How the Pre-Trib Rapture Became Popular in the Modern Church

Ahwatukee · Sep 25, 2021

Hello TheDivineWaterMark,

I think that is some confusion here. So allow me to present what I am saying:

There are two closely linked, yet different events mentioned in 2 Thess.2:1-3

1). The coming of the Lord and our being gathered to Him (rapture)

2). The Day of the Lord - the time of God's wrath which follows the gathering

There were false teachers there who were proclaiming that "The Day of the Lord" had come, not the appearing of our Lord and our being gathered to Him. The occurrence of apostasy and the revealing of the man of lawlessness is the proof that Paul gave them of how to know that 'The Day of the Lord' had come.

Since there were those who were teaching that the Day of the Lord had come, the Thessalonians were concerned and wrote Paul as to why they were not gathered to meet the Lord in the air, which is what takes place prior to the Day of the Lord.

I am not wrong in these things, because I have studied the in's and out's of this issue for over 45 years.

And I humbly ask you to please stop with all of the grammar, definitions and indicatives and such and just write straight to the point because I study all of that stuff and it just makes it difficult to follow the post. Thank you!

I am doing no such thing! I do not post anything that I do not have complete confidence in. I'm not posting these things from the cuff of my sleeve.

The bottom line is that, "The coming of the Lord and our being gathered to Him" takes place first, which is followed by "The Day of the Lord" in verse 2 &3 which is the time period of God's wrath. The proof of the Day of the Lord, is the occurrence of the apostasy and the revealing of the man of lawlessness.

And as I told CV5, the reason that I was moved to understand what Paul was saying to the Thessalonians, is because expositors kept trying to use the word "apostasy" to mean to 'depart' up into the air to meet Jesus, which is completely false. Because the word is used in Acts 21:21 to mean to "forsake" the Law of Moses. The other translated words used in the definition of the word are 'defection, revolt, departure, properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing (of faith)"

Now some try to use the translated word 'departure' but use it to infer departing upward into the air to meet the Lord, which cannot be done. If the word 'departure' is used, then it must retain the original meaning of 'apostasia" and its translated words listed above. To be clear, you can't make the word 'apostasia translated as departure, to mean to fly up into the air to meet Jesus.

ewq1938 · Sep 25, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

Yes it is. Verse 1 proves it. That's the verse you left out of your "study".

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

That's the second coming and the rapture. This not only proves Paul is talking about the day of second coming not the great trib but it also proves rapture takes place at the second coming. One verse is all it takes to disprove the false pretrib doctrine.

TheDivineWatermark · Sep 25, 2021

Ahwatukee said:

In the above, I am pointing out IN YOUR POST, the very thing I stated that you've ELIMINATED when "reconstructing / restating the sentence"... ("what it would say" in this case...)

... because sentence WOULD NOT be saying the thing that you are suggesting "it would be saying" ...

... if you actually factor in the fact that "[3a's] that day" is referring to the Subject of the IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING verse (v.2-the Subject of the false claim) and NOT the distinct Subject back in v.1 (PAUL'S Subject). The FALSE CLAIM (v.2) was not covering THAT SUBJECT (PAUL'S, v.1 Subject).

In your "restating the sentence" (what it would say, in this case), you are not actually factoring in what "3 that day" is in reference to, but have wholly ELIMINATED that Subject in your "restating" of it.

I realize that you cannot see that you've done so, but I've tried to point it out graphically in the above quotes, so that hopefully at least the readers of this thread can DETECT what is commonly done... when folks are endeavoring the explain the supposed "fault / flaw" with this idea, but which stated "flaw" is actually non-existent based on what the text actually speaks to when considered with the ENTIRE CONTEXT in view, as opposed to eliminating the KEY ASPECT [v.2] of the thing which Paul is conveying, here, as you have done ^ )

ewq1938 · Sep 25, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

You are one conflating and mis-interpreting the passage, not me. The day of Lord is same day the lord comes and we are gathered to him as found in verse 1. This is too simple to get wrong buddy.

TheDivineWatermark · Sep 25, 2021

ewq1938 said:

What you need to come to terms with, is what Paul is saying THE FALSE CLAIM IS STATING (v.2)

Until you get that straight, you will continue to misunderstand the POINT Paul is ACTUALLY conveying in this text.

ewq1938 · Sep 25, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

lol, that is understood by everyone. What you don't understand is Paul is speaking about events that will happen before the second coming and rapture that happens the same day. Again, it all begins in verse 1 which you conveniently did not include in your original post. That verse disproves your whole theory.

TheDivineWatermark · Sep 25, 2021

ewq1938 said:

No it doesn't.

PAUL'S SUBJECT (v.1) that HE is BRINGING TO BEAR on the issue, is NOT AT ALL what the FALSE CLAIMANTS' SUBJECT they were "purporting" (v.2)

[COMPLETELY DISTINCT *Subjects*... which Paul is placing in the proper SEQUENCE--i.e. how the ONE relates to the OTHER, SEQUENCE-WISE!! (the text itself states ONE THING "*FIRST*" before the OTHER [a TIME PERIOD] can be "PRESENT")]

Ahwatukee · Sep 25, 2021

ewq1938 said:

The gathering of the church does not take place on the day that the Lord returns to the earth to end the age.

The coming of the Lord and our being gathered to Him takes place first, with the Day of the Lord, the time of God's wrath to follow.

The barrier that mid or post tribulationists cannot cross, is that the church is not appointed to suffer God's wrath and therefore must be removed prior to said wrath. That time period of God's wrath is punishment, which was already satisfied by the Lord. As Isaiah says,

"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."

By believing that the church will be gathered after God's wrath when the Lord returns to end the age, then you cannot truly believe that His punishment brought us peace. It's as simple as that! You and others would have the church go through the same wrath as the wicked. And God does not punish the righteous with the wicked.

TheDivineWatermark · Sep 25, 2021

ewq1938 said:

I don't disagree, and have said as much myself.

But the FALSE CLAIMANTS of v.2 were NOT speaking of the Subject of "Christ's Second Coming"... they were purporting [instead] "that THE DAY OF THE LORD is present / is already here"...

...and a PART of "the DOTL" (its STARTING ASPECT) is the ENTIRE 7-year Tribulation period of JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth (THIS was the Subject of the FALSE CLAIMANTS' Subject, v.2... and thus what Paul starts off with in v.3a... to EXPLAIN some things about WHY it is NOT "PRESENT"... but WILL BE...)

Ahwatukee · Sep 25, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

To be clear, I am saying that when expositors make apostasia to mean depart up into the air, then to paraphrase the scripture they would be saying: "The appearing of the Lord and our being gathered to Him (departure) will not take place until departure takes place." That is what the scripture would amount to if the meaning of apostasia is interpreted as to depart up into the air.

As I said, Paul starts off with "the coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him" and then in verse 2 refers to the Day of the Lord, which is closely related to the event of our being gathered, with the Day of the Lord, the time of God's wrath, to follow. Allow me to bring in this other scripture for further support:

=========================================================
Now about the times and seasons, brothers, we do not need to write to you. 2For you are fully aware that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, “Peace and security,” destruction will come upon them suddenly, like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

4But you, brothers, are not in the darkness so that this day should overtake you like a thief. 5For you are all sons of the light and sons of the day; we do not belong to the night or to the darkness.
====================================================================

The times and seasons would have to refer back to what Paul just wrote about in 1 Thess.4:13-17, which is when the Lord resurrects the dead and the living are changed immortal and glorified and caught up. Notice that the gathering of the church and the Day of the Lord are used in close proximity of each other, with the gathering being the rapture and the Day of the Lord representing the time of God's wrath.

Notice also that he says that when they say 'peace and security' that destruction will come upon them suddenly and they will not escape, which is referring to God's time of wrath via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments. Then in verse 4 he says, "But you brothers." which infers the opposite of not escaping, i.e. but you brothers will escape! How? BY what Paul just wrote about regarding the Lord coming to gather His church. It is further supported by the fact that we are not in spiritual darkness so that so that this day should overtake believers. And that because true believers are walking in faith and watching for the Lord's appearing to gather us. That we do not belong to the darkness or to the night, means that we will not be here during that time of darkness, because we will escape by being gathered to the Lord prior to that sudden time of destruction.

ewq1938 · Sep 25, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

Repeating that same error doesn't help anything. Verse 1 establishes that Paul is speaking about the second coming and rapture. Verse 2 isn't going to be a different day. It's same day of second coming and rapture. Some believed it had already happened so Paul is setting them straight and assuring them second coming and rapture will not happen until after two things:

1. Apostasy which is Christians forsaking Christ for a false god.
2. The revealing of man of sin.

The second coming and rapture will NOT happen until those two things happen.

TheDivineWatermark · Sep 25, 2021

Ahwatukee said:

To be clear on my end, I understand exactly what the point is you are saying...

No it wouldn't say that.

That's what I'm pointing out to you.

It "would say that" ONLY IF you completely ELIMINATE the Subject of VERSE 2 when you "paraphrase" this passage, and then start out v.3a WITHOUT THAT SUBJECT (without v.2's "FALSE CLAIM" Subject), but which is what v.3a ("THAT DAY") IS talking about--the Subject of v.2--"[purporting] that THE DAY OF THE LORD IS PRESENT";

...see, v.3a is REFERRING BACK TO THAT --back to VERSE 2's Subject! the one you're ELIMINATING in the "paraphrasing" if it would say [as we're pointing out] "he apostasia / [to say] the departure"

[to ILLUSTRATE ABOVE, in your quote... YOU have EVERYTHING "GREEN" and NOTHING "RED" (VERSE 2's SUBJECT--thus v.3a's "that day")]

... consider why that is...

INSTEAD: "the DAY OF THE LORD [TRIB JUDGMENTS unfolding] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*" (i.e. our Rapture event)

cv5 · Sep 25, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

This poor poster keeps missing it and missing it and missing it....good grief lol.

Ahwatukee · Sep 25, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

To be clear on my end, I understand exactly what the point is you are saying...

No it wouldn't say that.

That's what I'm pointing out to you.

It "would say that" ONLY IF you completely ELIMINATE the Subject of VERSE 2 when you "paraphrase" this passage, and then start out v.3a WITHOUT THAT SUBJECT (without v.2's "FALSE CLAIM" Subject), but which is what v.3a ("THAT DAY") IS talking about--the Subject of v.2--"[purporting] that THE DAY OF THE LORD IS PRESENT";

...see, v.3a is REFERRING BACK TO THAT --back to VERSE 2's Subject! the one you're ELIMINATING in the "paraphrasing" if it would say [as we're pointing out] "he apostasia / [to say] the departure"

[to ILLUSTRATE ABOVE, in your quote... YOU have EVERYTHING "GREEN" and NOTHING "RED" (VERSE 2's SUBJECT--thus v.3a's "that day")]

... consider why that is...

Well, let's try it this way: what do the following mean to you?

* The coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him

* The Day of the Lord

GaryA · Sep 25, 2021

cv5 said:

Thanks for the show of humility - it's a nice change from the recent trend...

I am just a bit suprised you didn't label him with 'general'.

I do not know what his "level of scholarly achievement" is supposed to be. But, I commend him for giving honest effort to in-depth study of the scriptures - even to the extent of detail found in the original languages. Yet, I would certainly not put him on nearly as high a pedestal as you do. (or, seem to want to)

I believe he - like some others on here (all of whom I like and respect for the people that they are - or, certainly seem to be) - makes some [common] 'grammar of the language' mistakes when interpreting scripture.

It is neccessary to "balance" the 'trees' and the 'forest' when considering the overall meaning of words / phrases / verses in scripture.

If you look too closely at the trees while not keeping the forest in proper view, you can all-too-easily start [re-]defining everything - including the forest - erroneously - based strictly on the bark and the leaves - forgetting the roots and the branches.

@TheDivineWatermark - I believe this is an unfortunate "bad habit" with you. I want to encourage you to "balance" the 'scope' of your examination of the bark, leaves, roots, branches, trunk, shape, height, etc. of the trees as well as the patterns they make in the forest.

cv5 said:

Yes, it does. And, if you can maintain humility in heart and mind, it will count for all-the-more...

Along with "always being ready to give an answer" - how about we all try to be ready to 'discuss' the matter at hand with a proper attitude that is encouraged by brotherly love in Christ - not "pulling out the weapons of war", as it were, or any such similar thing.

GaryA · Sep 25, 2021

A lot of people on here do not seem to know how to properly interpret Strong's definitions.

Some folks tend to "grab" whatever word(s) they see in the listing that they like - that "sound good" - and proceed to apply it to the point they want to make.

It usually doesn't work that way.

Sure, you may "hit it" sometimes - but, it is really not 'proper' - and, it's all-too-easy to "miss" too!

Of course, there is a solution for that - they just need to learn how...

I would encourage anyone to learn what the different parts of the structure of a Strong's definition listing are - how they are arranged (there is a general pattern that they follow) - and what significance each gives to the definition.

I have thought many times about starting a thread or blog about it - just never have...

GaryA · Sep 25, 2021

One thing I will say about both @TheDivineWatermark and @Ahwatukee - they are always a 'gentleman' in their 'discussion' of any topic.

And, I think that means a lot...

(even when I disagree with them)

TheDivineWatermark · Sep 25, 2021

GaryA said:

... and some of us just happen to draw from older sources than that of "Strong's Concordance [first published 1890]"

Example below:

____________

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon [1871] says, "apostasia - LATER FORM FOR apostasis"...

[and that says]

-- apo stasis = "apo [G575] =away" & "stasis [G4714] =a standing" [^ same word there ^] = "a standing away from [a previous standing]" or "a DEPARTURE"

(TDW: context determines just "WHAT KIND" of "DEPARTURE" is meant)...

____________

"Strong's Concordance first published 1890."

= D

[P.S. Thank you, GaryA, for your kind words...

]

ewq1938 · Sep 25, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

FRAUD ALERT!!!! FRAUD ALERT!!!! FRAUD ALERT!!!! FRAUD ALERT!!!! FRAUD ALERT!!!! FRAUD ALERT!!!!

The info you are providing is NOT what Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon says about apostasia. TDW is taking a definition from another word (apostasis) and forcing it into the definition of apostasia. A word being a later form of another word is same as saying a word has a root word. This DOES NOT mean the two words share same definition! They DON'T! This is deceptive and dishonest. Do not believe what TDW is saying here. It is false information!

cv5 · Sep 25, 2021

ewq1938 said:

EWQ.......did you straighten out your error regarding the logical structure of 2Thes 2? If you don't have that first of all you don't have anything.

How the Pre-Trib Rapture Became Popular in the Modern Church

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member