disregard my previous post. After pasting it into Microsoft word and removing the scriptures I was able to get a sense of what you were trying to convey (at least I think I do).

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
OK ....What does this verse say to you Rosinsky?......This is about the Gathering back to Christ ........or the rapture.....ie the second coming of Christ ,The gathering of the Church or what ever name oyu want to give to it

What does this verse say to me? It says that Paul recognized two issues that he needed to clarify for the believers in the church of Thessalonica: (1) The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and (2)The gathering of the believers to Jesus Christ. This reveals that there were two events and Paul was about to provide clarity regarding them.

" Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him."

2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

this verse Teis the two together,The day of the Lord and the "so called" rapture.

You cannot understand this verse without tying it with the coming verse. Only then do we see its context.

Verse 2-3 says: That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 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.

Obviously, the believers were concerned that they had been left behind [and that they were in the tribulation period]. Knowing that the church was going through many trials and persecution, it's no wonder that they were concerned that they were already in the tribulation period specially since there were certain individuals were preaching that the day of the Lord had already came.

Paul in verse three makes a very clear statement. He combines the two events into one in saying that "day" shall not come... This goes to show that the day of the Lord is not a "day" in it's literal sence of 24 hours but rather a period of time consisting of at least two events.

It is important to note that Paul did not refute the implication of the notion that the day of christ had already came.an]. If the day of the Lord had already began and the Thessalonians were not gathered or raptured, then it meant that they were in the tribulation period.

2Th 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;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

This verse tells when that time is .....Notice that it sasis NOTHING about a church "Rapture" before the tribulation,Dont try to say The son of perdition was Judas either because the texts say Nothing about him.

I agree... here, Paul is stating that the day will not come until [the] Antichrist takes control.

Now I personally dont believe in a "rapture at all post,mid or trib,simply because of the meaning of the word "rapture" or arapao=To violently be taken or taken aweay or taken up
the ones that coined the word rapture in tthe early 1900's were using aanglo word meaning taken in extacy or a sence of flying

That does not make much sense to me. So you don't believe in of the meaning of the word? That same word was used to "rapture" Phillip in Acts 8:39

Now with that being said Ill point out some verses to show where i get whats going to happen
here is the rest of the chapter and Note it sais NOTHING of a so called "rapture"
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

You are missing one of the fundamental keys to this passage. Let's recap, first Paul had to clarify a misunderstand of the Day of the Lord. Paul said that that day will not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed. Now, we see that Paul is saying that this man of lawlessness is being restrained by a mysterious "he." Who is this he that is so powerful that he restrains the "great rebellion against God, the man of lawlessness who will bring destruction and "exalt himself and defy everything that people call god and every object of worship?" That's not all, but this man of lawlessness will also "sit in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God."

Certainly not the the pagan Roman Emperors as per Gil Commentary (From Moho's post).

We know that this "HE" must be stepped out of the way so that the man of lawlessness might be revealed. This He can be no other than the Holy Spirit who is powerful enough to hold such evil. With the removal of the Holy Spirit which is here only because of the Church, He will only be removed because the church is no longer present.

This is consistent with Paul's message in approaching the Thessalonians' concerns.

 

[Rosinsky]

re: is he that restrains, the Holy Spirit?

I don't think so. He is not capitalised, so I don't think it is talking about the Spirit who is normally referred to as He, not he.

The fact that the "he" is not capitalized really means nothing as it does not exist in the original text. Words capitalization are simply a translator's choice base on his/her views or desires.

 

[Rosinsky]

The rapture happens in the twinkling of an eye; so sudden that it's too fast for the eye 1 Cor 15:52
The second coming comes slowly and people will see Him come back. Zechariah 12:10 Matt 24:30, Rev 1:7

There are common themes between each of them, the trumpets, the clouds..which indicate they are talking about the one same event.

It does not indicate they are talking about the same event. It indicates that both of them had trumpets and clouds. To say that they are the same because each of them had trumpets, especially when one happens in the twinkling of an eye and the other on a very slow basis, is to add what's not there. Would you not agree?

Suppose Mr. X told me that he went to a restaurant in NC and Mr. Z told me he, too, went to a restaurant in NC, does that mean that Mr. X and Mr. Z went to the same restaurant? Certainly not. The only way to find out if they did is by looking at additional details from each and see if they match. We must do the same thing here.

Just because there are trumpets and clouds in both does not mean that they are talking about the same thing. Beside, the trumpet is not a theme [in it's literal sense] in these passages. We have different information from both. Therefore, we must not add what is not there. We can only rely on what the scripture actually says.

The scripture in 1 Corinthians happen very suddenly and without any previous signs where has the one in Matthew 24:30 was preceded by many signs. We know that Christ will come at the end of the tribulation period.​

 

[MahogonySnail]

The fact that the "he" is not capitalized really means nothing as it does not exist in the original text. Words capitalization are simply a translator's choice base on his/her views or desires.

So do you believe God's Word is not perfect then?

 

[Rosinsky]

So do you believe God's Word is not perfect then?

I do not want to deviate from the topic at hand and I do not want to get into a translation and/or version discussion, so I will make the answer short an simple: no I do not. But I do believe that unless you "study to show yourself approved unto God" you are at the mercy of the translator.

 

[MahogonySnail]

It does not indicate they are talking about the same event. It indicates that both of them had trumpets and clouds. To say that they are the same because each of them had trumpets, especially when one happens in the twinkling of an eye and the other on a very slow basis, is to add what's not there. Would you not agree?

It doesn't indicate that they are talking about different events either.
I see no difference between you making comparisons based on fast or slow, and me making a correlation based on trumpets and clouds. Fast and slow could be referring to two different events on the same day. Jesus's return is sudden and quick, but the process of gathering people for judgement would take a while I would think. Comparing fast and slow gives no proof that they are two separate events at different days.

Suppose Mr. X told me that he went to a restaurant in NC and Mr. Z told me he, too, went to a restaurant in NC, does that mean that Mr. X and Mr. Z went to the same restaurant? Certainly not. The only way to find out if they did is by looking at additional details from each and see if they match. We must do the same thing here.

And suppose Mr. X travelled by car and arrived at the restaurant quickly (fast), but Mr. Z decided to walk and took longer to get there (slow), ..their speed of travel doesn't tell us whether it was the same or different restaurants they went to.

Just because there are trumpets and clouds in both does not mean that they are talking about the same thing. Beside, the trumpet is not a theme [in it's literal sense] in these passages. We have different information from both. Therefore, we must not add what is not there. We can only rely on what the scripture actually says.

The mention of both trumpets and clouds, gives good indication that they are the same events.

The scripture in 1 Corinthians happen very suddenly and without any previous signs where has the one in Matthew 24:30 was preceded by many signs. We know that Christ will come at the end of the tribulation period.

Matt 24:30 doesn't necessarily say Christ's appearance happens slowly. 1 Corinthians refers to us being changed, not necessarily the speed at which Christ returns. Can you see Christ mentioned at all in 1 Cor 15:52? They could very wel lbe speaking about different things which happen at the same one event. One is Christ's return, the other is people being changed, both don't have to happen at different days.

 

[MahogonySnail]

I do not want to deviate from the topic at hand and I do not want to get into a translation and/or version discussion, so I will make the answer short an simple: no I do not. But I do believe that unless you "study to show yourself approved unto God" you are at the mercy of the translator.

OK, so let's put it this way. The fact that the translators did not capitalise it, shows that they did not believe in pre-tribulation rapture. If we consider the translators of the the bible as the experts in translating from the original.. the idea that "he" refers to the Holy Spirit is clearly wrong.

 

[MahogonySnail]

We know that this "HE" must be stepped out of the way so that the man of lawlessness might be revealed. This He can be no other than the Holy Spirit who is powerful enough to hold such evil. With the removal of the Holy Spirit which is here only because of the Church, He will only be removed because the church is no longer present

To say that the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth, is to say that there will be no christians on earth at all during the tribulation, and no converts will be made after the rapture..because anyone on the earth without the Spirit is not a christian. do you believe that?

Yet pretribbers also believe there will be end-times believers which is made up of people who missed the ratpure, but converted later. Some believe their witnessing the rapture makes them want to convert, others believe an angel or something like that evanglises them. But the natural question to ask is.. if the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth with the rapture of the Church, how are any converts going to be made on the earth? It is the Spirit who convicts people of sin..

To me there seems to be a contradiction and inconsistency in pre-trib belief right there.

 

[MahogonySnail]

If we consider the translators of the the bible as the experts in translating from the original.. the idea that "he" refers to the Holy Spirit is clearly wrong.

So Rosinksy it appears you don't trust the bible translators to correctly translate "he"...
what other bible verses do you say are wrong in order to fit a particular doctrine you hold?

 

[Rosinsky]

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this because I estimate that we will be going back and forth. I do, however, want to make one last remark. You will see that most of the arguments against these points are based on "possibilities" of what could happened but not on what the bible actually says that happens. In other words, the only way for one to stand against the very simple facts is to create something that's not there.

 

[Rosinsky]

To say that the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth, is to say that there will be no christians on earth at all during the tribulation, and no converts will be made after the rapture..because anyone on the earth without the Spirit is not a christian. do you believe that?

The Holy Spirit was active in the OT and it was possible for people to have Genuine relationship with the Lord. We have scriptures like Isaiah that 6:1 that states "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" The Spirit of the Lord was upon Isaiah... why? So that he could preach the good tidings (or good news) unto the meek. So the fact that he Holy Spirit will be removed since He was established on earth because of the church does not mean that people cannot get saved after the Church and the Holy Spirit is removed (in the sense of His establishment on earth for the church).

This is consistent with the rest of the bible and the prophecy of Daniel toward his people, Israel, about the seventy weeks. The Holy Spirit will continue to function as He was in the Old Testament to continue the remaining week.

Yet pretribbers also believe there will be end-times believers which is made up of people who missed the ratpure, but converted later. Some believe their witnessing the rapture makes them want to convert, others believe an angel or something like that evanglises them. But the natural question to ask is.. if the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth with the rapture of the Church, how are any converts going to be made on the earth? It is the Spirit who convicts people of sin..

To me there seems to be a contradiction and inconsistency in pre-trib belief right there.

Did not the Holy Spirit convict people of sin in the Old Testament?

 

[MahogonySnail]

So Rosinsky how do you explain the apparent contradiction between the Holy Spirit being removed with the rapture of the Church, and the presence of converts or christians on the earth after the rapture? Because if there are christians on the earth after the rapture, doesn't this mean the Holy Spirit is still on the earth?

 

[MahogonySnail]

The Holy Spirit was active in the OT and it was possible for people to have Genuine relationship with the Lord. We have scriptures like Isaiah that 6:1 that states "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;" The Spirit of the Lord was upon Isaiah... why? So that he could preach the good tidings (or good news) unto the meek. So the fact that he Holy Spirit will be removed since He was established on earth because of the church does not mean that people cannot get saved after the Church and the Holy Spirit is removed (in the sense of His establishment on earth for the church).

This is consistent with the rest of the bible and the prophecy of Daniel toward his people, Israel, about the seventy weeks. The Holy Spirit will continue to function as He was in the Old Testament to continue the remaining week.

I don't think that's the case at all.. Isaiah was a Prophet, chosen by God, but this does not mean the Spirit was upon everyone convicting everyone. That's why they needed Prophets. The promise of God putting the Spirit within everyone did not occur in the old testament. And so if you say things will go back to the old testament ways during the tribultion, does this mean you don't believe christians on the earth will be indwelt by God's Spirit?

The bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is essential for a person being saved. It is the Spirit's work that a person believes the Gospel and is saved, and convicts their hearts.. and the Spirit dwells within them once they become a christian. So if you believe there will be christians on earth after the rapture, the Spirit is still on the earth, and those christians on the earth will be the church on earth.

Did not the Holy Spirit convict people of sin in the Old Testament?

Not really, only through God's Prophets etc.

 

[Rosinsky]

So Rosinksy it appears you don't trust the bible translators to correctly translate "he"...

No, I do not put my trust in the translators. I put my trust in the Holy Spirit to guide me as I read the scriptures. Translations do not help you get accurate meaning of texts. It is only through studying the Word and the relation of God's truth to you that one can truly understand what the Word mean. When I am wrong, He finds someway to correct me as I continue to study.

what other bible verses do you say are wrong in order to fit a particular doctrine you hold?

Please understand that I never said that the verse was wrong. I simply made a truthful remark that the fact that the "he" is not capitalized meant nothing.

Suppose you have a bible translation that does not offer any verses or chapters, would you say it's wrong? No, because verses and chapters were not in the original texts in the first place. Translators added that so we can have a better understanding. Just like they add the capitalization of words for emphasis etc...

My remark was not meant for you to question my belief in the bible's authority 'cause I believe it to be truth. It was meant as a brotherly advise to you not to rely on simple things like that since they did not exist in the original text.

 

[Rosinsky]

I don't think that's the case at all.. Isaiah was a Prophet, chosen by God, but this does not mean the Spirit was upon everyone convicting everyone. That's why they needed Prophets. The promise of God putting the Spirit within everyone did not occur in the old testament. And so if you say things will go back to the old testament ways during the tribultion, does this mean you don't believe christians on the earth will be indwelt by God's Spirit?

The bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is essential for a person being saved. It is the Spirit's work that a person believes the Gospel and is saved, and convicts their hearts.. and the Spirit dwells within them once they become a christian. So if you believe there will be christians on earth after the rapture, the Spirit is still on the earth, and those christians on the earth will be the church on earth.

I am simply making the point that you insinuating that the removal of the Holy Spirit would mean that people that could not get save. If that's really true, then no one in the Old Testament got saved. I am using the Old Testament as a parallel to show you that this insinuation is simply not true. It is the way it is because God sets it up this way.