It's not really about whether they will listen to me or not. Our Heavenly Father only can cause them to understand. When He calls us to plant His seeds of His Truth in His Word, then that's what we are to do, regardless of their reactions. I have no problem doing that for I know that when the time comes, when the false messiah does show up, God may cause some of them to remember some of our discussions of warning to them. But I already know many of them will not change, because God Himself has blinded them for a reason.John S said:
Why Should the Church Endure the Great Trib?
- Thread starter Trekson
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes. Not all, but enough. The multitudes followed after Christ Jesus too, but like Jesus said to His disciples when they asked Him why He spoke to them in parables, He said for the multitudes, it is not given for them to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom. They are not given eyes to see and ears to hear.John S said:
Matt 13:10-17
10 And the disciples came, and said unto Him, "Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?"
11 He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, 'By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them."
(KJV)
That underlined part of Matt.13:14 is Christ pointing to further study about that in the Book of Isaiah. Apostle Paul pointed to this matter also per 2 Tim.4; Heb.5 & 6; 2 Thess.2:10; Acts 28:26; Rom.9:18; Rom.11:7; Eph.4:18.
In Isaiah 28 & 29, the reason that many will be snared and taken is because The Word of God has become "a stone of stumbling" to them.
1 Pet 2:8
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
(KJV)
In Rom.11:7-10, Apostle Paul points to Isaiah Scripture that our Lord Jesus referenced in that Matt.13 example. Paul uses the idea from Isaiah 29:10 of "spirit of slumber" that is upon many. In the Greek it means a lethargic stupor.
Isa 29:9-14
9 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.
10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath He covered.
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee": and he saith, "I cannot; for it is sealed":
12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee": and he saith, "I am not learned."
13 Wherefore the Lord said, 'Forasmuch as this people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour Me, but have removed their heart far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
(KJV)
Amos 8:9-12
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:
10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day.
11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
(KJV)
I wish that applied ONLY to non-believers on Christ Jesus, but it doesn't. I think we can see that happenning very well among many of our Christian brethren today that default to men's doctrines instead of God directly in His Word with His help.
The 1 Peter 2:8 verse should really be an eye-opener to this with "whereunto also they were appointed".
vet if you believe God blinded a person from the truth then what happens to them when they die? will God tell them well done good and faithful servant for doing what i needed you to do and it matters not that you were blinded because i blinded you for a reason to test those christians around you.veteran said:
if the above mentioned is not the case then how do you explain the verse that God wants all to be save and come to him. because if God blinded a person and because of that is going to hell then God just lied since he kept even one person from heaven no matter the reason is contrary to scripture.
there are many other scriptures similar to this one that state the same thing.
God bless
The particular matter we're talking about involves the endtime events of the coming tribulation. Many have been blinded away from those events per God's Word, which is what Apostle Paul's "falling away" of 2 Thess.2 is also about.7angels said:
Or have you forgotten our Lord Jesus' parable of the ten virgins, where five of them He shut the door on? (Matt.25).
What you're espousing is much like the OSAS doctrines of men which is a false idea.
But just by having been on this forum and hearing about events to come for the end that not that many other forums care to talk about might be enough for you when the times comes and you need to know what Christ wants you to do during the tribulation, unless you die beforehand.
Just as a meaningless side note - I wonder if Trekson knows or even cares that his thread from October 2012 has been brought back from the dead. I guess that he isn't on this site anymore. As I said - it's meaningless.
VET WHAT YOU SEEM TO NOT UNDERSTAND is that God does not change and to say that you are talking about endtime events should not matter since the character of God does not change. to assume God blinded someone for their own good is wrong. it does not matter what the circumstances are.
your ten virgin parable and five being kept out just proves my case. it was the 10 virgins responsibility to make sure they had enough oil and because 5 of them did not take that responsibility does not put God at fault but it was the virgins who choose. whether they choose wisely or not does not matter at the moment.
everything i tell you is scriptural. do as paul said and check what i say against the Word and see if what i say is true. if you cannot find in scripture to confirm what a person says then you have not reason to believe it.
God bless
your ten virgin parable and five being kept out just proves my case. it was the 10 virgins responsibility to make sure they had enough oil and because 5 of them did not take that responsibility does not put God at fault but it was the virgins who choose. whether they choose wisely or not does not matter at the moment.
everything i tell you is scriptural. do as paul said and check what i say against the Word and see if what i say is true. if you cannot find in scripture to confirm what a person says then you have not reason to believe it.
God bless
I don't believe everything Trekson offered in his original post. I'm not Pre-Wrath nor Pre-Trib. We are going to be here for the tribulation because there's work for us to do for Christ. And unless we die first, we will remain here on earth through the time of God's wrath upon the wicked also, because it's going to be at an instant which aligns with the twinkling of an eye change at the same time. Many of the events to occur on the day of The Lord when our Lor Jesus returns take up a whole lot more pages to explain than the short time they actually occur within.
All you're doing right now is 'mouthing' without having gone through any of my previous post with all the Scripture I gave for evidence of God having blinded some!!!
God does not change, you're right about that. So why are YOU trying to change what He said in His Word just so you can make yourself feel comfortable?7angels said:
All you're doing right now is 'mouthing' without having gone through any of my previous post with all the Scripture I gave for evidence of God having blinded some!!!
I do agree with veteran on this. I do want to say that, "In the twinkling of an eye," means "in a split second." NOT all at once!
Veteran wrote,
Quote Lamad
In 2 Peter 3:10, Apostle Peter substantianted Paul's timing of that day also, and gave more detail of what happens on that day too, like the elements of man's works being burned off the earth. And that further links to the day of The Lord events given in The Old Testament Books of God's prophets. That's another reason why Peter said to be mindful of what God's holy prophets wrote also.
But per the false Pre-Trib Doctrine you're on, it claims the day of The Lord events happen PRIOR to the "great tribulation", as if Satan's host can still be in power on the earth after man's works are burned off it? No way! That's a ludicrous idea. When Peter's "elements" are burned, the power of Christ's enemies on earth is OVER, DONE, NO MORE! Amazing that you haven't figured that out yet which shows how un-Biblical and foolish their Pre-Trib theories are.
You have left the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus.
Yet, when the Thessalonians were disturbed, thinking the Day of the Lord had already come and they were left behind, what was PAUL's argument? That is what we are talking about here: what PAUL wrote here in 2 Thes. 2. So why would you attempt to draw us away from 2 Thes 2?
Paul's argument is simple, "you cannot possibly be in the day of the Lord, for that day cannot come until two events happen first: first the one restraining the man of sin must be taken out of the way, and then the man of sin will be removed." This is really a simple argument.
Paul goes on to show us two more times that the restrainer is preventing the man of sin from being revealed, but once tthe restrainer is taken out of the way, THEN he will be revealed. Since Paul has given us this three times in a row, it must be important!
Paul also writes in verse 6, "and now you KNOW who is restraining. How could readers know? Very simple, because he just TOLD them in a previous verse. Since Paul wrote that the one restraining would be taken out of the way, or removed from the midst, all we need do is back up from verse 6 and find one removed.
When we consider the CONTEXT the Greek word apostasia can mean nothing else then the restrainer being taken out of the way or departed.
Next, this is not just any departure or apostasia, it is THE departure - a very special one. Did Paul teach them previously of a very special departure? Surely he did, in 1 Thes. 4.
However, if one studies this with their mind made up, it will be very difficult to understand Paul's intent.
It is very simple, no one knows exactly WHEN men's works will be burned up. It is not a pretrib thing to know when the Day starts; it is scripture. John gives us a hint in chapter 6 as the warning it is imminent. Then if one studies the first trumpets it is plain as day that is the wrath of God and the start of the Day. I did not write that, John wrote it. It is there for posttribbers to read just as it is there for pretribbers to read. Part of the day of the Lord is DESTRUCTION of the earth. In the first trumpet it begins with 1/3 of the trees and all of the grass. That is the beginning of God's wrath - written for all to read.
it is true,. Jesus comes "as a thief" meaning at a time no one will know for sure; but He dies this TWICE, first at the pretrib rapture and again on the white Horse. NO ONE will know the exact time of the pretrib rapture, and NO ONE will know when He comes in great glory on the White horse. John did not see the rapture - but he saw the effects of the rapture - the church around the throne in chapter 7. You can try and move chapter 7 to chapter 19, but it will not work. ANY theory that must rearrange John's God given chronology is immediately suspect and will be proven wrong. John put the raptured church in heaven in chapter 7, before the wrath begins at the first trumpet.
The Day of the Lord is NOT one 24 hour period of time! It begins with the first trumpet and extends past the 1000 year reign of Christ.
Lamad
Note, I separated these into separate posts to keep them small, but the server had better ideas and put them together.
Veteran wrote:
Quote Lamad
But the REAL question is, 'revealed' to WHOM??? Who would that son of perdition be revealed to once the one who withholds is removed out of the way?
It's simple to say Christ's Church is who that false one would be revealed to, however because of Paul's 'apostasia', that's not the case for ALL believers on Christ, for many will be deceived as to the actual identity of that false messiah; but not Christ's elect. His elect will know before that false one ever appears, and will 'know' to not bow to him thinking he is our Lord Jesus Christ having returned and sitting in the new temple in Jerusalem which the orthodox Jews are ready to build today.
You have misunderstood Paul's complete argument! Paul is speaking of the FUTURE and in His argument (of the future) He writes that the man of sin IS REVEALED (after the restrainer has departed) and when He is revealed He will "oppose and exalt 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."
In verse 6 Paul writes "what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time," hinting strongly that when the restrainer is taken out of the way, THEN he will be revealed in his own time.
Verses 7 & 8 make it very clear: He who is now restraining will continue to do so until he is taken out of the way, and THEN the man of sin will be revealed.
We cannot ignore these verses when attempting to answer what Paul meant by the apostasia.
1. the one restraining must be removed - - - - - then the man of sin will be revealed in His own time. (Verse 6)
2) The one restraining will continue to restrain until he is removed - - - - - - - THEN the man of sin will be revealed. (verses 7-8)
Verse three: Paul's argument: one can KNOW when the day of the Lord comes, by watching for TWO events:
Event one: the one holding down or restraining is taken out of the way or departed.
Event two: the man of sin now revealed (because the one restaining his revealing is now gone, departed.)
When these two events take place there will be no doubt, the Day of the Lord will have COME.
THEREFORE, in verse three when it says the man of sin IS REVEALED, this is only in Paul's argument, not in his time - when he was living and wrote this. His argument is, when the man if sin is revealed, THAT IS THE DAY OF THE LORD.
This is just ONE MORE PROOF that the Day of the Lord starts early in the week, with the first trumpet. But the time the man of sin is revealed (at the abomination) at the midpoint of the week, Paul says THAT is how to know the DAY has come.
The first people he will be revealed to are those living in Judea who FLEE. Then he will be revealed to all who will have their names written in the book of life of the Lamb.
Lamad
Note, I separated these into separate posts to keep them small, but the server had better ideas and put them together.
Veteran wrote:
Quote lamad
II Th 2:5-6
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
(KJV)
That "And now ye know" you're trying to apply differently is simply about Paul giving His warning Message about the coming of the Antichrist to them, once again. Since Paul gave more specifics this second time of his warning, like recognizing that coming false messiah by his setting himself up as God in the temple, claiming to be God, and over all that is CALLED God or that is worshipped, that's a very CLEAR warning. You can't go trying to apply that "And now ye know" by itself, because it's tied to the 7-8 verses subject.
Paul did not define... WHO your so-called 'restrainer' is in that 2 Thess.2 Scripture. One MUST study that point elsewhere in God's Word to understand it. You clearly have NOT done that study, even though I've already pointed you to it!
No, the one withholding has NOT been removed out of the way yet today. That false one coming to sit in the temple and proclaim himself as God, and over all that is called... God, or that is worshipped, is THE MAIN REQUIREMENT from Apostle Paul! So stop INTENTIONALLY trying to DENY that point as if it is not even written there!
Sorry, but Paul is very clear and plain: He wrote "And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time."
Paul is telling us WHO the restrainer is, if we will just understand what he wrote. You are making Paul say something entirely different than what is clearly written - yet you blame pretribbers for doing this. The truth is, PAUL TOLD US who was restraining, in verse three: when the church has "departed" (apostasia) THEN the man of sin IS REVEALED. You can try to make this say something else, but careful exegesis shows us Paul TOLD us, just as He said He did.
Paul did not define... WHO your so-called 'restrainer' is
He did, but one most take off preconceived glasses to see it. What happens in verse three that allows the man of sin to be revealed?
No, the one withholding has NOT been removed out of the way yet today.
Of course he is not revealed yet, but in verse three in PAUL'S ARGUMENT he IS revealed. But not before the departure of the church who is restraining Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit in the church that is restraining the revealing.
Sorry, but evil cannot restrain evil, so the KJV did a poor job of translating. That is why I did not use that translation. It leads one to a false conclusion. "Departure" is a far better translation.
Lamad
Note, I separated these into separate posts to keep them small, but the server had better ideas and put them together.
Veteran wrote:
Quote Lamad
I agree it is idiotic to make Michael the one fallen away. But that is what you do when you declare that Michael is the one restraining and also maintain that the KIV "falling away" is a good translation. If you replace "falling away" with departure, that would be better, for then Michael would be "taken out of the way."
But is this the intent of the author? It is not. The intent is shown in the THEME which is THE gathering. The apostasia is THE gathering or the rapture of the church. The church is the one taken out of the way, not Michael.
If "fallen away" is a good translation, then Paul has evil holding down or restraining evil. Sorry, but evil cannot restrain evil. That is not the intent of the Holy Spirit in this passage. "falling away" is simply a POOR translation that does not portray the intent of the Author, that this is the departure of the church in the rapture.
Again or still, you are missing that in 3B in Paul's argument the man of sin IS REVEALED. Not in reality but in Paul's argument. WHY is he revealed in 3B? Because the one restraining him has been taken out of the way in 3A.
When we consider the theme, the gathering or rapture, and verses 6-8 telling us over and over that the man of sin cannot be revealed UNTIL the one restraining is removed, there can be no doubt: verse 3A is the restrainer removed and verse 3B is the man of sin revealed. It is too bad the KJV translators did not understand this.
Lamad
Note, I separated these into separate posts to keep them small, but the server had better ideas and put them together.
Veteran wrote:
Quote Lamad
II Th 2:6-8
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
(KJV)
How is it, that YOU say Christ's coming on the day of The Lord is PRIOR to the great tribulation when that Scripture above is exactly... about the time of the tribulation ending with Christ coming to DESTROY that false one with the "brightness of His coming"???
You'd have to call right as wrong, and good as evil, to get mixed up on that!
Jesus comes BEFORE the Day to gather His bride, as see in 1 Thes. 4:17. Paul then tells us that the Day begins immediately after with the Sudden Destruction that comes the instant of the rapture.
The answer to your dilemma is very simple, Jesus comes TWICE more, first to get His bride, and next WITH His bride. There are no conflicts in scripture will this, because this is TRUTH and exactly the way it till happen. Again I will remind you that John saw the church in heaven in chapter 7 and Jesus returning in chapter 19. This is the order Paul puts it in 1 and 2 Thes.
Once again your doctrine directly CONTRADICTS the 2 Thess.2:8 verse as written. The Antichrist comes first, then Christ's coming on the day of The Lord to destroy him. But you say, Christ comes first, and then the Antichrist appears and does his thing on earth, which shows how totally screwed up your mind is! (Or, that you don't care and will tell LIES just to push your belief here on the false Pre-Trib Rapture theory).
Sorry, it is YOUR doctrine that contradicts the intent of the Author in 2 thes. The antichrist is revealed at the exact midpoint of the week, at the abomination. OF COURSE he is revealed then because that is when those living in Judea flee. Jesus returns on the white horse in chapter 19, 3 1/2 plus years later. But you are STILL MISSING a coming, as shown in 1 thes 4 & 5, where HE comes BEFORE the Day of the Lord; also shown so clearly before the DAY in Rev. 7 as the great crowd in heaven. The author, the Holy Spirit made no mistake, John and Paul are in agreement that the rapture of the bride comes before the Day of the Lord.
Veteran, I find none of your theories line up with a clear understanding of these scriptures.
lamad
Lamad
Quote Lamad
What?!? The easiest way to tell when the "day of the Lord" is per The New Testament, is by staying... with the Scriptures. In 1 Thess.5 Apostle Paul linked the day of The Lord with Christ's coming "as a thief", because Christ Himself said in Rev.16:15 that He comes... "as a thief".
In 2 Peter 3:10, Apostle Peter substantianted Paul's timing of that day also, and gave more detail of what happens on that day too, like the elements of man's works being burned off the earth. And that further links to the day of The Lord events given in The Old Testament Books of God's prophets. That's another reason why Peter said to be mindful of what God's holy prophets wrote also.
But per the false Pre-Trib Doctrine you're on, it claims the day of The Lord events happen PRIOR to the "great tribulation", as if Satan's host can still be in power on the earth after man's works are burned off it? No way! That's a ludicrous idea. When Peter's "elements" are burned, the power of Christ's enemies on earth is OVER, DONE, NO MORE! Amazing that you haven't figured that out yet which shows how un-Biblical and foolish their Pre-Trib theories are.
You have left the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus.
Yet, when the Thessalonians were disturbed, thinking the Day of the Lord had already come and they were left behind, what was PAUL's argument? That is what we are talking about here: what PAUL wrote here in 2 Thes. 2. So why would you attempt to draw us away from 2 Thes 2?
Paul's argument is simple, "you cannot possibly be in the day of the Lord, for that day cannot come until two events happen first: first the one restraining the man of sin must be taken out of the way, and then the man of sin will be removed." This is really a simple argument.
Paul goes on to show us two more times that the restrainer is preventing the man of sin from being revealed, but once tthe restrainer is taken out of the way, THEN he will be revealed. Since Paul has given us this three times in a row, it must be important!
Paul also writes in verse 6, "and now you KNOW who is restraining. How could readers know? Very simple, because he just TOLD them in a previous verse. Since Paul wrote that the one restraining would be taken out of the way, or removed from the midst, all we need do is back up from verse 6 and find one removed.
When we consider the CONTEXT the Greek word apostasia can mean nothing else then the restrainer being taken out of the way or departed.
Next, this is not just any departure or apostasia, it is THE departure - a very special one. Did Paul teach them previously of a very special departure? Surely he did, in 1 Thes. 4.
However, if one studies this with their mind made up, it will be very difficult to understand Paul's intent.
It is very simple, no one knows exactly WHEN men's works will be burned up. It is not a pretrib thing to know when the Day starts; it is scripture. John gives us a hint in chapter 6 as the warning it is imminent. Then if one studies the first trumpets it is plain as day that is the wrath of God and the start of the Day. I did not write that, John wrote it. It is there for posttribbers to read just as it is there for pretribbers to read. Part of the day of the Lord is DESTRUCTION of the earth. In the first trumpet it begins with 1/3 of the trees and all of the grass. That is the beginning of God's wrath - written for all to read.
it is true,. Jesus comes "as a thief" meaning at a time no one will know for sure; but He dies this TWICE, first at the pretrib rapture and again on the white Horse. NO ONE will know the exact time of the pretrib rapture, and NO ONE will know when He comes in great glory on the White horse. John did not see the rapture - but he saw the effects of the rapture - the church around the throne in chapter 7. You can try and move chapter 7 to chapter 19, but it will not work. ANY theory that must rearrange John's God given chronology is immediately suspect and will be proven wrong. John put the raptured church in heaven in chapter 7, before the wrath begins at the first trumpet.
The Day of the Lord is NOT one 24 hour period of time! It begins with the first trumpet and extends past the 1000 year reign of Christ.
Lamad
Note, I separated these into separate posts to keep them small, but the server had better ideas and put them together.
Veteran wrote:
Quote Lamad
That's right, the one doing the withholding must FIRST be taken out of the way, out of the midst, etc. Does Paul say anywhere that the one who withholds was removed out of the way? NOPE! It was not time yet in his days.
But the REAL question is, 'revealed' to WHOM??? Who would that son of perdition be revealed to once the one who withholds is removed out of the way?
It's simple to say Christ's Church is who that false one would be revealed to, however because of Paul's 'apostasia', that's not the case for ALL believers on Christ, for many will be deceived as to the actual identity of that false messiah; but not Christ's elect. His elect will know before that false one ever appears, and will 'know' to not bow to him thinking he is our Lord Jesus Christ having returned and sitting in the new temple in Jerusalem which the orthodox Jews are ready to build today.
You have misunderstood Paul's complete argument! Paul is speaking of the FUTURE and in His argument (of the future) He writes that the man of sin IS REVEALED (after the restrainer has departed) and when He is revealed He will "oppose and exalt 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."
In verse 6 Paul writes "what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time," hinting strongly that when the restrainer is taken out of the way, THEN he will be revealed in his own time.
Verses 7 & 8 make it very clear: He who is now restraining will continue to do so until he is taken out of the way, and THEN the man of sin will be revealed.
We cannot ignore these verses when attempting to answer what Paul meant by the apostasia.
1. the one restraining must be removed - - - - - then the man of sin will be revealed in His own time. (Verse 6)
2) The one restraining will continue to restrain until he is removed - - - - - - - THEN the man of sin will be revealed. (verses 7-8)
Verse three: Paul's argument: one can KNOW when the day of the Lord comes, by watching for TWO events:
Event one: the one holding down or restraining is taken out of the way or departed.
Event two: the man of sin now revealed (because the one restaining his revealing is now gone, departed.)
When these two events take place there will be no doubt, the Day of the Lord will have COME.
THEREFORE, in verse three when it says the man of sin IS REVEALED, this is only in Paul's argument, not in his time - when he was living and wrote this. His argument is, when the man if sin is revealed, THAT IS THE DAY OF THE LORD.
This is just ONE MORE PROOF that the Day of the Lord starts early in the week, with the first trumpet. But the time the man of sin is revealed (at the abomination) at the midpoint of the week, Paul says THAT is how to know the DAY has come.
The first people he will be revealed to are those living in Judea who FLEE. Then he will be revealed to all who will have their names written in the book of life of the Lamb.
Lamad
Note, I separated these into separate posts to keep them small, but the server had better ideas and put them together.
Veteran wrote:
Quote lamad
That "and now you know" by Paul is for those who UNDERSTAND and HEED his warning there. Many brethren today still... do not understand Paul's warning about that false messiah, for they listen to doctrines of men instead.
II Th 2:5-6
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
(KJV)
That "And now ye know" you're trying to apply differently is simply about Paul giving His warning Message about the coming of the Antichrist to them, once again. Since Paul gave more specifics this second time of his warning, like recognizing that coming false messiah by his setting himself up as God in the temple, claiming to be God, and over all that is CALLED God or that is worshipped, that's a very CLEAR warning. You can't go trying to apply that "And now ye know" by itself, because it's tied to the 7-8 verses subject.
Paul did not define... WHO your so-called 'restrainer' is in that 2 Thess.2 Scripture. One MUST study that point elsewhere in God's Word to understand it. You clearly have NOT done that study, even though I've already pointed you to it!
No, the one withholding has NOT been removed out of the way yet today. That false one coming to sit in the temple and proclaim himself as God, and over all that is called... God, or that is worshipped, is THE MAIN REQUIREMENT from Apostle Paul! So stop INTENTIONALLY trying to DENY that point as if it is not even written there!
Sorry, but Paul is very clear and plain: He wrote "And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time."
Paul is telling us WHO the restrainer is, if we will just understand what he wrote. You are making Paul say something entirely different than what is clearly written - yet you blame pretribbers for doing this. The truth is, PAUL TOLD US who was restraining, in verse three: when the church has "departed" (apostasia) THEN the man of sin IS REVEALED. You can try to make this say something else, but careful exegesis shows us Paul TOLD us, just as He said He did.
Paul did not define... WHO your so-called 'restrainer' is
He did, but one most take off preconceived glasses to see it. What happens in verse three that allows the man of sin to be revealed?
No, the one withholding has NOT been removed out of the way yet today.
Of course he is not revealed yet, but in verse three in PAUL'S ARGUMENT he IS revealed. But not before the departure of the church who is restraining Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit in the church that is restraining the revealing.
Sorry, but evil cannot restrain evil, so the KJV did a poor job of translating. That is why I did not use that translation. It leads one to a false conclusion. "Departure" is a far better translation.
Lamad
Note, I separated these into separate posts to keep them small, but the server had better ideas and put them together.
Veteran wrote:
Quote Lamad
That is a totally idiotic statement! Since when did Paul's usage of the term 'apostasia' in Greek get deleted??? It's not deleted in my Bible, nor the Greek manuscripts. Moreover, I didn't translate that Greek word to "falling away", the KJV translators did. But it is GOOD ENOUGH to describe Paul's usage of the Greek word 'apostasia'. And Strong's definition of 'apostasia' is good also; it means 'defection from the truth' (Strong's no. 646). Paul gave another little Message later in that chapter about that idea of those who receive not the truth being subject to the "strong delusion", now didn't he? Yep!
I agree it is idiotic to make Michael the one fallen away. But that is what you do when you declare that Michael is the one restraining and also maintain that the KIV "falling away" is a good translation. If you replace "falling away" with departure, that would be better, for then Michael would be "taken out of the way."
But is this the intent of the author? It is not. The intent is shown in the THEME which is THE gathering. The apostasia is THE gathering or the rapture of the church. The church is the one taken out of the way, not Michael.
If "fallen away" is a good translation, then Paul has evil holding down or restraining evil. Sorry, but evil cannot restrain evil. That is not the intent of the Holy Spirit in this passage. "falling away" is simply a POOR translation that does not portray the intent of the Author, that this is the departure of the church in the rapture.
Again or still, you are missing that in 3B in Paul's argument the man of sin IS REVEALED. Not in reality but in Paul's argument. WHY is he revealed in 3B? Because the one restraining him has been taken out of the way in 3A.
When we consider the theme, the gathering or rapture, and verses 6-8 telling us over and over that the man of sin cannot be revealed UNTIL the one restraining is removed, there can be no doubt: verse 3A is the restrainer removed and verse 3B is the man of sin revealed. It is too bad the KJV translators did not understand this.
Lamad
Note, I separated these into separate posts to keep them small, but the server had better ideas and put them together.
Veteran wrote:
Quote Lamad
Nah, don't leave out the rest of that verse, and the 7th and 8th verses that go with it.
II Th 2:6-8
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
(KJV)
How is it, that YOU say Christ's coming on the day of The Lord is PRIOR to the great tribulation when that Scripture above is exactly... about the time of the tribulation ending with Christ coming to DESTROY that false one with the "brightness of His coming"???
You'd have to call right as wrong, and good as evil, to get mixed up on that!
Jesus comes BEFORE the Day to gather His bride, as see in 1 Thes. 4:17. Paul then tells us that the Day begins immediately after with the Sudden Destruction that comes the instant of the rapture.
The answer to your dilemma is very simple, Jesus comes TWICE more, first to get His bride, and next WITH His bride. There are no conflicts in scripture will this, because this is TRUTH and exactly the way it till happen. Again I will remind you that John saw the church in heaven in chapter 7 and Jesus returning in chapter 19. This is the order Paul puts it in 1 and 2 Thes.
Once again your doctrine directly CONTRADICTS the 2 Thess.2:8 verse as written. The Antichrist comes first, then Christ's coming on the day of The Lord to destroy him. But you say, Christ comes first, and then the Antichrist appears and does his thing on earth, which shows how totally screwed up your mind is! (Or, that you don't care and will tell LIES just to push your belief here on the false Pre-Trib Rapture theory).
Sorry, it is YOUR doctrine that contradicts the intent of the Author in 2 thes. The antichrist is revealed at the exact midpoint of the week, at the abomination. OF COURSE he is revealed then because that is when those living in Judea flee. Jesus returns on the white horse in chapter 19, 3 1/2 plus years later. But you are STILL MISSING a coming, as shown in 1 thes 4 & 5, where HE comes BEFORE the Day of the Lord; also shown so clearly before the DAY in Rev. 7 as the great crowd in heaven. The author, the Holy Spirit made no mistake, John and Paul are in agreement that the rapture of the bride comes before the Day of the Lord.
Veteran, I find none of your theories line up with a clear understanding of these scriptures.
lamad
How amazing, when someone disagrees with you, it is them reverting to men's doctrines. Sorry, Veteran, but Pretribbers are following the truth of the scriptures. You will find out soon enough, for we are drawing close to the day He will come for His bride - those that BELIEVE He is coming first and are watching for His coming. What can anyone say further? Your mind is made up that the rapture is at the end, so you will MISS His first coming. For those left behind, it is written that they will be OVERCOME. So they will have two choices: reject the mark and lose their head - or accept the mark and lose their soul. I don't see where God left room for a third option.veteran said:
Lamad
Take a look in the mirror.iamlamad said:
I had a response for your post, but after having prayed about it for some time, I've realized that it's pointless. Pardon the pun, but it's senseless to shine light into the eyes of the blind.
For those who do want to find the truth, compare Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians 2 with the last six chapters of Daniel.
The title of this discussion/debate is subjective. It could easily be said "why shouldn't the church..... ." Moreover it's not really a central doctrine for those who believe in pre[trib rapture as they believe they'll be out of here. It's of enormous importance to those who may be mid or post trib, like myself.
So what I'm saying is if you pre-trippers are so sure of yourselves why spend such an inordinate amount of time proving to us so-called ignorant ones that you must be right. Could it be that deep down you are scared that your wrong and are not prepared for what's going to come upon you?
So what I'm saying is if you pre-trippers are so sure of yourselves why spend such an inordinate amount of time proving to us so-called ignorant ones that you must be right. Could it be that deep down you are scared that your wrong and are not prepared for what's going to come upon you?
No, it is not that at all. Many readers come and read, some trying to learn the truth. If pretribbers were not here posting, there WOULD BE NO TRUTH here.JB_ said:The title of this discussion/debate is subjective. It could easily be said "why shouldn't the church..... ." Moreover it's not really a central doctrine for those who believe in pre[trib rapture as they believe they'll be out of here. It's of enormous importance to those who may be mid or post trib, like myself.
So what I'm saying is if you pre-trippers are so sure of yourselves why spend such an inordinate amount of time proving to us so-called ignorant ones that you must be right. Could it be that deep down you are scared that your wrong and are not prepared for what's going to come upon you?
Lamad
LOL! I've got to give you 10/10 for having the gumption to state your mind.iamlamad said:
Nevertheless, there's none so blind as those who will not see. Your as convinced as your cousin the RCC are of their infallibility. :unsure: LOL! Succinctly stated.John S said:
The pre-trib rapture is fabricated, complicated, contradictory, and an outright perversion of God's Word.
Any doctrine that is fabricated always has a host of contradictions. As these contradictions surfaced over the years, the doctrine had become more and more complicated and more fabrications came along to counter those contradictions. And they continue today.
I can't take anything a pre-tribber says seriously because the rapture really is a simple thing to figure out.
I'm really impressed at how low these people go to pervert God's Word just to counter those contradictions.
One of the best...I mean worse, perversions is that they just can't accept that the word elect or 'eklektos' that Jesus used in Mathew 24:29-31 means Christians. In every resource book I have all say the word eklektos or elect means Christians. (whether Jew or Gentile)
Wuest, Vines, Thayer's, Strong's...... not one of them say eklektos means Jews.
Part of a good hermeneutic is to see how the word "elect" is used elsewhere in the bible.
In every verse below the word elect or chosen indicates CHRISTIANS! NOT JEWS!
This is what the word elect means...
1) picked out, chosen
a) chosen by
God,
1) to obtain salvation through Christ
a)
Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God
2) the
Messiah in called "elect", as appointed by God to the most exalted office
conceivable
3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class,
excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual
Christians
Pretribbers had to change the meaning of the word elect because in Mathew 24:29-31 it's absolutely clear that Jesus say's the gathering occurs AFTER THE TRIBULATION.
Besides Mathew 24:31 the word elect, chosen, 'eklektos,' is used in the following verses in the NT where it always means Christians... NOT JEWS!
Matthew 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.
Acts 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Romans 16:13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Colossians 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering.
James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
Revelation 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
If God wanted the elect of Mathew 24 to mean Jews, He would have used a different Greek word. Probably this one...
1445. Hebraios heb-rah'-yos from
1443; a Hebræan (i.e. Hebrew) or Jew:--Hebrew.
Pre-tribbers argue that because the word elect or 'chosen' means Jews in the OT it also does in the NT. Red flags go up when people interpret the bible like that. The word elect or chosen is sometimes used to infer Jews in the Old Testament. The word was also used to indicate things other than Jews. In the New Testament, because the church had not yet been formed, and it was written mostly directed to Israel anyway. AND, there is no longer Jew or gentile after Christ. The NT Greek text shows that 'elect' denotes CHRISTIANS and there's no getting around it! Not once in the NT is the word used to indicate Jews.
This is only ONE issue with pretribbers. They've perverted God's Word so much that it's difficult to believe anything else they have to say about...anything else!
Pretribulationism is evil because it's a completely fabricated and contradictory belief that has done no good and perverted God's Holy Word.
Discovering biblical truth usually comes in one or two verse. But for pre-tribbers, it comes in the fabrication of dozens of them.
Immediately after the tribulation of those days...And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:... And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
John the Christian said,
We know from other scriptures that the rapture will occur at a loud trumpet of God (I Thess. 4:16; I Cor. 15:23; Rev. 10:7), that it entails angels gathering Christians (Matt. 13:30, 39; Rev. 19:14), that the gathering will take place in the sky (I Thess. 4:17), and that God's elect anywhere else in the New Testament always indicates believers in Jesus, but the pre-tribulationists would lead you to believe this verse is anything but the rapture of the Church. Why? Because in this instance, the text clearly shows the event to be "after" the tribulation."
http://www.tribwatch.com/electsh.htm
http://www.tribwatch.com/
Any doctrine that is fabricated always has a host of contradictions. As these contradictions surfaced over the years, the doctrine had become more and more complicated and more fabrications came along to counter those contradictions. And they continue today.
I can't take anything a pre-tribber says seriously because the rapture really is a simple thing to figure out.
I'm really impressed at how low these people go to pervert God's Word just to counter those contradictions.
One of the best...I mean worse, perversions is that they just can't accept that the word elect or 'eklektos' that Jesus used in Mathew 24:29-31 means Christians. In every resource book I have all say the word eklektos or elect means Christians. (whether Jew or Gentile)
Wuest, Vines, Thayer's, Strong's...... not one of them say eklektos means Jews.
Part of a good hermeneutic is to see how the word "elect" is used elsewhere in the bible.
In every verse below the word elect or chosen indicates CHRISTIANS! NOT JEWS!
This is what the word elect means...
1) picked out, chosen
a) chosen by
God,
1) to obtain salvation through Christ
a)
Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God
2) the
Messiah in called "elect", as appointed by God to the most exalted office
conceivable
3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class,
excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual
Christians
Pretribbers had to change the meaning of the word elect because in Mathew 24:29-31 it's absolutely clear that Jesus say's the gathering occurs AFTER THE TRIBULATION.
Besides Mathew 24:31 the word elect, chosen, 'eklektos,' is used in the following verses in the NT where it always means Christians... NOT JEWS!
Matthew 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.
Acts 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Romans 16:13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Colossians 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering.
James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
Revelation 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
If God wanted the elect of Mathew 24 to mean Jews, He would have used a different Greek word. Probably this one...
1445. Hebraios heb-rah'-yos from
1443; a Hebræan (i.e. Hebrew) or Jew:--Hebrew.
Pre-tribbers argue that because the word elect or 'chosen' means Jews in the OT it also does in the NT. Red flags go up when people interpret the bible like that. The word elect or chosen is sometimes used to infer Jews in the Old Testament. The word was also used to indicate things other than Jews. In the New Testament, because the church had not yet been formed, and it was written mostly directed to Israel anyway. AND, there is no longer Jew or gentile after Christ. The NT Greek text shows that 'elect' denotes CHRISTIANS and there's no getting around it! Not once in the NT is the word used to indicate Jews.
This is only ONE issue with pretribbers. They've perverted God's Word so much that it's difficult to believe anything else they have to say about...anything else!
Pretribulationism is evil because it's a completely fabricated and contradictory belief that has done no good and perverted God's Holy Word.
Discovering biblical truth usually comes in one or two verse. But for pre-tribbers, it comes in the fabrication of dozens of them.
Immediately after the tribulation of those days...And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:... And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
John the Christian said,
We know from other scriptures that the rapture will occur at a loud trumpet of God (I Thess. 4:16; I Cor. 15:23; Rev. 10:7), that it entails angels gathering Christians (Matt. 13:30, 39; Rev. 19:14), that the gathering will take place in the sky (I Thess. 4:17), and that God's elect anywhere else in the New Testament always indicates believers in Jesus, but the pre-tribulationists would lead you to believe this verse is anything but the rapture of the Church. Why? Because in this instance, the text clearly shows the event to be "after" the tribulation."
http://www.tribwatch.com/electsh.htm
http://www.tribwatch.com/
If they had been taught that the rapture was at the end, as postribbers mistakenly think, and they they were told they were IN the day of the Lord, that it had already begun, why would they be worried or upset? NO REASON. But if they had been taught the truth, that Jesus comes BEFORE the Day of the Lord to take them home, and then someone told them the Day had already begun, OF COURSE they would be upset. They think they have missed the rapture! Or perhaps they think Paul told them wrong. This is not fabrication; it is simply reading what is written. Can you come up what another plausible reason why they would be upset? (Amp. Text: "to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here.")veteran said:
Trying to sound educated and scholarly won't work now. Paul's idea of the apostasy ("falling away") is about those who will be deceived by that coming man of sin, thinking he is God when he sits in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem for the very end of this world. Paul warned about that elsewhere, like 2 Cor.11 with the "another Jesus".
This is a theory that simply does not fit the text. The CONTEXT is that there is something RESTRAINING the revealing of the man of sin. The MAIN theme here is NOT about people being deceived by the man of sin. Verses about the man of sin tell us that, but here, in verses 1-3 and 6-8, the MAIN theme is teaching those who thought that the Day of the Lord had already begin - and they were now IN that day - that they were NOT in the Day. For proof, Paul tells them how to KNOW when the day has started and they are IN the day, THEN they will know the day has begun when the one restraining has been taken out of the way, and they will know they are IN the Day when the man of sin is revealed.
We all know, or should know, that the translators have ADDED part of verse 3 that Paul did not write. If we take just what he wrote, it would read:
"Don't be upset or shaken up... if you hear the Day of the Lord is present,..for, unless the departure (apostasia) comes first, and the man of sin is revealed.." (Of course Paul did not write it in English...this is shortened for simplicity.)
Youngs: " that ye be not quickly shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither through spirit, neither through word, neither through letters as through us, as that the day of Christ hath arrived 3 let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,
Pay careful attention to what is bolded. What is Paul really saying here? That, if the departure (apostasia) comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, then they should be worried because those things would conclusively prove that the the Day of the Lord will be present!
Therefore, since the theme is the rapture, it is conclusive proof that the rapture and the Day of the Lord are tied together and cannot be separated. So whether one is pretrib,prewrath, midtrib or posttrib, the rapture comes before the Day of the Lord, but JUST before, or as the trigger for the Day. Do we all agree on this one point? What we disagree on then, is the start of the Day.
My guess is, this is the way posttribbers read this passage:
2 Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of Christ (the rapture) will come soon. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us. 3 Don’t be fooled by what they say (that the rapture will come first and soon). For that day (the day of the rapture) will not come (sometime in the near future) until there is a falling away first (a departure from the faith because of the tribulation) and the man of lawlessness is revealed (also first - before the rapture) —the one who brings destruction.
Posttribbers, do I have this about right? Is this the way you read it?
I can assure postribbers and all the readers that this is NOT the intent of the Author for this passage. Everything in parenthesis in the above is WRONG.
Where KJV tells us the day of the Lord in "at hand", (last phrase of verse 2) the Greek word is "enistemi." This word is best translated as "present", or has "already begun". Many translators have this right. The difference in meaning is crucial to understanding Paul's intent. They thought they were IN the Day and it had already started.
(Amplified) 2 ...to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here.
(NKJV) 2... as though the day of Christ had come.
(NIV) 2...saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
It should be clear, those Thessalonian believers thought the DAY had already started and they were IN the day of the Lord. Note, there are many more translations that say this same thing.
Therefore, the translators, in their attempt to fill in words Paul left out, should have kept with this same idea, that they thought the Day had already come. So let's write it again with some added words as KJV and most others have done.
3 Don’t be fooled by what they say. For (that day will not have started and be present) until there is a departure first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed —the one who brings destruction.
So what is Paul's intended meaning? Note, is is very true that the Day of the Lord will come soon, and that is what pretribbers teach. But that is not what Paul was writing, or what had them all upset; they thought the day had already started and they were INSIDE the Day of the Lord. Also note, if that false message they received told that that the Day would come soon, HOW could that be a false message - since it is truth? No, the false message they heard was that the Day had started and they were IN THAT DAY. Those first readers of this letter were having pretty severe tribulation. If they received a message that the Day of the Lord would come soon, they would have been GLAD, not upset, for to Christians, that day would bring "blessed Hope." I really like the words of a song, "another day closer to the Day of the Lord is like another step closer to home!" They were NOT glad, for their thinking was, "we have missed the resurrection and the rapture Paul had taught them about!"
What Paul did then, was to REFUTE the idea that the Day had already started and they were IN it. That is the context of the next few verses. So Paul is going to tell them how they can know for SURE that they day has not yet started. Paul gives them two signs to signify the presence of the Day: that the day would have begun: first the departure and second the revealing of the man of sin. If anyone sees these two unmistakeable signs, they will KNOW the day of the Lord is present had has begun.
Now, suppose there was a long time between these two signs and the start of the Day? If the two signs came, one would still not know,if the Day had arrived. So Paul's argument would be worthless. That cannot be Paul's intent! His intent is, when these two signs are seen, the day of the Lord HAS COME - not will come some time later.
What Paul is really saying then, is that the day of the Lord will not have already started and be present unless the man of sin is revealed, for this cannot happen until the departure happens - the second is dependent on the first. Therefore the revealing of the man of sin is proof of the PRESENCE of the Day of the Lord, not a sign in the future saying it must come first before something else can come.
So then, what must come "first?" Since the man of sin revealed proves the PRESENCE of the Day, the departure is what much come first - NOT the departure plus the presence. Therefore, this is NOT a list of two events that must come first before something else can come. There is ONE THING that comes first, the departure. Then, after the departure, the revealing of the man of sin proves the Day has already started. This is pure logic using the words Paul has given us. There cannot be another meaning, or words mean nothing. You see, readers, there is a HUGE difference in saying an event will come, or an event has already come and is present.
Paul could have written, "there are two things that must come first, before the Day can come" but this is NOT the way he wrote it - it is only the way posttribbers interpret it. Please note, the two items, the departure and the revealing are NOT WRITTEN TOGETHER in this manner, as things that must come first before.... .This is why CONTEXT is so important. Paul teaches us that the second is dependent on the first: it is the departure that allows or makes it possible for the second event, the revealing to come. Notice that the word FIRST is BETWEEN the two events.
ESV
Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
This means that ONLY ONE OF THESE TWO EVENTS must come first! First modifies the departure, NOT the revealing. Readers., can you see how the posttrib theory simply has not understand Paul's intent? This is NOT two events that must come first, and then some time later the Day can begin. That is false teaching that comes for misunderstanding this scripture. We are told to rightly divide the word of Truth.
It is just NOT TRUTH that the revealing of the son of man just come first before the Day of the Lord is present. No, it is the departure that must come first. Then, AFTER the revealing of the man of sin the Day is present. Therefore the START OF the DAY is not determined by the revealing but by the departure. The truth is, the revealing is way AFTER the start!
Next, the thing that comes first, the departure, MUST BE SOMETHING VERY EASILY RECOGNIZED as a crisis moment, so everyone would know, NOW it has happened. A falling away from something does not measure up to something easily recognized as a crisis event. If it happens, it is a gradual thing. it has been ongoing for many years. If by departure, Paul meant the rapture, then that would be a sign instantly recognized as fulling this verse. NO ONE would miss that sign. They would then know that the DAY has begun.
Therefore, there is only ONE THING that must come first before we can say the Day of the Lord HAS COME and is present: that is the departure. It MUST come first. By the time the revealing has come, then they are IN the Day. Readers, please note, Paul does not give us a hint as to how much time there will be between these two events; only that one must come first, the departure.
Then, everyone can be sure, the man of sin will be revealed soon after, because the one restraining him will be taken out of the way. This is exactly what verse six, and then 7 & 8 together tell us.
Verse 3 and verses 6, then 7 & 8 are all parallels. First there is something preventing the revealing, but once that thing preventing is departed and taken out of the way, THEN the man of sin is revealed. Some want to argue this part,but it is very clear in all translations: in verse 3-B in Paul's argument, the man of sin IS REVEALED. by verses 6-8 the ONLY way that could be possible is if the one restraining is taken out of the way. Therefore, there is simply no way around this truth: verse 3-A IS the restrainer being taken out of the way.
Please note, there already HAD BEEN already a departure for the faith in those days. So HOW could that be the sign Paul wanted then to notice? If that is what was to be meant by apostasia, they would have thought that the DAY had already come way back then......hmmm: that is EXACTLY what they thought! No no! Paul could NOT have meant a falling away from the faith as the great sign that the Day of the Lord was already present. Do you see how silly it is to think apostasia is to mean a falling away from the faith? Paul's letter was to correct such thinking! No no! Apostasia had to be something they had never seen before, else Paul's argument would be a failure. The Holy Spirit does NOT fail!
Readers, as you can see, posttribbers that use this passage for their doctrine have simply not understood it. It is a very PRETRIB passage, and proves pretrib, not posttrib.
Sorry, it was not "dies" twice, it was DOES twice, meaning, He first FIRST FOR His bride, and comes AGAIN with His bride.
To all posttribb writers: we are all brothers (perhaps sisters included) in Christ. If we all make it to heaven, we are going to be spending a lot of time together. Let's not attack each other! We are to love the brethren. If you do not like pretrib doctrine, then attack the DOCTRINE, not the person. If I have not done this, I repent, and will try to do better.
One thing is sure, both pre and post cannot be truth; one is false. If it is false, it is a doctrine or men or of devils. Therefore it behooves all of us to study diligently and gain understanding of these scriptures, lest we find we are teaching doctrines of men or of devils.
Lamad
Lamad your logic is flawed, why is Paul telling the Thes. about 2 signs that must happen before the day of the Lord, when according to your doctrine, at the first sign the "departure" they will be gone. There for they want be around to witness the second sign.iamlamad said:
Lamad how is this for a theory to why the Thes. were upset, thinking that they had missed the resurrection. They had heard and maybe witnessed the resurrection of the many saints of old that were resurrected with Jesus
It is difficult to know where to start, when everything is an attempt to contradict truth. I will begin here:BLACK SHEEP said:
One of the best...I mean worse, perversions is that they just can't accept that the word elect or 'eklektos' that Jesus used in Mathew 24:29-31 means Christians. In every resource book I have all say the word eklektos or elect means Christians. (whether Jew or Gentile)
you have missed a very important point: this is the 70th week of DANIEL, not the 70th week of Paul. The timing of this gathering is at the end of this week. This is the final week of LAW. The church age has CLOSED at this time and the DOOR is SHUT. God is finishing up the OLD COVENANT here. So go and look in the OLD for the word "elect." Big, HUGE mistake.
Matthew 25:10
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
Luke 13:25
When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
However plain this is to pretribbers, it will not be as plain to posttribbers for they imagine the 70th week is the 70th week of PAUL - for the Christians. The ignore scriptures like this:
Dan. 12:7....and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.
Sorry, but God has NO DESIRE to shatter the power of His beloved Sons. That is why He comes and gets us BEFORE this week begins. This shattering is for the JEWS (Israel) who have rejected their own messiah. Hint: This is why this 7 years is called the 70th week of DANIEL.....Daniel was from ISRAEL.
AND, there is no longer Jew or gentile after Christ.
This kind of thinking ignores much of the bible! This is true ONLY AFTER someone is born again. Israel as a nation is NOT born again and most will not believe Jesus was their Messiah. As Paul said, they are blinded. The Very fact that Israel exists today as a nation is conclusive proof that Jews still exist. They are going to build the new temple mentioned in Rev. 11.
Pretribulationism is evil because it's a completely fabricated and contradictory belief that has done no good and perverted God's Holy Word.
Since it is the TRUTH of God's word, one day you will answer for such statements. Jesus will NOT let you off unless you repent. This is simply a theory that is wrong. I am reminded of 2 Pet. 3:5.
There is no proof ANYWHERE that the gathering in Matt. 24 is the rapture; yet there is MUCH PROOF that it is not, indeed cannot be. It gathers from the heavens. How silly is this? We that are alive and remain are standing on the EARTH. This gathering is at the very end, when Jesus comes for the battle of Armegeddon. Paul's gathering comes before the Day of the Lord begins, as the trigger for the Day. These two are mutually exclusive. Yet, posttribbers say it is pretribbers that fabricate things!
There IS a gathering when Jesus comes for the battle of Armegeddon - I thrust no on on this forum will be a part of that gathering.
you included the 7th trumpet of revelation for the rapture, as if the "last trump" of Paul was the 7th trumpet of Revelation. I am surprised, for this is simply false - exactly what you claim for pretrib doctrine. There is not scripture anywhere that can successfully tie these two trumpets together. simply saying this is the "last trumpet" in the bible will not work. Do you imagine that after the 7th trumpet God will destroy all trumpets left in the world, so that there can never be another trumpet blast? No no! Paul's "last trump" is the final trumpet blast of a CERTAIN SERIES of trumpets. Most believe it is at the Feast of Trumpets. The last and final trumpet blast there is very distinct and different than all the rest. There is NO GATHERING at the 7th trumpet. This is an imagination! And yet posttribbers badmouth pretribbers and say that they imagine.
There are no angels doing any gathering in 1 Thes. 4 - at least not mentioned. One would again have to imagine.
Lamad
Not flawed. They thought they were IN the day of the Lord and had missed the resurrection Paul had taught them about. Paul then, was to teach them that they had NOT missed the rapture and they were NOT IN the day. His argument is simple, The day cannot start until first the departure of the church takes place - a bold sign no one could miss. After that, the man of sin will be revealed which will prove the Day had already started and so is present. They could understand this argument then, even as we can now. So we know two things now: first, we know the day has not started, for the departure of the church has not happened. We also know the Day of the Lord is not present, for we have not seen the man of sin.ENOCH2010 said:
Your point is well taken, I don't expect to see the man of sin revealed; for I will not be here. I may see one split second of the Day, before I am caught up. Paul's argument was for those who believe the day is present. Hmmm. We have many of those today: too bad they don't understand Paul's argument. lamad
Did you ever notice how sure Paul was of His revelation from heaven? He did not go up first to check with those who thought they were somewhat.....not until much later. Paul was so sure, he said we would be judged by his gospel. The things I have received revelation knowledge on - I am just as sure as Paul was. I cannot be dogmatic on some things, for I have received no revelation knowledge on some things. For example, the beast that comes out of the bottomless pit and becomes the 8th king....I am totally in the dark. lamadJB_ said:LOL! I've got to give you 10/10 for having the gumption to state your mind.
LOL! Succinctly stated.
Similar threads
