The Tribulation and the Church, WHEN?

Paul, in 2Th2, is telling "WHAT will happen WHEN, IN RELATION [time-wise] TO WHAT OTHER THING"

(and he [Paul] disagrees with that notion ^ you are suggesting, Melach )



["a standing away [from a previous standing]"... apo stasia]

"THE Departure" (and not "a departure FROM MOSES" which [bold] are the words that were necessary to be ADDED to the other occurrence of this word, since the ADDED WORDS are not INHERENT in the word itself! It just means "DEPARTURE"... that's it.)

And since the definite article is not necessary to accompany this word, it draws our attention to why Paul DID use it HERE: "THE departure"... one the Thessalonians were already familiar with, and what had already been referred to previously in the passage (not in v.2, but in v.1! )

Ahwatukee, you and I agree that the entire 7-yrs (SEALS, TRUMPETS, VIALS) are ALL "His wrath"...

My question to you (again) is, do you not believe that there will indeed be "saints" ['believers'] existing within the trib years? I do believe it! (the "a great multitude... of all the nations," for example, Rev7:9,14 ["coming out of THE GREAT tribulation" (i.e. the second HALF)]). I would suggest that it is ONLY "the Church which is His body" to whom the "not appointed unto wrath" pertains. But keeping in mind that there was [His] "wrath" also in the 70ad events (per Lk21:23,20 "great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people").

["the Church which is His body" = all those saved "in this present age [singular]"]

I guess I was refering to someone else so I apologize. The following is where I thought you were the one.

[U]cv5[/U]
Well-known member
Tuesday at 5:37 PM
#241
Nov 20, 2018 1,554 716 113





Tuesday at 5:37 PM
#241

Azawah said:
All praises to Ahayah Bahasham Yashaya Wa Raach!
——
The two witnesses are people but not just two people. Scripture is referring to a nation.
Two groups of people from the same nation.
Click to expand...
OK. I get where you are coming from now.

https://gatheringofchrist.org/getting-to-know-ahayah-in-a-real-way/

Not a good place to start that's for sure."

I thought you posted this site and at post #295 it says the same thing. Now, since you did not post the site that does not mean the other stuff I did post to you is not true.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Absolutely wrong. Have fun during your wretched hope.

Im not the least bit worried about you Bluto. I had my spiritual spinach today as I do every day.

Hello Watermark,

I believe that I already answered this question for you in a previous post, but here it is again. Yes, the great tribulation saints will be on the earth, which are introduced in Rev.7:9-17. This is that multitude too large to count, from every nation and tribe and people and language, which would make them all Gentiles. These are those who will acknowledge Christ after the church has been gathered and who will be on the earth during the time of God's wrath and the beasts reign.

Revelation 13:5-7 states that the beast will be given power to make war and conquer these saints for forty-two months, which is that last 3 1/2 years leading up to the Lord's return to the earth to end the age.

Luke's version appears to be mixing the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, as well as the future event when the abomination is set up in the temple. Regarding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, there was not a seven year agreement made and no abomination was set up and is therefore still future.

One very important fact regarding that seven years and the abomination being set up, is that, 3 1/2 years after the abomination is set up the Lord returns to the earth to end the age. This is supported by the last part of Dan.9:27, which Jesus quoted:

"And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.

The "decreed destruction that is poured out upon him" is referring to "the ruler" referred to in Verse 26 who is the antichrist. And his destruction referred to, is when Jesus returns to the earth to end the age where both the beast and the false prophet are thrown alive into the lake of fire (Rev.19:20). The setting up of the abomination is directly linked to the Lord's return 3 1/2 years later to end the age and therefore cannot be referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Paul also linked the man of lawlessness/antichrist, as being destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming, as found in 2 Thess.2:8

"Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming"

My point being that, the antichrist/beast's reign is directly linked with the Lord's return to the earth to end the age, which includes the initiation of the seven years and the setting up of the abomination.

I hope this answers your question






Though the event regarding the temple and Jerusalem was terrible, it pales in comparison to God's future unprecedented wrath which will be carried out via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments.[/QUOTE]

Your meaning "from Moses" because in Scripture the only other time #646 is used is in reference to a "departure" from Moses? https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_646.htm

Weeeeell - not quite exactly right after - but, definitely after...

Seems as if when they realize that he is king,Messiah which they don't(Luke 19:39) then they will stop fulfilling John 5:43 and depart,,,and he will come.

It's a no brain'er,,,your all looking for who you all think is the Mos instead of looking for who Israel thinks he is and who they will follow the pophecy says they follow him not you,lol.

Guess again
"They" is the Orthodox jews.
Read the gospels and see what basis. "They" tried him on.

Pot < > Kettle

Could not be more ironic

No difference between the wrath of God and death The wrath of God in respect to a dying creation is being revealed from heaven .
Death, one per person .The wage cannot get any more severe than dead.. No spirit life.

Can't divide the wrath of God (death) up into compartments. Making the church disappear and then reappear. (dispensations)

The living suffering of hell we face every day leads to death .,In Christ we do receive rest.

The last day (6 times in John) . Christ will come as thief in the night when the believer receives their new incorruptible body (neither male not female Jew or gentile but a entirely new creation. On the same last day (24 hour) The letter of the law that kills will be tossed into the lake of fire. Never to rise again and kill a whole creation.

Yes.
The only other time it's used in the NT. [even where others point out its usage in the OT, there it is also surrounded by clarifying words telling just "WHAT KIND" of "departure" is meant/intended]

And note (with regard to your info at link), the word "forsake" (there at link) is a "verb" whereas this word (under discussion) is a "noun".

I hope to go find another excerpt by a Grk grammar scholar, but in the meantime will put this excerpt from another:

[quoting]

"Translation History

"The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either “departure” or “departing.” They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608).[7] This supports the notion that the word truly means “departure.” In fact, Jerome’s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of A.D. 400 renders apostasia with the “word discessio, meaning ‘departure.’”[8] Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of “departure”?

"Most scholars say that no one knows the reason for the translation shift. However, a plausible theory has been put forth by Martin Butalla in his Master of Theology thesis produced at Dallas Theology Seminary in 1998.[9] It appears that the Catholic translation into English from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate known as the Rheims Bible (1576) was the first to break the translation trend. “Apostasia was revised from ‘the departure’ to ‘the Protestant Revolt,’” explains Butalla. “Revolution is the terminology still in use today when Catholicism teaches the history of the Protestant Reformation. Under this guise, apostasia would refer to a departure of Protestants from the Catholic Church.”[10] The Catholic translators appear eager to engage in polemics against the Reformation by even allowing it to impact Bible translation. By 1611, when then original version of the King James Bible came out, the translators changed the English translation tradition from “departure” to “falling away,” which implied “apostasy.” Such a change was a theological response to the Catholic notion that the Reformation was a revolt against the true church; instead, Protestants saw Catholic beliefs as “the falling away” or “the great apostasy. This would mean that the shift in translation was not based upon research of the meaning of the original language but as a theological polemic against the false teachings of Romanism.

"It is well established that E. Schuyler English is thought to be the first pretribulationist to propose that “the departure” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 was a physical departure and thus a reference to the pre-trib rapture. However, history records that at least a couple of men thought of this idea before English’s series of article in 1950.[11] J. S. Mabie is said to have presented the view that “the departure” refers to the rapture as early as 1859 during a prophecy conference in Los Angeles.[12] He later wrote his view in an article published in November 1895 in a periodical called Morning Star.[13] Another pre-English proponent of “the departure” as the rapture was John R. Rice in a book in 1945.[14]"

--Dr Thomas Ice, "The “Departure” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3", https://www.pre-trib.org/articles/all-articles/message/the-departure-in-2-thessalonians-2-3/read

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]

...in this article, he goes on to address [what he is calling] the "parallelism" in the 2Th2 passage (what I'd referred to in an earlier post as, "REPEATED 3x in this passage"), which he points out "would be broken" if one were to change the wording (as did the kjv) to "a falling away".

Meant to also bold [/emphasize] THIS sentence (from the excerpt quoted above):
"In fact, Jerome’s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of A.D. 400 renders apostasia with the “word discessio, meaning ‘departure.’”[8]"



…so this is not a "recent" thing... the kjv changing it to "a falling away" was far later than these.


[see also "Liddell and Scott's 'Greek English Lexicon' "]

Well, this isn't the Grk grammar scholar-type article I was looking for (still looking for that ), but this is another point along the same lines:

[quoting H. Wayne House]

"The Use of the Definite Article with apostasia

"One finds the use of the Greek article with apostasia in 2 Thess 2:3. Another example of this in 1 Macc 2:15, where defection from the Old Testament faith is generally viewed to be the proper translation of he apostasia. "And those who came from the king were compelling the defection in the city of Modein, in order to sacrifice." (1 Macc 2:15). What is the significance of these two instances? Similar to this passage in 1 Maccabees, 2 Thess 2:3 has the article and no qualifiers, such as defection from God, so the context is determinative for the meaning of apostasia. In the first two chapters of 1 Maccabees there is a description of the Greek victory of Israel by Alexander the Greek until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, with the latter king invading Judah and enforcing a desecration of the temple. When one studies the context of 2 Thess 2:13 in the same way, the context speaks of the coming of Christ for the church and the coming man of sin after the restrainer is removed."

--H. Wayne House, "Is the Rapture Found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3?"

https://www.pre-trib.org/pretribfiles/pdfs/House-ADefenseoftheRapture.pdf

[end quoting; bold, underline, and colors mine]



This idea of "victory" is one I would like to expand on in a later post (most likely, way later this eve)

Complete fantasy!

Adding a pre-tribulation advent and rapture that isn't in the Revelation of Jesus Christ is a serious sin, especially with the warning that the Lord Jesus gives in Rev 22v18,19:

"I [personally solemnly] warn everyone who listens to the statements of the prophecy [the predictions and the consolations and admonitions pertaining to them] in this book: If anyone shall add anything to them, God will add and lay upon him the plagues (the afflictions and the calamities) that are recorded and described in this book. And if anyone cancels or takes away from the statements of the book of this prophecy [these predictions relating to Christ's kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions or warnings pertaining to them], God will cancel and take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the city of holiness (purity and hallowedness), which are described and promised in this book." [AMP]

^ I believe the "24 elders" [sitting on "thrones" and wearing "CROWNS/stephanos of gold"] (shown IN HEAVEN before the opening of the FIRST SEAL) represent "the Church which is His body," and the manuscript evidence shows that Rev5:9 says "US," whereas v.10 has a word that [you could say] in the Grk refers to "THEY/THEM" [though not actually in the Grk, but in the form of another word there]... So that this section is referring to a kind of "antiphonal singing" with more voices being added even further on in the passage. Paul said he would be given "a crown" "IN THAT DAY," for example...


IOW, some translators endeavored to make the two verses [vv.9 and 10] MATCH (to say the same thing), whereas they do not (i.e. it says "US" in verse 9, but NOT v.10!)