Jesus comes immediately AFTER the tribulation, there is no Left Behind Secret Rapture=Stop causing fear.

[Jesusistheway64]

In the "PERFECT INDICATIVE" (which 2Th2:2 word is in), it DOES:

1764 [e]
enestēken
ἐνέστηκεν
is present
V-RIA-3S [<-- the "RI" meaning "PERFECT INDICATIVE"]


translated properly here as "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE"



This ^ word is not G1764 like in the 2Th2:2 verse ^ ; but is instead G1451 (in Matt26:18) meaning "near" - https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/26/18/ss1/s_955018



Study it out, ewq!

The blue letter Bible.? No wonder you are screwed up

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The different forms of the GREEK WORD ITSELF (IN THE ACTUAL TEXT) tells one what tense (etc) it is (in any given verse)...

What is "CORRUPTED" about THAT??


lol

 

[Jesusistheway64]

The different forms of the GREEK WORD ITSELF (IN THE ACTUAL TEXT) tells one what tense (etc) it is...

What is "CORRUPTED" about THAT??


lol

That's the problem to Greek words One word may mean different things. And it has to be used in context.
The real scholars new how to do it..ones actually qualified to do it. like the educated ones.. Not one playing with corrupted CONcordance

 

[Jesusistheway64]

In the "PERFECT INDICATIVE" (which 2Th2:2 word is in), it DOES:

1764 [e]
enestēken
ἐνέστηκεν
is present
V-RIA-3S [<-- the "RI" meaning "PERFECT INDICATIVE"]


translated properly here as "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE"



This ^ word is not G1764 like in the 2Th2:2 verse ^ ; but is instead G1451 (in Matt26:18) meaning "near" - https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/26/18/ss1/s_955018



Study it o

EVERY source I examined, when I studied this out, ALL show the SAME words for v.1; ...and show the SAME words for v.8b (the verses I posted about, that you quoted of my post [without response, I might add ]);



Are you aware of a "corrupted" Greek Concordance that shows something different to that?? If so, do tell... educate us all.

You have no idea how the Churches are being decieved. I would be glad to share why I say that. But you I can tell would not take it in...God has open my eyes. Once your eyes are opened you clearly see the corruption all around and the lies being perpetrated on the masses

 

[ewq1938]

Study it out, ewq!

G1764
ἐνίστημι
enistēmi
en-is'-tay-mee
From G1722 and G2476; to place on hand, that is, (reflexively) impend , (participle) be instant: - come, be at hand, present.
Total KJV occurrences: 7

The word can mean something present or something near:

im·pend
/imˈpend/

verb

1. (of an event regarded as threatening or significant) be about to happen : "it seemed certain that some great trial of strength impended between the opponents"

 

[Jesusistheway64]

G1764
ἐνίστημι
enistēmi
en-is'-tay-mee
From G1722 and G2476; to place on hand, that is, (reflexively) impend , (participle) be instant: - come, be at hand, present.
Total KJV occurrences: 7

The word can mean something present or something near:

im·pend
/imˈpend/

verb

1. (of an event regarded as threatening or significant) be about to happen : "it seemed certain that some great trial of strength impended between the opponents"

That's the problem. Greeks words can mean different things. Its unfortunate that the pastors are using them to preach and act like they know Greek. Its ridiculous. If yall knew what the end game was and why they doing it. Yall would stop using them.

 

[Jesusistheway64]

G1764
ἐνίστημι
enistēmi
en-is'-tay-mee
From G1722 and G2476; to place on hand, that is, (reflexively) impend , (participle) be instant: - come, be at hand, present.
Total KJV occurrences: 7

The word can mean something present or something near:

im·pend
/imˈpend/

verb

1. (of an event regarded as threatening or significant) be about to happen : "it seemed certain that some great trial of strength impended between s

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

G1764
ἐνίστημι
enistēmi
en-is'-tay-mee

From G1722 and G2476; to place on hand, that is, (reflexively) impend , (participle) be instant: - come, be at hand, present.
Total KJV occurrences: 7

The word can mean something present or something near

^ (in bold ^ ) Right.

Because in this verse (2Th2:2) it is in THIS PARTICULAR FORM:

1764 [e]
enestēken
ἐνέστηκεν
is present [<--English translation of this form]
V-RIA-3S [<-- the "RI" means "PERFECT INDICATIVE" as used in 2Th2:2]





And you know what "PERFECT INDICATIVE" means...

 

[ewq1938]

Study it out, ewq!

Barnes:

The phrase “at hand,” means near. Grotius supposes that it denotes that same year, and refers for proof to Rom_8:38; 1Co_3:22; Gal_1:4. Heb_9:9. If so, the attempt to fix the day was an early indication of the desire to determine the very time of his appearing - a disposition which has been so common since, and which has led into so many sad mistakes.

Gill:

as that the day of Christ is at hand; or is at this instant just now coming on; as if it would be within that year, in some certain month, and on some certain day in it ; which notion the apostle would have them by no means give into, for these reasons, because should Christ not come, as there was no reason to believe he would in so short a time , they would be tempted to disbelieve his coming at all, at least be very indifferent about it


JFB:

is at hand — rather, “is immediately imminent,” literally, “is present”; “is instantly coming.” Christ and His apostles always taught that the day of the Lord’s coming is at hand; and it is not likely that Paul would imply anything contrary here; what he denies is, that it is so immediately imminent, instant, or present, as to justify the neglect of everyday worldly duties. Chrysostom, and after him Alford, translates, “is (already) present” (compare 2Ti_2:18), a kindred error. But in 2Ti_3:1, the same Greek verb is translated “come.” Wahl supports this view. The Greek is usually used of actual presence; but is quite susceptible of the translation, “is all but present.”


RWP:

Perfect active indicative of enistēmi, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near.

 

[ewq1938]

And you know what "PERFECT INDICATIVE" means...

It can mean more than you are aware of. This is why consulting actual experts in Greek Grammar is important.

Barnes:

The phrase “at hand,” means near. Grotius supposes that it denotes that same year, and refers for proof to Rom_8:38; 1Co_3:22; Gal_1:4. Heb_9:9. If so, the attempt to fix the day was an early indication of the desire to determine the very time of his appearing - a disposition which has been so common since, and which has led into so many sad mistakes.

Gill:

as that the day of Christ is at hand; or is at this instant just now coming on; as if it would be within that year, in some certain month, and on some certain day in it ; which notion the apostle would have them by no means give into, for these reasons, because should Christ not come, as there was no reason to believe he would in so short a time , they would be tempted to disbelieve his coming at all, at least be very indifferent about it


JFB:

is at hand — rather, “is immediately imminent,” literally, “is present”; “is instantly coming.” Christ and His apostles always taught that the day of the Lord’s coming is at hand; and it is not likely that Paul would imply anything contrary here; what he denies is, that it is so immediately imminent, instant, or present, as to justify the neglect of everyday worldly duties. Chrysostom, and after him Alford, translates, “is (already) present” (compare 2Ti_2:18), a kindred error. But in 2Ti_3:1, the same Greek verb is translated “come.” Wahl supports this view. The Greek is usually used of actual presence; but is quite susceptible of the translation, “is all but present.”


RWP:

Perfect active indicative of enistēmi, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

RWP:

Perfect active indicative of enistēmi, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near.

Except, in 2Th2:2 the word is NOT "intransitive"... SOOOO... [unlike "intransitive verbs" ^ ] THIS VERB IN THIS VERSE indeed has an object (in this sentence / verse), so is instead a "transitive verb" (not "intransitive," as your "RWP" example spells out):

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_thessalonians/2-2.htm


... we covered that in past discussions.

 

[ewq1938]

Except, in 2Th2:2 the word is NOT "intransitive"... SOOOO... [unlike "intransitive verbs" ^ ] THIS VERB IN THIS VERSE indeed has an object (in this sentence / verse), so is instead a "transitive verb" (not "intransitive," as your "RWP" example spells out):

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_thessalonians/2-2.htm


... we covered that in past discussions.

And I am going to rely on the expertise of RWP, and the others cited rather than your non-Greek expert opinions (no offense intended). The word in that tense can mean near as opposed to having already happened. At hand is not the same as in hand which is why that English worded was used by, again, Greek to English translation experts.

 

[Ahwatukee]

It's imminence. I understand what imminent means; it means that Jesus could come at any moment. But if imminence is true, when did imminence begin? Jesus coming could not have been imminent in the first century, because Jesus told Peter that Peter would die in his old age, and that the temple would be destroyed, and John had to deliver the letter to the seven churches. Imminence could not be before the fulness of gentiles, which has been ongoing for almost the last 2,000 years. The cosmic disturbances spoken of by Joel and Isaiah also have to occur before Jesus returns, if this is the same cosmic disturbance Jesus spoke of in Matthew, and that disturbance occurs after the tribulation but before He returns. So, my question i,once again, when did imminency begin?

Sorry for the typo.

Just to clarify, regarding the imminent return of the Lord, I'm referring to the Lord's appearing to gather the church and taking them back to the Father's house in accordance with John 14:1-3 and 1 Thess.4:16-17, which takes place before God's wrath and before those cosmic signs mentioned. By your mentioning of those cosmic disturbances in Joel, Isaiah and Matthew, you are referring to the event of when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, which takes place after God's wrath.

To answer your question, the imminence of the Lord's return 'to gather the church' began after the Lord ascended into heaven. That the Lord told Peter that he would die in his old age, does not interfere with the Lord's imminent return. Peter and everyone else who died would simply be resurrected, while the living in Christ would be transformed and caught up. But I see what you are saying. I guess that you could say that because of what the Lord told Peter, that he would have to die of old age before the Lord could return. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians regarding the resurrection and the living being transformed and caught up he said "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. By saying "We" Paul was including himself in the group of those who would be alive and caught up, which would infer imminence. Most place this letter as being written at 51-52 AD. In any case, if you want a benchmark, you could say that the Lord's coming has been imminent anytime after the first century. However, we in the future know that the Lord's coming to gather us is close, because among other proofs such as Israel becoming a nation, the current state of the world and the fact that the mark of the beast technology is here, we can see that the gathering of the church is very close to taking place.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And I am going to rely on the expertise of RWP, and the others cited rather than your non-Greek expert opinions (no offense intended).

Well, I would just suggest (and I can't tell coz I'm not reading your "RWP" text in the context of where it was given), to consider carefully that his quote is not saying specifically that "'such and such' IS THE CASE in 2Th2:2" [<--I don't read the writer to be saying that]; and rather that he may just be saying "sometimes, in some cases, it's 'such-and-such, while at other times, in other cases, it's 'thus-and-such [depending on the word in whatever context/verse it is used, and whether or not the sentence HAS AN 'OBJECT' [or, a 'DIRECT OBJECT']; to ascertain whether the verb is transitive [in just such a way], or INtransitive [which would be 'thus-and-such' other way]"... IOW, I don't hear the writer in your quote ('RWP') to be making a specific statement ABOUT the verb IN 2TH2:2 specifically, but rather is making a general GRAMMAR statement (re: this verb, wherever used... and depending on its context / where used)



That's how I'm seeing it.

Because 2Th2:2's verb "G1764" (under discussion) DOES have an "object" in this particular sentence. That's just regular ol' grammar, not requiring "expert" credentials... it's something any ordinary ol' fella can check out for himself.

 

[JerryInBoston]

Sorry for the typo.

Just to clarify, regarding the imminent return of the Lord, I'm referring to the Lord's appearing to gather the church and taking them back to the Father's house in accordance with John 14:1-3 and 1 Thess.4:16-17, which takes place before God's wrath and before those cosmic signs mentioned. By your mentioning of those cosmic disturbances in Joel, Isaiah and Matthew, you are referring to the event of when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, which takes place after God's wrath.

To answer your question, the imminence of the Lord's return 'to gather the church' began after the Lord ascended into heaven. That the Lord told Peter that he would die in his old age, does not interfere with the Lord's imminent return. Peter and everyone else who died would simply be resurrected, while the living in Christ would be transformed and caught up. But I see what you are saying. I guess that you could say that because of what the Lord told Peter, that he would have to die of old age before the Lord could return. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians regarding the resurrection and the living being transformed and caught up he said "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. By saying "We" Paul was including himself in the group of those who would be alive and caught up, which would infer imminence. Most place this letter as being written at 51-52 AD. In any case, if you want a benchmark, you could say that the Lord's coming has been imminent anytime after the first century. However, we in the future know that the Lord's coming to gather us is close, because among other proofs such as Israel becoming a nation, the current state of the world and the fact that the mark of the beast technology is here, we can see that the gathering of the church is very close to taking place.

So, if Christ's return is imminent, when I first stated that if you are born again, saved by God's grace through your faith in Jesus, following the Lord and living your life as He has commanded. If you take this position, you'll be sure to be rapture ready, regardless of when Jesus returns, correct?

 

[Runningman]

No it has not...I think I am going to start more conspiracy stuff on here... and see if you twist more scripture.

Who twisted scriptures and what was the example?

 

[Absolutely]

Rev 14 gathering DURING the trib destroys any hope of a postrib rapture.

 

[Absolutely]

It's imminence. I understand what imminent means; it means that Jesus could come at any moment. But if imminence is true, when did imminence begin? Jesus coming could not have been imminent in the first century, because Jesus told Peter that Peter would die in his old age, and that the temple would be destroyed, and John had to deliver the letter to the seven churches. Imminence could not be before the fulness of gentiles, which has been ongoing for almost the last 2,000 years. The cosmic disturbances spoken of by Joel and Isaiah also have to occur before Jesus returns, if this is the same cosmic disturbance Jesus spoke of in Matthew, and that disturbance occurs after the tribulation but before He returns. So, my question i,once again, when did imminency begin?

Or you could center on "where"

Where is the church during the trib scripturally?

 

[Absolutely]

Only Post-trib matches when Paul and Christ said the rapture happens. Everything else is eisegesis and misunderstanding of scripture.

Huh?

The ONLY thing postrib scripturally is the second coming on white horses.

There is not a single postrib rapture verse. None.

And why do you ignore the pretrib verses?
Noah?
Lot?
The 19 virgins?
Acts 1?
The last supper dialogue?
The 2 escape verses?

 

[Absolutely]

I am glad you sent me that. Since you and eye see eye to eye. No point in arguing over it...lol

Lol
Nothing there supports your view.
I looked at those verses you slanted to your doctrine


Then you guys quote dead men galore.

Ironically those ancient postribbers you think support your view saw israel scattered and their homeland destroyed.

So naturally their view was corrupted.
When israel became a nation it reset prophetic views.

Those dead men you cling to never saw israel become a nation and many were amil.

Is their amil doctrine true?

Your doctrine is so shaky as well as ESTABLISHED on a corrupted view of those ancient dead men you painted yourself into a corner with.

You have no verses.
You change ours or ignore them.