Thief in the Night-- Pretrib or Second Coming?
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Uh, that tiny fly in your "ointment" is the FACT that the vast majority of Church age believers have already dead and are NOW in heaven.
So Jesus isn't "coming back for the church". He's coming back to rule the nations. And along the way, He brings all the saints NOW in heaven (that would be Adam to the present) to give them all resurrected bodies with which to serve and reign in His kingdom.
Delusion.
So Jesus isn't "coming back for the church". He's coming back to rule the nations. And along the way, He brings all the saints NOW in heaven (that would be Adam to the present) to give them all resurrected bodies with which to serve and reign in His kingdom.
Delusion.
Daniel 12:2 is not speaking of a physical / bodily resurrection from the dead (like v.13 is); rather it is speaking of Israel coming up out of the graveyard of nations, where SCATTERED ("sown unto the earth"), JUST AS a number of other related passages also speak to:
Ezek37:12-14,20,21-23 (the dry bones prophecy); Hos5:14-6:3; Isa26:13-21, esp.v.19 ("ye that dwell in dust"--compare Dan12:1-4); Rom11:15[25],26 [Isa27:9,12-13 / Dan9:24]; etc... ALL which speak to "Israel's FUTURE" which is LIKENED UNTO a resurrection (but which speak of "still-living" persons, not formerly DEAD ones)
You are wanting to read into these verses the idea of "ONLY ONE"... but there's no "article" ("a") in the Greek.
So these can legit be translated, "there will be resurrection, both of the living and the dead" (which doesn't supply the meaning you are giving it).
You are INJECTING the idea of "ONLY ONE" due to your supposing "an even exchange" between the non-existent article "a" with the words "ONLY ONE" that you keep repeating as though it is fact. It's not.
I've covered that verse (and its connection with the point being made in v.22b "FUTURE-tense" referencing) in several posts already in this thread. Won't go over that again, here.
[/QUOTE] That's not what either 1Cor15:23 says, nor Rev10:6 says. = )
Ezek37:12-14,20,21-23 (the dry bones prophecy); Hos5:14-6:3; Isa26:13-21, esp.v.19 ("ye that dwell in dust"--compare Dan12:1-4); Rom11:15[25],26 [Isa27:9,12-13 / Dan9:24]; etc... ALL which speak to "Israel's FUTURE" which is LIKENED UNTO a resurrection (but which speak of "still-living" persons, not formerly DEAD ones)
You are wanting to read into these verses the idea of "ONLY ONE"... but there's no "article" ("a") in the Greek.
So these can legit be translated, "there will be resurrection, both of the living and the dead" (which doesn't supply the meaning you are giving it).
You are INJECTING the idea of "ONLY ONE" due to your supposing "an even exchange" between the non-existent article "a" with the words "ONLY ONE" that you keep repeating as though it is fact. It's not.
I've covered that verse (and its connection with the point being made in v.22b "FUTURE-tense" referencing) in several posts already in this thread. Won't go over that again, here.
[/QUOTE] That's not what either 1Cor15:23 says, nor Rev10:6 says. = )
-
1
- Show all
Rev chapters 1 thru 5 are a sucking chest wound as far as the post-tribbers are concerned bro.
I am glad I am not turning my back on 5 entire chapters and the very words of Jesus.
And don't forget....
Rev 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I am glad I am not turning my back on 5 entire chapters and the very words of Jesus.
And don't forget....
Rev 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 - And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
" Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."
I think you have quite the imagination.
"John 5:28,29, Acts 24:15,"
Please explain how that negates a singular resurrection? The English Greek scholars all use "resurrection" in the singular.
Imagination.
What is very clear in 1 Cor 15:23 is that ALL believers will be resurrected "when He comes", which is the Second Advent. It sinks your boat.
[/QUOTE]That's not what either 1Cor15:23 says, nor Rev10:6 says. = )[/QUOTE]
You haven't proven your claims. They are only opinions.
If you are such an expert on a pre-trib rapture, why can't you quote ANY verse that shows Jesus clearly taking resurrected, glorified believers to heaven?
That is the crux of the "rapture"; Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven. There are NO verses.
That would be the ONLY WAY your view gets any cred.
I think you have quite the imagination.
"John 5:28,29, Acts 24:15,"
Please explain how that negates a singular resurrection? The English Greek scholars all use "resurrection" in the singular.
Imagination.
What is very clear in 1 Cor 15:23 is that ALL believers will be resurrected "when He comes", which is the Second Advent. It sinks your boat.
[/QUOTE]That's not what either 1Cor15:23 says, nor Rev10:6 says. = )[/QUOTE]
You haven't proven your claims. They are only opinions.
If you are such an expert on a pre-trib rapture, why can't you quote ANY verse that shows Jesus clearly taking resurrected, glorified believers to heaven?
That is the crux of the "rapture"; Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven. There are NO verses.
That would be the ONLY WAY your view gets any cred.
So you agree that it was indeed a TIME PERIOD that those "judgments" unfolded upon the earth, and not that they occurred on a singular 24-hr day, right? Why then do you believe 2Th1:7-8 "in flaming fire inflicting vengeance on them" refers only to the singular 24-hr day of His return to the earth Rev19, rather than to the time-period preceding and leading up to that (which is what 1Th5:1-3 is saying... a time-period... the DOTL [here speaking of its ARRIVAL-point]... not merely covering a singular "24-hr day" kind of day, the day Christ returns, as some, including you, are suggesting that's when it "arrives" / commences / happens).
Consider also that this text uses the phrase "His mighty angels," which also lends to this idea (of things, namely "judgments," unfolding upon the earth OVER SOME TIME, rather than on a singular 24-hr day--which, when Scripture speaks of the day of His return to the earth on a singular 24-hr day, it uses the phrase instead "His holy angels" [speaking of His "coming" to the earth, i.e. what we call His Second Coming]).
[Psalm 148:2 LXX (the Septuagint) uses the same word translated (in 2Th1) as "mighty" ^ ... hover your cursor over the Hebrew word H6635, here: https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/148-2.htm ]
Consider also that this text uses the phrase "His mighty angels," which also lends to this idea (of things, namely "judgments," unfolding upon the earth OVER SOME TIME, rather than on a singular 24-hr day--which, when Scripture speaks of the day of His return to the earth on a singular 24-hr day, it uses the phrase instead "His holy angels" [speaking of His "coming" to the earth, i.e. what we call His Second Coming]).
[Psalm 148:2 LXX (the Septuagint) uses the same word translated (in 2Th1) as "mighty" ^ ... hover your cursor over the Hebrew word H6635, here: https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/148-2.htm ]
Oh, so now you are suggesting that believers AND unbelievers are resurrected at the same time-slot, per this verse / passage??
A few minutes ago, you said otherwise (I thought).
[Let the reader recall that Dan 12 starts out by saying "AT THAT TIME"...]
Example (of wording):
King James Bible
Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.
New King James Version
Shake yourself from the dust, arise; Sit down, O Jerusalem! Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion!
New American Standard Bible
Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, Captive Jerusalem; Release yourself from the chains around your neck, Captive daughter of Zion.
[Lk21:24 - "... and they shall be led away captive into all the nations, AND Jerusalem shall be TRODDEN DOWN [Rev11:2] of the Gentiles UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled"]
A few minutes ago, you said otherwise (I thought).
[Let the reader recall that Dan 12 starts out by saying "AT THAT TIME"...]
Example (of wording):
King James Bible
Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.
New King James Version
Shake yourself from the dust, arise; Sit down, O Jerusalem! Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion!
New American Standard Bible
Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, Captive Jerusalem; Release yourself from the chains around your neck, Captive daughter of Zion.
[Lk21:24 - "... and they shall be led away captive into all the nations, AND Jerusalem shall be TRODDEN DOWN [Rev11:2] of the Gentiles UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled"]
Okay, so you're suggesting this was a "failed mission"... hah.
"And they heard a great voice out of heaven, saying to them, "Come up here." And they went up to heaven in the cloud, and their enemies beheld them."
This is stating fact (same as when Jesus journeyed up TO heaven in Acts 1... nobody assumes that "mission failed." lol)
Why would a "great voice out of heaven" tell them to "come up [here]" and then it NOT actually happen? (Talk about "imagination" lol)
"And they heard a great voice out of heaven, saying to them, "Come up here." And they went up to heaven in the cloud, and their enemies beheld them."
This is stating fact (same as when Jesus journeyed up TO heaven in Acts 1... nobody assumes that "mission failed." lol)
Why would a "great voice out of heaven" tell them to "come up [here]" and then it NOT actually happen? (Talk about "imagination" lol)
-
1
- Show all
FreeGrace2 said:
" Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."
I think you have quite the imagination.
The verse doesn't say anything about 'the same time', and I never suggested such. Rev 20:5,6 shows that the resurrection of all believers is 1,000 years BEFORE the resurrection of all unbelievers.
You thought wrong.
Let's look at both verses:
1 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.
2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
The words "at that time" refer to what Michael the archangel will arise. Immediately followong is "there will be A TIME OF DISTRESS" which is the Great Tribulation.
So the words "at that time" doesn't refer to anything in v.2 at all. So your comment isn't being honest.
And? What is the point here? I can't read your mind about what you think the verse means.
" Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."
I think you have quite the imagination.
The verse doesn't say anything about 'the same time', and I never suggested such. Rev 20:5,6 shows that the resurrection of all believers is 1,000 years BEFORE the resurrection of all unbelievers.
A few minutes ago, you said otherwise (I thought).
Let's look at both verses:
1 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.
2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
The words "at that time" refer to what Michael the archangel will arise. Immediately followong is "there will be A TIME OF DISTRESS" which is the Great Tribulation.
So the words "at that time" doesn't refer to anything in v.2 at all. So your comment isn't being honest.
And? What is the point here? I can't read your mind about what you think the verse means.
FreeGrace2 said:
I agree. But it doesn't say their bodies actually get to heaven. We don't know.
That would be stupid. Why do you presume anything here? We really don't know where their bodies go. You can call it whatever your heart desires, but your "conclusion" is the pits.
In FACT, the mission is to get the 2W up to heaven. And they will get up there. So no mission will fail. Sheeeesh.
Read my lips: both men DO get to heaven. Got it yet?
I agree. But it doesn't say their bodies actually get to heaven. We don't know.
That would be stupid. Why do you presume anything here? We really don't know where their bodies go. You can call it whatever your heart desires, but your "conclusion" is the pits.
In FACT, the mission is to get the 2W up to heaven. And they will get up there. So no mission will fail. Sheeeesh.
Read my lips: both men DO get to heaven. Got it yet?
That's not what either 1Cor15:23 says, nor Rev10:6 says. = )[/QUOTE]
You haven't proven your claims. They are only opinions.
If you are such an expert on a pre-trib rapture, why can't you quote ANY verse that shows Jesus clearly taking resurrected, glorified believers to heaven?
That is the crux of the "rapture"; Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven. There are NO verses.
That would be the ONLY WAY your view gets any cred.[/QUOTE]
Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father en ho epouranios (g2032 epouranios) post-resurrection per Eph 1:20 correct? I mean nobody's going to argue against that right?
Well then see Eph 2:6.......we, the Church the Bride are sygkathizo en epouranios.
Same place bro. And lo and behold, there we are......witnessed by John having been resurrected to glory per Revelation chapter 4 & 5. Pre Rev 6 trib of course. But meta tauta Rev 2&3 the Church age. Right smack dab in the middle, singing praises right alongside the cherubim. Who themselves are in heaven around the throne of God. One big happy family.
Do I have that right bro? Because if I am right you are wrong.
You haven't proven your claims. They are only opinions.
If you are such an expert on a pre-trib rapture, why can't you quote ANY verse that shows Jesus clearly taking resurrected, glorified believers to heaven?
That is the crux of the "rapture"; Jesus taking glorified believers to heaven. There are NO verses.
That would be the ONLY WAY your view gets any cred.[/QUOTE]
Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father en ho epouranios (g2032 epouranios) post-resurrection per Eph 1:20 correct? I mean nobody's going to argue against that right?
Well then see Eph 2:6.......we, the Church the Bride are sygkathizo en epouranios.
Same place bro. And lo and behold, there we are......witnessed by John having been resurrected to glory per Revelation chapter 4 & 5. Pre Rev 6 trib of course. But meta tauta Rev 2&3 the Church age. Right smack dab in the middle, singing praises right alongside the cherubim. Who themselves are in heaven around the throne of God. One big happy family.
Do I have that right bro? Because if I am right you are wrong.
Same words (G305 G1519) that are used in references to these "2 Witnesses" are used in a passage saying this:
"...they went up [G305] into [G1519] the upper room, where they were staying, both Peter and John, and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James."
Now, one could say (as you are) that the rest of the verse (following those two words) never states that they actually ARRIVED there (at the time being referenced) WHERE the others were located... but I think that would be to grossly misunderstand the text.
No, this Acts 1:13 means that they actually "went up INTO" the upper room (at that time)
"...they went up [G305] into [G1519] the upper room, where they were staying, both Peter and John, and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James."
Now, one could say (as you are) that the rest of the verse (following those two words) never states that they actually ARRIVED there (at the time being referenced) WHERE the others were located... but I think that would be to grossly misunderstand the text.
No, this Acts 1:13 means that they actually "went up INTO" the upper room (at that time)
No those chapters aren't a problem. They are great. I just see no reason to read a pre-trib explanation into it.
"These guys are spiritual time travelers from a time between the first second coming and the second second coming, time traveled back to 90 AD or so to talk to John."
I suppose it doesn't take much effort to argue for that. But that doesn't mean I feel compelled to read a pre-trib explanation into it.
I just don't see how anyone back then would have read the book of Revelation and come away with a pre-trib rapture scenario. Same with Matthew, I or II Thessalonians, etc.
"These guys are spiritual time travelers from a time between the first second coming and the second second coming, time traveled back to 90 AD or so to talk to John."
I suppose it doesn't take much effort to argue for that. But that doesn't mean I feel compelled to read a pre-trib explanation into it.
I just don't see how anyone back then would have read the book of Revelation and come away with a pre-trib rapture scenario. Same with Matthew, I or II Thessalonians, etc.
Huh? Because of what the Bible says.
Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
There is a period of tribulation before the coming of the Son of Man.
Compare with this passage from the same book you mentioned, from
I Thessalonians 1-2(NKJV emphasis mine.)
10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.
2 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
...8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
Your posts about trying to make this into some extended 7-year-time period don't offer any proof for pre-trib. Your just trying to figure out a way to somehow reconcile a passage that just doesn't fit pre-trib, and argue for that. But if you have to work so hard at it, and come up with such an awkward interpretation, why be pre-trib in the first place?
Most people don't have verses memorized. You should quote verses or a lot of people will just skim over your posts.
I Thessalonians 5
5 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
(NKJV)
I've got no reason to have to argue for a long period as the day of the Lord here. Before the day of Christ, first we can expect to see the falling away, then the man of sin be revealed. Then the man of sin (who I think most of us would think is referred to as 'that wicked') is destroyed at the brightness of His coming.
What do angels have to do with a longer than 24-hour time period?
Again, there needs to be some kind of justification in the first place for multiple raptures, multiple returns of the Lord. Just trying to argue that the day of the Lord can last a long time doesn't cut it. Your also having to have multiple comings of the Lord, and one of those is a part-way return, not all the way. What is the Biblical justification for that? I see you post a lot on the idea that the day of the Lord could be more than 24-hours... but that doesn't provide justification for the whole scenario.
For pre-trib to work, either Jesus has to 'come down from heaven' and then return'--- even though Peter said He would remain in heaven until the restitution of all things, or else 7 years is a long return of Christ. Do you think he will be up in the clouds slowly coming down for seven years? Again, arguing the day of the Lord can last a long time doesn't answer the other issues, and it doesn't justify the whole scenario in the first place.
Making something fit with a theory about end times isn't the same thing as the Bible actually teaching it somewhere.
And we have this other problem that instead of us believing mysteries that are stated in the Old Testament but not unveiled, pre-trib gives us another set of individuals unveiliing hidden stuff from the apostles. So pre-trib interpreters kind of act like apostles, unveiling hidden stuff that is hidden in the apostles writings that they didn't completely teach.
Are you going with holy versus mighty? That really looks like grasping at straws. If you have two passages about the second coming, you look at the different details in the passage and classify the verses that you want to go in the extra second coming you made up in one bucket, and the details you want to go into the actual second coming in another bucket. I don't accept that there should be two buckets so I don't accept the significance of the distinction. You have to justify there being two buckets from scripture.
These 'goodness of fit' approaches don't work for me. (Sorry for the obscure allusion to statistical models.)
Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
There is a period of tribulation before the coming of the Son of Man.
Compare with this passage from the same book you mentioned, from
I Thessalonians 1-2(NKJV emphasis mine.)
10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.
2 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
...8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
Your posts about trying to make this into some extended 7-year-time period don't offer any proof for pre-trib. Your just trying to figure out a way to somehow reconcile a passage that just doesn't fit pre-trib, and argue for that. But if you have to work so hard at it, and come up with such an awkward interpretation, why be pre-trib in the first place?
Most people don't have verses memorized. You should quote verses or a lot of people will just skim over your posts.
I Thessalonians 5
5 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
(NKJV)
I've got no reason to have to argue for a long period as the day of the Lord here. Before the day of Christ, first we can expect to see the falling away, then the man of sin be revealed. Then the man of sin (who I think most of us would think is referred to as 'that wicked') is destroyed at the brightness of His coming.
What do angels have to do with a longer than 24-hour time period?
Again, there needs to be some kind of justification in the first place for multiple raptures, multiple returns of the Lord. Just trying to argue that the day of the Lord can last a long time doesn't cut it. Your also having to have multiple comings of the Lord, and one of those is a part-way return, not all the way. What is the Biblical justification for that? I see you post a lot on the idea that the day of the Lord could be more than 24-hours... but that doesn't provide justification for the whole scenario.
For pre-trib to work, either Jesus has to 'come down from heaven' and then return'--- even though Peter said He would remain in heaven until the restitution of all things, or else 7 years is a long return of Christ. Do you think he will be up in the clouds slowly coming down for seven years? Again, arguing the day of the Lord can last a long time doesn't answer the other issues, and it doesn't justify the whole scenario in the first place.
Making something fit with a theory about end times isn't the same thing as the Bible actually teaching it somewhere.
And we have this other problem that instead of us believing mysteries that are stated in the Old Testament but not unveiled, pre-trib gives us another set of individuals unveiliing hidden stuff from the apostles. So pre-trib interpreters kind of act like apostles, unveiling hidden stuff that is hidden in the apostles writings that they didn't completely teach.
Are you going with holy versus mighty? That really looks like grasping at straws. If you have two passages about the second coming, you look at the different details in the passage and classify the verses that you want to go in the extra second coming you made up in one bucket, and the details you want to go into the actual second coming in another bucket. I don't accept that there should be two buckets so I don't accept the significance of the distinction. You have to justify there being two buckets from scripture.
These 'goodness of fit' approaches don't work for me. (Sorry for the obscure allusion to statistical models.)
The day of the Lord ARRIVES as a thief in the night.
While it is true that "the day of the Lord" ALSO pertains to His Second Coming to the earth Rev19 (not to mention, the entire MK age also), that is not its point of ARRIVAL. And we can see this in the 1Th5:1-5 text (but not as explained in a vacuum, as the "Amil-teaching" defines it, with its own "made up" definition not derived from scripture elsewhere, but by what they reason this phrase in and of itself seems to mean, to them)
[...which then has effects on what it is they suggest the false claim of 2Th2:2 which Paul is warning of, is actually about... and what Paul is actually conveying in this 2Th2 context in relation to the issue of said false claim]
While it is true that "the day of the Lord" ALSO pertains to His Second Coming to the earth Rev19 (not to mention, the entire MK age also), that is not its point of ARRIVAL. And we can see this in the 1Th5:1-5 text (but not as explained in a vacuum, as the "Amil-teaching" defines it, with its own "made up" definition not derived from scripture elsewhere, but by what they reason this phrase in and of itself seems to mean, to them)
[...which then has effects on what it is they suggest the false claim of 2Th2:2 which Paul is warning of, is actually about... and what Paul is actually conveying in this 2Th2 context in relation to the issue of said false claim]
The first word is Ἕκαστος. What are you talking about?
[/quote]
"eita" (v.24a) is a SEQUENCE-word only... and by my saying "with no time-element attached," I am NOT saying sequence isn't involved.
For example, "Amill-teachings"insist v.24a means "then [immediately] the end"... as tho "eita/then" means that, but it doesn't... it means "then [sequentially] the end" which can legit be something "1000 years later"... coz no timing-element is attached with the word "eita";[/quote]
If there is sequence, there is a 'time element.' Clearly there is a gap between Christ's resurrection and ours. I don't see a problem with a time gap between our resurrection and Christ delivering up the kingdom to God 'thereafter.' I
How much Greek education have you had? Have you read enough Greek manuscripts of different varieties to have seen a difference between epeita and eita, or to know that there can be a gap of time after either of these words? Do you have any commentaries to site?
Or are you making this statement because you guess and believe that it is true? Do you do that with your other statements about the Greek language? Please answer me this time?
My Bad Sophistry (BS) detector went off with the word 'conjuction' and I don't see you using the specialized Greek grammatical terms that much, beyond what one gets out of an interlinear.
Could you just name the word?
[/quote]
"eita" (v.24a) is a SEQUENCE-word only... and by my saying "with no time-element attached," I am NOT saying sequence isn't involved.
For example, "Amill-teachings"insist v.24a means "then [immediately] the end"... as tho "eita/then" means that, but it doesn't... it means "then [sequentially] the end" which can legit be something "1000 years later"... coz no timing-element is attached with the word "eita";[/quote]
If there is sequence, there is a 'time element.' Clearly there is a gap between Christ's resurrection and ours. I don't see a problem with a time gap between our resurrection and Christ delivering up the kingdom to God 'thereafter.' I
How much Greek education have you had? Have you read enough Greek manuscripts of different varieties to have seen a difference between epeita and eita, or to know that there can be a gap of time after either of these words? Do you have any commentaries to site?
Or are you making this statement because you guess and believe that it is true? Do you do that with your other statements about the Greek language? Please answer me this time?
My Bad Sophistry (BS) detector went off with the word 'conjuction' and I don't see you using the specialized Greek grammatical terms that much, beyond what one gets out of an interlinear.
Could you just name the word?