He didn't.
You injected that idea INTO v.1.
Those words are NOT found in v.1, as you suggest.
Well then, you have a communication problem, because your post appeared to say what I thought. I didn't misunderstand your post. You miscommunicated.
FreeGrace2 said:
When Paul mentions "day of the Lord" in v.1
Do I need to provide reading lessons here?
1 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.
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.
It should be quite obvious to anyone competent in the English language that the red words in v.1 is what Paul was referring to in the red words in v.3.
So, from the context, "THAT day" in v.3 refers back to "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ". What else could Paul be referring to?
Paul and John already have: that is the way it is written.Prove it then.
Really no big deal. DW is just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.I'll take that. Research does seem to confirm it is singular even though at first glance it looked plural.
When you add in v.1, you know - context, your "analysis" falls apart.No, wrong. What you suggest is not obvious at all because it is error. I will repast verses 2 & 3 and do it the way you should have:
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.
3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day [that is, the just mentioned day of the Lord] will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
Do I need to provide reading lessons here?
1 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.
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.
Oh, yeah. That's real clear, huh.I believe I clearly had said "the day OF HIS RESURRECTION" (something to that effect, anyway)
Correct. I HAVE already LOOKED at those "posts of yours" and I find them very difficult to follow, or "something to that effect". You seem to have a hard time making your points clear and concise.Doubt you wanna go back and actually LOOK at that post of mine, proving this is the case... that I DID communicate it in such a way... but that *you* had overlooked my actual wording.![]()
What in the world kind of answer is this??Paul and John already have: that is the way it is written.
Oh, yeah. That's real clear, huh.
Correct. I HAVE already LOOKED at those "posts of yours" and I find them very difficult to follow, or "something to that effect". You seem to have a hard time making your points clear and concise.
So I'm not interested in trying to figure out what you are trying to say.
If you can "get it together" and make a clear, concise and undersandable post, I'll look forward to that.
Really no big deal. DW is just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Since Christ is one Person, the singular makes sense. What DW doesn't want to admit is that what follows that singular "first fruit" is the phrase "THEN those who belong to Him".
TheDivineWatermark said:
I believe I clearly had said "the day OF HIS RESURRECTION" (something to that effect, anyway)
Oh, yeah. That's real clear, huh.
If I'm not mistaken (about what you two are presently discussing), he already did that, back on Page 38, Post #742 (about the 3rd paragraph, or so):What in the world kind of answer is this??
If Paul and John "already have" then just QUOTE the verses.
But, sinc DW denies the reality of the Millennium in Rev 20, where 1,000 years is mentioned 5 times, with reference to ending and "are over", there's no use in trying to help him with any facts. His mind appears to be made up already, but without facts.
Prove it then.
Prove it then.
btw, dotL can be the very day He returns, or the whole ball of wax, including the very day He returns.
By the time the the anti-Christ is revealed he will already be proclaiming himself to be God. The mark of the beast will already be in effect. The great tribulation will already be happening before the rapture happens.
4Who 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.
Your claim in response is Dishonest, as pinocchio's nose grows.You may as well do it.
He and runningman are here as intentionally obtuse.
They are making sport of anyone pretrib
Have very little bible in either one of them and refuse or omit ANY RAPTURE VERSES.
I have repeatedly challenged them or any postrib to show me one verse pointing to a postrib rapture.
Crickets
You "Falsely" promote Revelation 14:14-19 below as a pre-trib rapture, this is nothing more than the (Second Coming) Last Day Resurrection In Final Judgement, At The End Of The WorldYou may as well do it.
He and runningman are here as intentionally obtuse.
They are making sport of anyone pretrib
Have very little bible in either one of them and refuse or omit ANY RAPTURE VERSES.
I have repeatedly challenged them or any postrib to show me one verse pointing to a postrib rapture.
Crickets