Conclusion From Beware the Pseudo-Rapture Doctrine 4

[TheDivineWatermark]

One can make a verse of scripture mean ANYTHING no matter how bizarre, by using your methods.
How do you get out of bed in the morning?

... says the one who wrangled the word "FIRST" by dragging it out from its proper place so as to place it in the position which aligns with their own twisty-position. LOL

The text does NOT say, "and the man of sin be revealed FIRST" !!! NO!

That's what's so bizarre... I can't understand why you keep DOING it... (IT'S PAINFUL TO WATCH!! lol... and it happens OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, throughout these threads!! )

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

... says the one who wrangled the word "FIRST" by dragging it out from its proper place so as to place it in the position which aligns with their own twisty-position. LOL


That's what's so bizarre... I can't understand why you keep DOING it... (IT'S PAINFUL TO WATCH!! lol)

My position is not twisted. You don't tolerate straightforward readings of scripure because truth threatens you.

You're a snake oil salesman. Always trying to deceive with your long-winded nonsense. You pretend you are clever but your
twisted logic and deliberate misuse of both Greek & English show you up for what you are.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Again, from my last post (which didn't get "quoted" in your post coz I'd edited it in AFTER you grabbed it):

The text does NOT say, "and the man of sin be revealed FIRST" !!! NO!

... so it is not ME that has "twisted" it.

The text IS straightforward.

I do not know why you would relocate "FIRST" away from its own clause and place it in an entirely different one. THAT'S TWISTY! (and changes the meaning conveyed in the text)


So you accuse me of the very thing YOU yourself are doing.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

My position is not twisted. You don't tolerate straightforward readings of scripure because truth threatens you.

You're a snake oil salesman. Always trying to deceive with your long-winded nonsense. You pretend you are clever but your
twisted logic and deliberate misuse of both Greek & English show you up for what you are.

AMEN!

You can feel the spirit behind his deception.

Just Rebuke him and shake the dust off your feet.

 

[presidente]

JPT is "connecting": "that Day" (which he wrongly defines as "rapture") and "revealed" (re: man of sin) and "SO THAT he sits as God in the temple of God" resulting in his notion that these are connected time-wise.

In JPT's mind, the "SO THAT" connects with the "revealed" (and thusly connects somehow with the "rapture" [incorrect word for "that Day"<--coz v.3a's "that Day" refers back to verse 2's "false claim" about the time-period of Judgments being already here [1Th5:3--horizontal / earthly time-period], not referring back to Paul's verse 1 "corrective" Subject [vertical])






I'm just pointing out how JPT is "connecting" the man of sin be "revealed" with "SO THAT he sits as God in the temple of God" (as though they take place at the same time)...
...and he is making the conclusion that "rapture" relates to this point / point-in-time (where he incorrectly defines "that Day" v.3a as "rapture";<--and BTW, speaking of that, the "false claim" in v.2 THAT v.3a ('that Day') SPECIFICALLY REFERS BACK TO [grammatically], is NOT the Subject of "rapture"(v.1)...

It isn't a matter of grammar. It's semantics. It makes sense contextually that the day of the Lord here is the day of Christ, the day spoken of in chapter 1, 'that day' when the Lord returns in which he appears, giving rest from tribulation to the church, when he comes to execute vengeance on them that know not God that do not believe the Gospel, when he comes to be glorified in the saints.

...rather, it is the (v.2)"false claim" "that

the Day of the Lord is present / is already here [perfect indicative]"<--Action completed at a specific point of time IN PAST, with results continuing into the present." i.e. PERFECT tense.

The day of the Lord hadn't come when Paul wrote that, of course. But why are you getting hung up on that grammatical point?

You keep insisting that the day of the Lord can be a period of time, that 'day' does not have to be a 24-hour time period. But it doesn't make sense, given the context, to argue that the day of the Lord happens until the man of sin is revealed first, etc. I am inclined to believe that the 'day of the Lord' starts when the man of sin is destroyed at the Lord's coming, which is also when the rapture takes place.

This very chapter associates the coming of the Lord both with our gathering unto him and the destruction of the lawless one which occurs at the brightness of His coming. I Thessalonians 4 is more explicit that 'the rapture' happens at the coming of the Lord.

You go on and on really long winding sentences clouded by obtuse uses of capitals, brackets and fonts, about the day of the Lord potentially being more than 24 hours. But so what? If it starts when the rapture takes place, so what? Immediately after the tribulation, the Son of Man comes , and that elect are gathered together (Mt 24).... as this passage says the coming of the Lord. If the day of the Lord starts when Jesus comes back and the day of the Lord is more than 24 hours, that doesn't cause a problem for my eschatology. He might take more than 24 hours to do the sheep and goat judgment and all the other stuff He's got planned.

But there is no argument here... in the idea that the day of the Lord starts at the coming of Christ and the rapture of the church... that sets the rapture 7 years before the second coming. The rapture occurs at Jesus' coming. That's why I was guessing by suggesting that the day of the Lord could take more than 24 hours, you were trying to imply that the coming of the Lord would take 7 years. Because that is a big problem with your pre-trib view. The rapture happens at Jesus' coming, and the lawless one is destroyed at Jesus' coming. But us millennial types interpret Revelation 19 to mean Jesus comes back at the end of (or just after) the tribulation (or at the start of the millennium) and the beast cast into the lake of fire at that point.

You still have no Biblical evidence for Jesus coming back twice or taking 7 years to come back. Without that, there is no pre-trib. You are having to resort to some really off the wall allegorical inteprretations as evidence for that. If there were some solid evidence for a pretrib return of Christ and a pre-trib rapture, I wouldn't have a problem with looking for allegorical interpretations.

But having Jesus return twice is a really big deal doctrinally. Loose allegorical interpretations doesn't cut it. Since unresurected saints can cry out for justice in the revelation given to John, elders in heaven singing out being redeemed is nowhere near sufficient evidence for adding an additional return of Christ. Since it makes no sense to argue that God will be angry with the tribulational saints or to argue that they do not obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, it makes no sense to argue that they are appointed unto wrath rather than to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. So that is nowhere near weighty enough of an argument to add an additional return of Christ. I don't recall your arguing that John being told 'come up hither' is evidence for a pretrib rapture, but that is not weighty enough of an argument to add an additional return of Christ.

The paraable of the tares of the field calls what happens to both believers and unbelievers at the end of the age 'harvest' so arguing one harvest in revelation is not very convincing considering it is being used as an argument that Jesus returns twice. Arguing for pretrib based on harvests in the Old Testament faces similar problems.

And taking eschatological verses and saying this one belongs to pretrib and that one belongs to post-trib is no evidence for a pretrib rapture, since no evidence for a pretrib rapture is produced in the first place.

 

[presidente]

In the text, the word "first" does NOT hook up with the clause about "the man of sin be revealed".

It is instead connected to the clause preceding that one.

Given the context, this is a moot point. Both have to happen before the day of the Lord.

Do you read any Greek at all? I am a beginner. But even in English translation, I don't see how any other alternative makes sense.

--the word "harpagēsometha [G726] (used only once) is a VERB ("will be caught away/up" VERB), so it's not REQUIRED that he use this specific VERB here in 2Th2:3 (no definite article, by the way--tho I think it's fine when WE refer to this as an event going to take place), as he doesn't use "G726" in verse 1, though we KNOW that THAT NOUN used there (tho a diff word) SPEAKS TO IT.

Feels like a strawman here. Who is saying harpazo has to be in this verse for it to reference the rapture? In fact, a post-trib reader will likely already think it refers to the rapture, since the 'day' described in chapter 1 includes the appearing of Christ and the coming (elthe, I think, or something like that, a form of erkhomai). The rapture occurs at Jesus' coming. Jesus coming and our gathering unot him, which we take to mean the rapture, are mentioned here. So why the long verbose sentence with all the caps and bolds and parenthetical asides that obscure your meaning?

Plus, regarding the part I'll bold in your quote, below:

He is not saying, "you can't MISS it,"....

Rather, he is conveying that "the Day of the Lord" (which the "false claim" said "IS PRESENT/IS ALREADY HERE [perfect indicative]") will NOT be present unless / until / "if not shall have come" ONE THING *FIRST* (i.e. His v.1 Subject that he's BRINGING TO BEAR on that "false claim" (v.2)

It doesn't make much sense that Paul would tell them the day of the Lord hadn't happen because.... a bunch of signs you won't be here to see, won't happen first. It also doesn't make sense if Jesus' disciples aren't going to be hear to observe the signs like the leaves of a fig tree. In that case, Jesus did not know the day or the hour, only the Father, and we interpret it as a proplectic you. (Which you like, right the proplectic you, that is.)

Btw, I had a friend who'd read a legend that John invited people to his funeral, and boom, the coffin or whatever it was was filled with flowers, no body. Peter had asked Jesus about the author of the book of John when Jesus predicted his death, and Jesus had said if it was His will for him to live until He came, what was that to him. John clarifies that he did not say that he would live until Jesus came again. My friend theorized that John was Prester John who wrote to the Pope the idea that 'on this rock I will build my Church' was not talking about Peter. He liked such stories and legends. I suppose that could produce a more satisfying interpretation of 'This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.' for some interpreters. And the Mormons also latched onto this theory that John didn't die.

But we can also say 'proplectic you.' That feels a bit less fantastic.

and its "troubling" effects on their minds--in essence, freaking them out [lol] and causing them to eliminate their "HOPE" as indicated by Paul leaving that word off [in this 2nd epistle] of the TRIO [re: their 'faith' 'love/charity' 'hope'] he had intro'd his FIRST letter to them, using).

So you have Paul trying to tell them that the day of the Lord hadn't happened yet because a bunch of signs they would never see because they would be raptured hadn't happened yet? The problem is that, is where does the Bible ever teach that the rapture happens seven years before Jesus comes back? Where is the scripture to justify Jesus returning twice or having a seven year return.

 

[presidente]

Plainly and irrefutably our gathering together to Christ, at the resurrection and rapture occurs after the antichrist is revealed, at the second coming of Christ.

• for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed,

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4

JPT

I would like to draw @TheDivineWatermark's attention to the fact that the quoted post above has emphasis in bold, caps, etc. But since the fonts are the same, it is quite reasonable. There are no large brackets, no unquoted verse references. Agree or disagree, the post is very readable.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TheDivineWatermark said:
In the text, the word "first" does NOT hook up with the clause about "the man of sin be revealed".

It is instead connected to the clause preceding that one.

Given the context, this is a moot point. Both have to happen before the day of the Lord.

That is an assumption that I am saying is not accurate (biblically).

And I've explained why many times in past posts.

Paul had already (in his first letter) talked about "the Day of the Lord" (as does OT prophecy)... and which aligns with the biblical definition of "the Day of the Lord" (as opposed to the made-up definition the "Amill-teachings" and so forth insist on: that it refers to the 24-hr day of His return / Second Coming in Rev19). I've been pointing out how scripture itself shows otherwise!

People like to talk about "letting Scripture tell us what it is saying," and then turn around in the same breath, change the location a word is found to place it in a completely different clause, and then say, "see... that's what SCRIPTURE SAYS!"

No it didn't / doesn't say that... and YES it most certainly does (adversely) AFFECT what the text itself is actually conveying.

It's the IDEA (a theological IDEA) that BOTH of these items must take place "FIRST" / BEFORE the Day of the Lord (as you put it), that is BEING *READ INTO* the text... not what the text actually SAYS (it's only by CHANGING the word "FIRST" to the other clause that it could TELL US such a thing... and it doesn't and we shouldn't).






It is NOT a "moot point"... unless you prefer your "IDEA" over WHAT THE TEXT ITSELF SAYS.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

So you have Paul trying to tell them that the day of the Lord hadn't happened yet because a bunch of signs they would never see [...]

3 "...that Day [from v.2 (DOTL)] will not be present if not shall have come the departure FIRST and the man of sin be revealed..."





Where did I say "A BUNCH OF SIGNS"??



IF "the DOTL IS PRESENT" as the false claim purported, (besides the FIRST fact), so also would be present the man of sin (i.e. SEAL #1 / the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:3 / Matt24:4/Mk13:5]")

... and he wasn't.




How is that "A BUNCH OF SIGNS"?? or saying we will SEE it??

 

[oyster67]

If Paul vewied the "rapture" as the next event for the church, he only had to tell us;
Don't worry, You can't miss The Day of The Lord, because the harpazo will happen first.

Lucy, Lucy,............ Luuuucy P. Please pardon my gaslighting, but Paul did just that.
Hast thou not read the Scriptures which saith...
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
- 1 Thessalonians 4:17,18

You need not worry about the time of Jacob's Trouble and God's Wrath.

 

[oyster67]

I can't see any logic in separating the "rapture" from the second coming when Paul does not.

The Rapture is a catching up event.
The Second Coming is a returning back down event.

There is no catching up into the clouds (and then onward unto the wedding in Heaven) event at the Second Coming.

At the Second Coming we will be returning back down with Him to rule and reign with Him for 1000 years on Earth.

 

[oyster67]

My position is not twisted. You don't tolerate straightforward readings of scripure because truth threatens you.

You're a snake oil salesman. Always trying to deceive with your long-winded nonsense. You pretend you are clever but your
twisted logic and deliberate misuse of both Greek & English show you up for what you are.

Lucy, Lucy,..........LUUUUCY!

Everyone knows that tropical storm Lucy is a CAT 5 twister. Grab Toto and run for your lives!

 

[presidente]

That is an assumption that I am saying is not accurate (biblically).

And I've explained why many times in past posts.

Paul had already (in his first letter) talked about "the Day of the Lord" (as does OT prophecy)... and which aligns with the biblical definition of "the Day of the Lord" (as opposed to the made-up definition the "Amill-teachings" and so forth insist on: that it refers to the 24-hr day of His return / Second Coming in Rev19). I've been pointing out how scripture itself shows otherwise!

People like to talk about "letting Scripture tell us what it is saying," and then turn around in the same breath, change the location a word is found to place it in a completely different clause, and then say, "see... that's what SCRIPTURE SAYS!"

No it didn't / doesn't say that... and YES it most certainly does (adversely) AFFECT what the text itself is actually conveying.

It's the IDEA (a theological IDEA) that BOTH of these items must take place "FIRST" / BEFORE the Day of the Lord (as you put it), that is BEING *READ INTO* the text... not what the text actually SAYS (it's only by CHANGING the word "FIRST" to the other clause that it could TELL US such a thing... and it doesn't and we shouldn't).

Could you make your point? How do any of these sentences you wrote contradict what I wrote?

You wrote all that. But the passage still says what it says and the words didn't change, in spite of your words, capital letters, brackets, bolds, and underlines.

II Thessalonians 2
2 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
(NKJV)

What do you think happens first before something else in this passage?

 

[presidente]

There is no catching up into the clouds (and then onward unto the wedding in Heaven) event at the Second Coming.

Show me where the Bible teaches that. The one passage that mentions the rapture using harpazo tells us it happens at the coming of the Lord, which the Biblical terminology for the second coming. The Bible doesn't say 'second coming.' It says the coming of the Lord and other terminology like that.

At the Second Coming we will be returning back down with Him to rule and reign with Him for 1000 years on Earth.

We go up before we come down.

 

[presidente]

Lucy, Lucy,............ Luuuucy P. Please pardon my gaslighting, but Paul did just that.
Hast thou not read the Scriptures which saith...
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
- 1 Thessalonians 4:17,18

You need not worry about the time of Jacob's Trouble and God's Wrath.

We are not to grieve as those who have no hope.

So if someone among us dies, we can be comforted with the words about the dead in Christ rising first, and we which are alive and remain shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

The idea of comforting believers about a rapture before a tribulation doesn't show up in scripture.

Can you show me one verse that indicates that Jesus comes back twice?

 

[oyster67]

Show me where the Bible teaches that. The one passage that mentions the rapture using harpazo tells us it happens at the coming of the Lord, which the Biblical terminology for the second coming. The Bible doesn't say 'second coming.' It says the coming of the Lord and other terminology like that.

The wedding of the Bride and Groom happens before the Second Coming, not after. (Rev 19)

We go up before we come down.

Correct.
I wish everyone understood that.

 

[oyster67]

Can you show me one verse that indicates that Jesus comes back twice?

I have shown you multiple multitudes of them. There is no way to interpret the Scriptures otherwise.
The Church is seen in Heaven before the 2nd Coming. We know that this is more than just those who died in the past because the wedding is taking place, then and there, before He returns to Earth.

Please reread Revelation 19 (about what takes place in Heaven before the 2nd Coming.)

7Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

The Bride is in Heaven at this time. The Return to Earth follows several verses later.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

AMEN!

You can feel the spirit behind his deception.

I'm making the case that the word "FIRST" belongs only in the first clause, it does NOT show up in the second clause to apply to that or to apply to both clauses (so we shouldn't RELOCATE it to a different clause [as L_P did] simply b/c "our IDEA / theology" SAYS / REQUIRES US TO do that!)


Prove to me that what I say is untrue.


I'm very doubtful you can do that, because it simply ISN'T true (though Lucy_Pevensie declared such, as though it was indeed so).




Let the readers see for themselves that what I say (on this point) is indeed true:


--[BibleHub] https://biblehub.com/text/2_thessalonians/2-3.htm [the word "FIRST" belongs with the first clause, not the second clause or both clauses]

--[BlueLetterBible] https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2th/2/3/t_conc_1118003 [ditto the above]



There's the evidence from Scripture itself, plain as day. ^





Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

But it doesn't make sense, given the context, to argue that the day of the Lord happens until the man of sin is revealed first, etc.

The word "first" belongs in the first clause... not the clause you've shown here ^ which is the second clause (per my post above, my post showing this in the text itself); it does not belong to BOTH clauses, nor in the second clause (about the man of sin be revealed / shall have been revealed [NO word "FIRST" belongs with this clause]).


Just so you know that what is stated in your quote (at top) is not MY argument (in case you thought it was... I can't tell for sure if you thought that of my argument. I've never made such a point. But again, I can't tell if you were saying I was, or just making a separate point altogether... could be.)

 

[presidente]

The wedding of the Bride and Groom happens before the Second Coming, not after. (Rev 19)

The announcement is made right before the Second Coming passage.

What I don't get is why pretribbers try so hard to figure out how to make scripture fit with pretrib. If there were actually some scripture that taught that Jesus came back before the tribulation, I'd get it. But it just isn't in there.