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

[FreeGrace2]

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?

Want a lesson on "gathering"?

Well, here it is.

In 2 Thess 2:1 the Strong's number for the word translated "being gathered" is 1997 and is a noun.
In Matt 24:31 the Strong's number for the word translated "will gather" is 1996 and is a verb.

They are related words. So you don't have a point regarding "our being gathered". And Matt 24 is CLEARLY a post-trib gathering of the "elect". While some think that applies only to Jews, Jesus, being omniscient, had the whole scene in view. The "elect" of the OT, being Jews, and the "elect" of the NT, being Jews and Gentiles, who are "one in Christ". Jesus wasn't limited by dispensations or covenants. He saw the whole thing.

The interesting thing is that the 2 words, noun and verb, both are associated with Christ's coming. Matt 24 is clearly AFTER the Trib.

Now, you need to define "our Lord's coming" in 2 Thess 2:1. Prove it can't be the Second Advent or prove it is pretrib by defining what it means.

 

[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!

Below is the chronological order of what I am saying:

* We are here

* Lord descends and gathers the church, where He takes us back to the Father's house

* The Day of the Lord begins, the time of God's wrath, carried out via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments

* After the 7th bowl Jesus returns to the earth to end the age and establish His millennial kingdom

* Beast and false prophet are captured and thrown alive into the lake of fire

* Wicked are killed by the double-edged sword and the birds that the angel will have gathered eat their flesh

* Satan is cast into the Abyss during the thousand year reign of Christ

* Millennial kingdom

 

[FreeGrace2]

Below is the chronological order of what I am saying:

* We are here
* Lord descends and gathers the church, where He takes us back to the Father's house

Which verse shows that resurrected/raptured believefrs are taken back to the Father's house?

if you can't show any verse, you can't make that claim. The Bible would say it if will occur. Why not?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Now, you need to define "our Lord's coming" in 2 Thess 2:1. Prove it can't be the Second Advent or prove it is pretrib by defining what it means.

I'll try again... maybe from a different angle this time.

My understanding is that Paul is referencing "our Rapture" [event] MORE THAN ONE TIME in this passage / context, both by various words [plural] and also by alluding to it.

I don't see your viewpoint having Paul reference "our Rapture" [event] in any other verse except verse 1.

How is that? Please explain.

 

[ewq1938]

First show me the word rapture in the bible.

The word Rapture is actually very much in the bible and thus is quite biblical. One must merely do a little bit of studying in the original languages to understand that.

"harpazo" is the Greek word for "rapture".

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up HARPAZO/RAPTURE together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

When this verse was translated into Latin from Greek, the Greek word "harpazo" was replaced by the the Latin verb "rapio" meaning "to catch up" or "take away" (the Latin noun "raptus" "a carrying off"). The Latin word “rapiemur” is the word St. Jerome used for “caught up” when he translated 1 Thess 4:17 in the Latin Vulgate Bible. In Middle French "rapiemur" is "rapture" meaning "to carry away" which is the same meaning as Rapture in English. So while the English word RAPTURE is not in scripture the Greek word HARPAZO is in scripture and it is the origin of the word rapture. So, yes, a rapture is very biblical. A pre-trib rapture is not biblical because Paul places the rapture after the tribulation and second coming and after the resurrection of the dead. The rapture then will come after the great tribulation has ended known as "post-trib".

 

[Ahwatukee]

First show me the word rapture in the bible.

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord."

The word 'Rapture' is Latin version of the Greek 'harpazo' which means 'force suddenly exercised, a snatching away.' It is the same word used when Paul said that he was "caught up" to the third heaven. And it is the same word used when the Male Child is "snatch up" to God and His throne. It is also the same word used when Philip was 'caught away' from the Eunuch by the Spirit.

Therefore, when the Lord descends from heaven, the dead will rise first in their immoral and glorified bodies. And then those in Christ who are still alive at that time will be transformed immortal and glorified and will be caught up (raptured) with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. The 'Rapture' does not appear in the Greek, but 'harpazo' does. The word 'Rapture' is just the word everyone opted to call this event.

No it is "Thus saith the Lord God." Just as Jesus was taken up so those that die before He returns go to The bosom 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.

That is not correct! When the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to his father's house so that his brothers wouldn't come to that same place of torment, Abraham said that they had Moses and the prophets, i.e. the word of God, which would keep them from coming to that place of torment. Therefore, those in Sheol/Hades also had Moses and the prophets to keep them from going there. Once one is in Hades there is not opportunity for salvation. What person in torment in flame in Hades would not accept the offer of salvation just to get out of the flames? It wasn't those in Hades that Jesus was making proclamation to, but most likely to those angels that sinned by taking wives in an attempt to corrupt the Lord's blood line in order to interrupt prophecy.

 

[OldSage]

"all you've done is give a definition of "gathering together"

You asked two questions and I attempted to answer one.
Re the presence of the Lord, I understand the Lord coming in judgment against Jerusalem.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Which verse shows that resurrected/raptured believefrs are taken back to the Father's house?

if you can't show any verse, you can't make that claim. The Bible would say it if will occur. Why not?

First of all, if you are asking me that question, you should be teaching on this issue.

"My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." - John 14:1-3

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is the detailed account of John 14:1-3 when the Lord comes back to gather His church.

As I continue to tell you and others, the wrath of God must take place prior to the Lord's return to the earth to end the age. Since Jesus already took upon himself God's wrath on behalf of every believer satisfying it completely, then God's wrath no longer rests upon those who believe and therefore must be removed from the earth prior to said wrath. It is very simple to understand.

He also states in Revelation 3:10 that for those who endure patiently, He will keep them out of the hour of trial, which is another description of God's time of wrath.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Now, you need to define "our Lord's coming" in 2 Thess 2:1. Prove it can't be the Second Advent or prove it is pretrib by defining what it means.

I'll try again... maybe from a different angle this time.

I already gave the most straightforward and clear way to do it. Quote 2 Thess 2:1 and put in parentheses what you define the words "coming" and "gathering" to mean.

My understanding is that Paul is referencing "our Rapture" [event] MORE THAN ONE TIME in this passage / context, both by various words [plural] and also by alluding to it.

Just quote the verse and put in parentheses your definition, as I already have done.

I don't see your viewpoint having Paul reference "our Rapture" [event] in any other verse except verse 1.
How is that? Please explain.

You misread my posts. I did. Clearly. And I'll happily do it again.

1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (Second Advent) and our being gathered to him (rapture), 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 (the very day that Jesus Christ comes back to earth to end the Trib) will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

See how simple it can be to explain your own viewpoint? The red words in v.1 mean the very same thing as the red words in v.3.

The blue words, which are in parentheses are my viewpoints about what the red words mean.

Now, your turn. Quote all 3 verses, and use parentheses that are YOUR viewpoints of the words in red.

If you don't do this, it will be clear that you just don't want to be cornered into facing the truth. The red words mean something. The blue words are my understanding of what the red word mean.

And you can easily do the same.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You asked two questions and I attempted to answer one.
Re the presence of the Lord, I understand the Lord coming in judgment against Jerusalem.

So, even though Paul's emphasis at the end of his first epistle to the Thessalonians was the Lord's future coming in ch 4 and 5, and the first chapter in his second epistle a few months later, why would he change gears in ch 2 and refer to a local event?

btw, where do you get the idea that Paul or anyone else would know that Jerusalem would fall in 70 AD and the temple destroyed?

So how could Paul warn against that, or even just predict it would be coming?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Which verse shows that resurrected/raptured believefrs are taken back to the Father's house?

if you can't show any verse, you can't make that claim. The Bible would say it if will occur. Why not?

First of all, if you are asking me that question, you should be teaching on this issue.

I have been.

"My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." - John 14:1-3

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is the detailed account of John 14:1-3 when the Lord comes back to gather His church.

No it isn't. Here comes some teaching. I hope you are paying attention.

When Jesus spoke the words of Jn 14:1-3 He hadn't died or been resurrected yet. So when He said "I am going there to preprare a place for you" He was speaking about WHEN he was raised from the dead and then return to the Father. Real simple.

Now, this is important: The next sentence doesn't refer to a rapture and taking anyone to heaven. Read it carefully.

So, what does He say? He says He will go to heaven to prepare a place for them (because they all would die physically and go to heaven). iow, He was guaranteeing to them a place in heaven when they die. That's all.

and what follows is clear: He says He will come back (Second Advent) and "take you to be with Me" (nothing about being taken to heaven as so many assume).

The last phrase, "that you also may be where I am", is a clear parallel to 1 Thess 4:17 - After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

So, to be "where I am" from Jn 14:3 has the same message as "and so we will be with the Lord forever".

So, in NEITHER Jn 14:1-3 or 1 Thess 4:13-17 do we find any mention of Jesus taking anyone to to heaven.

As I continue to tell you and others, the wrath of God must take place prior to the Lord's return to the earth to end the age. Since Jesus already took upon himself God's wrath on behalf of every believer satisfying it completely, then God's wrath no longer rests upon those who believe and therefore must be removed from the earth prior to said wrath. It is very simple to understand.

Your error and bias is found in the words "therefore MUST BE removed from the earth".

Was God able to deliver His people from His wrath poured out on Egypt? Of course. Did God remove His people from Egypt when He was judging Egypt? No, He didn't.

He also states in Revelation 3:10 that for those who endure patiently, He will keep them out of the hour of trial, which is another description of God's time of wrath.

Sure. The 10 plagues of Egypt is the perfect example of HOW God can keep His peple out of the hour of trial WITHOUT having to remove them to another place.

All you've got is bias and presumption. No verses tell us that Jesus takes believers off the earth to miss the trib.

 

[OldSage]

So, even though Paul's emphasis at the end of his first epistle to the Thessalonians was the Lord's future coming in ch 4 and 5, and the first chapter in his second epistle a few months later, why would he change gears in ch 2 and refer to a local event?

btw, where do you get the idea that Paul or anyone else would know that Jerusalem would fall in 70 AD and the temple destroyed?

So how could Paul warn against that, or even just predict it would be coming?

Hi FG...I am a bit pushed for time, so I will try and answer grosso modo.

Paul knew 'just about' everything FG. That is a given, a baseline.
You use language that suggests my thinking this is extremely aberrant!
I don't know, I don't know if you want to discuss, engage, learn, challenge, be challenged,
or something else.

I'll try, but challenging Paul's credentials kind of takes us off first and second base, and
over to the clothes' department to argue about the team colours.

You were arguing about parts of speech before. Whether episynago is a verb or noun is irrelevant, it is still the same word.
These are elementary things, and it is hard to develop a discussion further if they need to be qualified.

The bottom line is this. The Day of the Lord Paul is talking about: either it is what you all say, or it is the
judgment of God on Jerusalem.

Paul (I believe) is simply telling the synagogue in Thessalonia not to be tricked into going up to Jerusalem.
That is the bottom line. The temple fell in August AD 70, but they needed to evacuate Jerusalem well before that.
Spring AD70 when the gates were locked for passover, and everyone was locked in for the 5 month siege. (Or maybe before, I will need to check).

So he cannot give the destruction of the Temple as the sign. The synagogue needs to understand
something else as their warning that judgment has come to Jerusalem and it is not good to
go up for the feasts. Hence the explanation in 2 Thess 2.

The idea that Paul is talking about a deception involving a raptured Church, him included, and then him once raptured writing letters to them, but they haven't been raptured, but they believe the Church has been raptured, and it is now the Last Judgment. All that is hokum. Nonsense. Makes zero sense. Why everyone pushes it defeats me.

 

[Mem]

The idea that Paul is talking about a deception involving a raptured Church, him included, and then him once raptured writing letters to them, but they haven't been raptured, but they believe the Church has been raptured, and it is now the Last Judgment. All that is hokum. Nonsense. Makes zero sense. Why everyone pushes it defeats me.

I was trying to make sense of it, yes... I really would rather be squirrelled away to safety with the rest of the nuts but...crazy people sort of scare me.

 

[Mem]

I cannot fathom for neither intents nor purposes why Christians 'must' appear no longer existent upon the face of the earth for any period of time since Jesus first advent as Son of Joseph, whom the majority of Jews missed. But, since then, we're now looking to the Son of David's coming. How would the absence of Christians either help or hinder Jews 'returning' to God?

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.

I see your view clearer to me now after I read your latest comment and realized I need to stop trying to make sense of nonsense...
And then I came to that point that, if Jews and Gentiles aren't on the same page concerning anything, we do have it, now, in common that we both look for coming of the Son of David, right? How then, would you address that 70ad qualifies as that advent?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Hi FG...

Paul knew 'just about' everything FG. That is a given, a baseline.

Everything Paul wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's a given. However, even if the Holy Spirit gave him the news that Jerusalem would be leveled (70 AD), he wrote NOTHING about Jerusalem specifically being leveled.

He DID mention the end times Beast (world ruler) in both epistles. So no one would have understand 2 Thess 2:1 as a prophecy about Jerusalem.

You use language that suggests my thinking this is extremely aberrant!

There's no context for forcing Jerusalem into what Paul wrote.

I don't know, I don't know if you want to discuss, engage, learn, challenge, be challenged,
or something else.

I've stated my understanding of Scripture. i've given verses that say what I believe. I challenge others to disagree to prove their understanding. And give verses that SAY what they believe.

If anyone can prove from context that Paul was referring to Jerusalem in either of his epistles to the Thessalonians, that would be great and I would not be able to cite 2 Thess 2:1-3 as proving the rapture occurs at the Second Advent.

But, so far, no one has done that. Lots of claims, sure. But nothing about verses that say believers go to heaven after being raptured.

I'll try, but challenging Paul's credentials kind of takes us off first and second base, and
over to the clothes' department to argue about the team colours.

I haven't challenged Paul's credentials at all. I AM claiming that no one in Thessalonica would understand that he was predicting the fall of Jerusalem in his lifetime. Because Paul never mentioned Jerusalem in his epistles. So there's no reason to wedge Jerusalem into 2 Thess 2:1-3.

You were arguing about parts of speech before. Whether episynago is a verb or noun is irrelevant, it is still the same word.

Actually, that was my point. And the ONLY PLACES they are used are in the context of the Second Advent.

These are elementary things, and it is hard to develop a discussion further if they need to be qualified.

Are you saying you have a difficult time explaining elementary things? That should be the easiest thing to do.

It's the deep doctrines that are difficult to explain and discuss.

The bottom line is this. The Day of the Lord Paul is talking about: either it is what you all say, or it is the
judgment of God on Jerusalem.

It can't be anything about Jerusalem because there is NO CONTEXT for that. How could his audience understand that? He never mentioned Jerusalem in either epistle. But he emphasized the Second Advent in both epistles.

1 Thess 5-
1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you,
2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

Now, how do you support your view that "the day of the Lord" refers to God's judgment on Jerusalem?

This is from 2 Thess 1-
7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.
8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

This is a clear reference to the Second Advent (when the Lord Jesus is REVEALED from heaven in blazings fire).

v.8 is clearly about end times, not anything about Jerusalem. We all know Jerusalem was destroyed, but Jesus didn't appear then in blazing fire or with powerful angels.

v.9 is a clear reference to the lake of fire, which follows His Second Advent.

So, in both 1 and 2 Thess, Paul references the Second Advent of Christ.

So there is every reason to understand 2:1-3 as the Second Advent and no reason to understand the passage as referring to Jerusalem.

Paul (I believe) is simply telling the synagogue in Thessalonia not to be tricked into going up to Jerusalem.

There is no context for thinking that Paul was referring to Jerusalem. None at all.

That is the bottom line. The temple fell in August AD 70, but they needed to evacuate Jerusalem well before that.

Here's the reality. IF Paul was warning the Thessalonians to get out of Jerusalem "before that", why is there NO mention of Jerusalem or any kind of date?

Spring AD70 when the gates were locked for passover, and everyone was locked in for the 5 month siege. (Or maybe before, I will need to check).

We have all the facts of the siege. Paul had NONE, or he would have shared them specifically.

There is NO evidence that he had Jerusalem in mind when he wrote either epistle to the Thessalonians.

So he cannot give the destruction of the Temple as the sign. The synagogue needs to understand
something else as their warning that judgment has come to Jerusalem and it is not good to
go up for the feasts. Hence the explanation in 2 Thess 2.

Since Paul NEVER mentioned Jerusalem at all, this is only speculation.

The idea that Paul is talking about a deception involving a raptured Church, him included, and then him once raptured writing letters to them, but they haven't been raptured, but they believe the Church has been raptured, and it is now the Last Judgment. All that is hokum. Nonsense. Makes zero sense. Why everyone pushes it defeats me.

Who pushes this nonsense?

Paul's focus was on the Second Advent in both epistles. Which is when all believers will be resurrected/raptured. I've showed you the verses.

otoh, you have no verses that mention Jerusalem at all.

If Paul had Jerusalem in mind, he would have actually mentioned it specifically. And there is nothing about evacuating Jerusalem in either epistle. So why you think he was is baffling.

 

[Ahwatukee]

FreeGrace2 said:
Now, you need to define "our Lord's coming" in 2 Thess 2:1. Prove it can't be the Second Advent or prove it is pretrib by defining what it means.

I already gave the most straightforward and clear way to do it. Quote 2 Thess 2:1 and put in parentheses what you define the words "coming" and "gathering" to mean.


Just quote the verse and put in parentheses your definition, as I already have done.


You misread my posts. I did. Clearly. And I'll happily do it again.

1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (Second Advent) and our being gathered to him (rapture), 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.

Freegrace2,

I wish you could understand that this is where your error is:

V.1 - Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him

V.2 Asserting that the day of the Lord has already come

These are two closely linked yet separate events with the Day of the Lord following our being gathered to Him.

The "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him, is indeed referring to the gathering of the church (rapture).

In opposition, The Day of the Lord, is the time of God's wrath which follows the gathering of the church.

Always keep in mind, that before the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, God's wrath must come first. And since believers in Christ are not appointed to suffer God's wrath, then we must be gathered prior to said wrath. Don't just bring in some scriptures and leave others out.

The coming of our Lord to gather His church takes place first, with the Day of the Lord to follow which is when the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments will take place, as well as the beasts reign. After the 7th bowl judgment has been poured out, then the Lord will return to the earth to end the age and the church will be following Him out of heaven riding on white horses. - Rev.19:6-8, 14

The gathering of the church and the Lord's return to the earth to end the age, are two separate events which are at least seven years apart.

Scriptures regarding the Gathering of the church:
"In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and welcome you into My presence, so that you also may be where I am." John 14:2-3.

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. " - 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. - 1 Corinthians 15:51-53

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him" - 2 Thessalonians 2:1

Scriptures regarding the Second Coming: (Jesus returns to the earth to end the age)
"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth c will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." - Matthew 24:30-31

"Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him—even those who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. So shall it be! Amen." - Revelation 1:7

Jesus returning to the earth to end the age - Revelation 19:11-21

It is paramount in discerning which scriptures go with the correct event. I have placed the scriptures pertaining to their relevant event above.

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day (the very day that Jesus Christ comes back to earth to end the Trib) will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Your claim above is grammatically false! "That day" would have to refer back to the last event that was mentioned, which would be "The Day of the Lord" in verse 2 and not our being gathered to Him. You just jumped to that conclusion. To prove my point, here is the entire verse:

"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come. 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day (Day of the Lord) will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed "

The Day of the Lord is not just restricted to the the actual day that the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, but is the time period which follows the gathering of the church and which includes God's wrath in its entirety during that entire seven years. Even the when the earth is destroyed and everything in it melting with a fervent heat it is also referred to as the day of the Lord.

See how simple it can be to explain your own viewpoint? The red words in v.1 mean the very same thing as the red words in v.3.

Your claim above is why you err! The coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him, is not the same as 'the day of the Lord.' For the day of the Lord follows the gathering of the church.

I urge you to do a study on 'The Day of the Lord" so that you will understand that it is the time of God's wrath and not the gathering of the church.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The idea that Paul is talking about a deception involving a raptured Church, him included, and then him once raptured writing letters to them, but they haven't been raptured, but they believe the Church has been raptured, and it is now the Last Judgment. All that is hokum. Nonsense. Makes zero sense. Why everyone pushes it defeats me.

The "false claim" that Paul speaks of in v.2 has ZERO trace whatsoever of the idea of "rapture" in its contents.

IOW, the contents of the false claim NOWHERE states "that the RAPTURE has already happened / is already present / is already here" (and you/we missed it)... THAT idea is NOT what the false claim consists of.

Rather, "that the day of the Lord is already here / is already present [and is playing out in our present experience on the earth]".

Paul supplies no hint in the least that the false conveyors had / have to be aware of the concept of "rapture" whatsoever.



[I, for one, have NOT stated such! ]





PAUL is the one BRINGING the "rapture" Subject to bear [TO the minds of the Thessalonians] on the problem of such a claim (its contents, which are NOT about "rapture"-v.2).

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

OldSage said:
The idea that Paul is talking about a deception involving a raptured Church, him included, and then him once raptured writing letters to them, but they haven't been raptured, but they believe the Church has been raptured, and it is now the Last Judgment. All that is hokum. Nonsense. Makes zero sense. Why everyone pushes it defeats me.

I was trying to make sense of it, yes... I really would rather be squirrelled away to safety with the rest of the nuts but...crazy people sort of scare me.

NOT "everyone" pushes it (that [incorrect] "idea" about the "false claim" Paul is covering in v.2--which "false claim" is NOT AT ALL covering the Subject of "rapture").

See my post above this one, for explanation (Post #4677).





[any one that see the Subject of "rapture" in the "false claim" Paul is talking about in v.2 is MISSING THE POINT! ]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

You misread my posts. I did. Clearly. And I'll happily do it again.
1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (Second Advent) and our being gathered to him (rapture), 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 (the very day that Jesus Christ comes back to earth to end the Trib) will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

See how simple it can be to explain your own viewpoint? The red words in v.1 mean the very same thing as the red words in v.3.

The blue words, which are in parentheses are my viewpoints about what the red words mean.

I'm still not seeing from you where else in the passage covers the idea expressed in v.1: "our episynagoges unto Him" (our Rapture [in the air]).


Is that the only reference to the concept of "rapture," [v.1] in this passage, according to your viewpoint??

 

[Ahwatukee]

FreeGrace2 said:
Which verse shows that resurrected/raptured believefrs are taken back to the Father's house?

if you can't show any verse, you can't make that claim. The Bible would say it if will occur. Why not?

I have been.

That should have said "you should not be teaching."

"My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." - John 14:1-3

No it isn't. Here comes some teaching. I hope you are paying attention.

When Jesus spoke the words of Jn 14:1-3 He hadn't died or been resurrected yet. So when He said "I am going there to preprare a place for you" He was speaking about WHEN he was raised from the dead and then return to the Father. Real simple.

That part is correct. Jesus was speaking about returning to the Father after He ascended where He would prepare places for us in the Father's house. So you got that part right.

Now, this is important: The next sentence doesn't refer to a rapture and taking anyone to heaven. Read it carefully.

So, what does He say? He says He will go to heaven to prepare a place for them (because they all would die physically and go to heaven). iow, He was guaranteeing to them a place in heaven when they die. That's all.

The above is the part that is not correct! I think that you need to take your own advice and read it even more carefully! Everything you put in parenthesis is completely assumed on your part and is false. You left out the fact that Jesus does not come back each time a person dies to take their spirit back to the Father's house.

Let's put your claim to the test. You say that the Lord was going to prepare a place for us referring to each believer when they would all die physically and go to to heaven and so the Lord went to the Father's house to prepare a place for our spirits after we die. So, that right there is not supported by the scripture. It says that He is going to the Father's house to prepare a place for us and that He would be coming back to take us to where He is, which is speaking about a group event and not an individual event.

When a believer dies the Lord does not repeatedly come back to get each one of us to take us back to the Father's house one by one. But He is going to come and get us as a group. Therefore, John 14:1-3 is not speaking about when we die, but is speaking to the living church at the time of the resurrection. At that time all of the dead from the onset of the church till that time will be resurrected all at once. Immediately after that, the living will be transformed into their immortal and glorified bodies and will be caught up with those who have just resurrected. At this point the entire church will be gathered in the air in one place and one time, where the Lord will then take us back to the Father's house to those places that He went to prepare for us.

It's all about dead being resurrected and the living being changed immortal and glorified. Those spirits who have died up until this point, are waiting for the resurrection from heaven side, while we who are still alive are waiting for the Lord's appearing here on earth, both looking forward to the immortal and glorification of our bodies.

and what follows is clear: He says He will come back (Second Advent) and "take you to be with Me" (nothing about being taken to heaven as so many assume).

If by "Second Advent" you mean when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, that can't be! As told you and others so many times, the Lord does not return to the earth to end the age until after God's wrath has been completed. That said, scripture states that believers within the church are not appointed to suffer God's wrath and that because Jesus already did, satisfying it completely. This is other important information that you leave out of your conclusion. Everyone who believes that the Lord is going to put His church through His wrath, is not truly believing that He took upon himself God's wrath on behalf of every believer.

The last phrase, "that you also may be where I am", is a clear parallel to 1 Thess 4:17 - After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

So, to be "where I am" from Jn 14:3 has the same message as "and so we will be with the Lord forever".

So, in NEITHER Jn 14:1-3 or 1 Thess 4:13-17 do we find any mention of Jesus taking anyone to to heaven.

"But our citizenship is in heaven, and we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables Him to subject all things to Himself, will transform our lowly bodies to be like His glorious body. - Phil.3:20

The above in black is exactly what happens when the Lord comes to gather His church, dead and living. Our citizenship is in heaven and we are waiting a Savior from there who will transform our lowly bodies to be like His glorious body, immortal and glorified. And notice that our citizenship is in heaven when that takes place.

Was God able to deliver His people from His wrath poured out on Egypt? Of course. Did God remove His people from Egypt when He was judging Egypt? No, He didn't.

Sure. The 10 plagues of Egypt is the perfect example of HOW God can keep His people out of the hour of trial WITHOUT having to remove them to another place.

All you've got is bias and presumption. No verses tell us that Jesus takes believers off the earth to miss the trib.

It's not bias, but is scripturally sound. Your comparison is not valid. God did not remove Israel from the earth because He had promised them the land of Canaan. How could they possess the land if God removed them from the earth? Same thing with Noah. If God had removed Noah and his family from the earth and then flooded it, there would be no one on the earth to repopulate it.

Your error is not understanding the severity and magnitude of God's coming wrath which will affect the entire world. There will be no small city for the church to run to and no ark's for us to get on to escape God's coming, unprecedented wrath. Our money will be no good and the only way to be able to pay our mortgages, rents, buy gas, groceries, etc., etc., would be by receiving the mark of the beast. But since these things are all a part of God's wrath, then you would be saying that God will be pouring out His wrath upon His church, which by the way is nowhere mentioned in the narrative of God's wrath, nor is there anything mentioned about the church being protected during that time.

As I said in earlier posts, those who are believing and teaching in a post tribulation gathering of the church, cannot at the same time be believing in the imminent return of the Lord, because God's wrath has to take place first before the Lord can return to the earth to end the age. If that was the case, then we would not have to watch and be ready as the Lord warns us, because He wouldn't be able to return to the earth until after His wrath is completed.

But for those who believe that the Lord is going to gather His church prior to His wrath, then the Lord's appearing to gather His church is truly imminent, i.e. it could happen any moment, because nothing has to take place prior to His appearing and our being gathered.

By your teaching that the Lord is going to gather His church after His wrath, you are teaching others and new believers that even though they are saved, they still have to go through God's wrath. What? For good measure? It means that you hold what Jesus accomplished regarding God's wrath as having no value.

"But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed."

Everyone who believes and teaches a post wrath gathering of the church, is ignoring what Jesus accomplished above, because you are putting the living church through the wrath that Jesus himself satisfied.