Search results

For me, it's simply because Paul said that the apostasia had to occur first before Christ's coming and our being gathered to Him (the rapture), which he called "the day of the Lord" (or the day of Christ). So, he obviously wouldn't have said the rapture would occur first before the rapture...

Exactly? How can you say that when I was referring to Paul as talking about the rapture in verse 2 while you don't believe he is referring to the rapture in that verse? Huh? I thought you indicated that you think the rapture is a different event from the day of the Lord? I can't make any sense...

Wow. This is nothing short of utterly ridiculous. You have gaps all over the place in the prophecy. You have an initial 490 weeks of years that come before the other 490 weeks of years. What nonsense. You definitely have an interpretation of the prophecy all to yourself. You're yet another lone...

Let me know if you need me to recommend a therapist for you. I truly do think you need one.

Look in the mirror, buddy. You're constantly clowning around on here and it's extremely difficult to take you seriously. You don't know how to use humor in moderation. Everything is a joke to you. I don't want to deal with that anymore. I'm glad you've made up your mind. I've made up my mind...

I said that after you responded so negatively even after I said I would go through Daniel with you. I realized that your offer must not have been sincere and you are the one who doesn't have any intention of being serious and just going through it without all the other nonsense.

You already knew before making the offer to exegete Daniel that I don't believe it teaches a pretrib rapture, so what changed just because I confirmed that again? You were willing to do that while already knowing I don't believe it's taught there and I even said that despite my doubts about it...

Which is the day of His coming and our being gathered to Him.

Why would there be any concern about that? Can you explain exactly what you think Paul was concerned about that they might believe that contradicted what he taught about the day of the Lord? I believe it makes more sense that the concern Paul had is that some of them might be deceived into...

The concern Paul raised was not about someone falsely claiming that the rapture was about to happen, it was about someone saying that it had already happened. Anyone believing that would be troubled because of thinking they missed the rapture and would have to experience God's wrath instead. If...

I didn't say that. You spend all of your time arguing with your imaginary strawman. If only you could get back the time that you waste doing that. I never said it will take 24 hours to destroy creation. Again, you are misrepresenting my view and arguing with your strawman. That's all you ever...

It seems that Peter had a different understanding than you do of what we, those who belong to Christ, should be looking for in fulfillment of the promise of His second coming: 2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth...

You are hilarious, but not in a good way. I only indicated that I questioned your approach to this topic by using Daniel to support your pretrib view since I feel certain that the rapture isn't even referenced in Daniel. So what if I question your approach? Do you think the rapture is mentioned...

It's all he has to offer. He's a child and is in over his head here. Let's move on from him.

Calm down, buddy. Do you want me to be dishonest instead? I'm just questioning your approach. I didn't say I wouldn't read what you have to say. I did say "But, if you exegete the verses, I'll take part in discussing it.". So, despite my questioning your approach, I didn't say I wouldn't read...

I don't think so, but if you could tell me the post number of at least one of those posts where you think you already answered those questions I would appreciate it. Then I can at least have some idea of where verse 1 fits into your overall understanding of 2nd Thessalonians 2.

But, didn't you indicate that you believe the day of the Lord is a completely separate event from the rapture? He was addressing concerns related to the day of the Lord in verse 2, so how was he addressing those concerns in verse 1 if verse 2 has nothing to do with the rapture? You are talking...

Yes. I didn't say that it does. I believe Jesus was talking about the eternal kingdom on the new earth in that passage and He indicated that it's not just believing Israelites who will be there, but believers from everywhere. He was basically telling them that the Gentiles would be saved and...

I understand that. I'm sharing mine as well. I did say "as I see it" and not as you see it. But, if there was a reason for him mentioning the rapture in verse 1, I don't know what it is from your perspective since you have him immediately changing the subject after mentioning it.

I have a poem, too. Roses are red Violets are blue The pretrib doctrine Is surely not true