No, everything in the bible points to a Pre Trib Rapture, its not even debatable, God has only one truth, it always jibes.
And yet here we are debating it!
I'll say it again, if the Bible points to a Pretrib Rapture, then God failed to speak to most of Christian history. Nobody even remotely saw that there until the 1800s. Which do you think got it right?
The 2 Thess. 2 verses is the easiest to understand because we are told what Paul is speaking about in vs. 1 a GATHERING unto Christ, nowhere in the whole passage (I challenge you to find it) is there any place where FAITH being DEPARTED is spoken of.
Antichrist is the "Little Horn" in Dan 7 who in the last days boasts against God. It is in the time just before the Son of Man comes with the clouds to establish the Kingdom of God. This "Antichrist," as John calls him, or the "Lawless One," as Paul calls him, resists the coming of the Christian Kingdom. Hence he is an Anti Christ, or Anti Christian, or even Anti Kingdom. Like Antiochus 4 before him, he operates in a kingdom that is dedicated to God, and tries to overturn the Christian laws and mores. This has already been happening in the West. The Antichrist spirit is already here.
Antichrist is not the one who turns away from the faith--he attempts to turn nominal Christians away from their Christian heritage. That is already happening.
The first 7 English translations had departed, the Latin Vulgate, around for 1000 years before the KJV had Discessio (means to depart also)... Thus that "Falling Away" theory did not come from God, it came from bible translators who were in error (even if it destroys your anti pre Trib agenda).
So you are a Greek scholar? I think rather that you are a pretender, or at best, surmising what you *think* is legitimate Greek translation? My brother isn't a Greek scholar, but he has learned a lot about Greek translation of the Bible, and I don't recall he ever suggested what you're saying. What you say sounds more like a bias than scholarship.
No it is not, (lol) we can see the Wrath to come explained in many places. In 2 Thess. 2 Paul was rebuking the Thessalonians for thinking they were in the DOTL, then tells them that DAY (DOTL can not come until the Departure (of the Church who will be Gathered unto Jesus see vs. 1) and the Anti-Christ or Man of Sin has come forth. Jesus says we must endure until the end, he says many will do stuff in my name and I never knew them, we are saved by Faith, but true Faith hears the holy spirt, it does not hear men's agendas.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. As I said, I think the "Departure" has to do with the apostasy that will take place under Antichrist in formerly Christian Europe. And I think Paul was condemning the view of a Christian cult that they were somehow bringing in the Kingdom of God--sort of like Jehovah's Witnesses. Paul was not condemning the Thessalonians, but rather, warning them not to believe in what that cult was claiming.
Paul's argument was that the Kingdom cannot be here until the Antichristian nature of this present age is fully dealt with. Christians suffer in the present age. And Jesus spoke against those who thought the Kingdom was about to come imminently.
So Paul declared that we can be sure the Kingdom is not coming through some Christian cult if Antichrist has not yet even appeared, because until he does the present world is going to be full of frustrations, and we must not think we can avoid suffering until Christ returns.
No, its you not being able to overcome certain scriptures so you go on an imagination journey.
That doesn't deserve a response. At least we agree that the visions of Revelation do not depict a series of chronological sequences. If we are exercising our "imagination," we're probably not learning anything?
Everywhere, read Dan. 12, read Rev. 20:4 it SPECIFICALLY STATES that only the Martyrs of the 70th week who refused the Mark of the Beast will live and reign on Earth with Jesus, did you know that? ONLY THEM, meaning the rest of the Church returns to Heaven during the Kingdom Age. The Kingdom Age is spoken of everywhere, you guys try to discount those Promises to Israel at your own peril.
Where do you find the word "only" in this verse?
Rev 20.4 Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
What should be clear is that the word "only" is *not* in there! The emphasis is on those beheaded for Jesus by the Beast because that is the general context of the last few visions. It is on the war between Christ and the Beast. The emphasis is on the fact those killed by the Beast will not be defeated--it doesn't mean that others will not participate in the general resurrection!
Rev 20.5 This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
This makes is quite clear--at least clear to me, that this 1st Resurrection is a general resurrection of *all those who will be priests of Christ.* And we already know that priesthood will not be confined only to the martyrs under Antichrist!
So John is here emphasizing the victory of those martyred by the Beast and separately identifies the "1st Resurrection" as the general resurrection of the Church of this age, who will join the martyrs in this great event. No word "only!"
