50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

[cv5]

"The day of the Lord" and "IN THAT DAY" are the SAME TIME-PERIOD, when used in the SAME CONTEXTS throughout Scripture

(and Paul is doing the same thing here in THIS context, chpts 1 & 2)

Totally agree man. There is no way you're going to grasp the book of Revelation unless you know the OT through and through.

 

[OldSage]

You're quite right that the term "Tribulation" is misused in this context. As I've been saying for quite some time now the "Tribulation" originally was applied by Jesus to the "Jewish Punishment," extending from the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD to the end of the age. This was the time before the nation is restored. See Luke 21.22.

In the meantime, only a small remnant of Jews are "God's People," the Church. And people from all nations have been gathered together with this Jewish Church to form the International Church, which we see in Rev 7, the "Great Multitude," who come out of the "Great Tribulation." See Rom 11.5.

Just as Israel is to eventually emerge out of the time of her punishment, so people from all nations will be gathered out of the troubles of their own nations. And so, "Great Tribulation" had always been applied, by Jesus, to a time of punishment that believers have to endure until they are rescued. The Punishment never was intended to be directed at them, even though it is God's will that we be there as witnesses to righteousness during this time.

Are you sure though? I am not sure they are the Church, because John doesn't recognize them.
And they only now seem to be in a relationship with Jesus.

For the Lamb at the center of the throne
will be their shepherd;
‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’

I think they are all those gentiles from history who are now being brought in to the Church

 

[FreeGrace2]

"The day of the Lord" and "IN THAT DAY" are the SAME TIME-PERIOD, when used in the SAME CONTEXTS throughout Scripture

Let me point out the terrible gaff in your post here. 2 Thess 2:3 doesn't have "in that day". It has "that day". What a difference.

Paul was referring to a very SPECIFIC DAY in v.3, which links back to v.1 and "the coming of our Lord".

So "that day" in v.3 is "the coming of the Lord" in v.1. Both are specific days. neither are the DotL.

 

[OldSage]

Let me point out the terrible gaff in your post here. 2 Thess 2:3 doesn't have "in that day". It has "that day". What a difference.

Paul was referring to a very SPECIFIC DAY in v.3, which links back to v.1 and "the coming of our Lord".

So "that day" in v.3 is "the coming of the Lord" in v.1. Both are specific days. neither are the DotL.

??
asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

They were subject to error, but Paul simply calls this the day of Christ's coming for his people, the Church.

Speaking of the phrase "the day of Christ"... here's a post I'd made about the phrasing in v.2 (the thing that the false conveyors were purporting "IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"):

[LISTING from BibleHub--23 Versions having it as "day of the Lord" i.e. the EARTHLY-LOCATED time-period (not "day of Christ"--when WE will be UP THERE *with HIM*)]

New International Version
not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us--whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter--asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.


New Living Translation
Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us.


English Standard Version
not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.


Berean Study Bible
not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come.


New American Standard Bible
that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.


NASB 1995
that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.


NASB 1977
that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.


Amplified Bible
not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.


Christian Standard Bible
not to be easily upset or troubled, either by a prophecy or by a message or by a letter supposedly from us, alleging that the day of the Lord has come.


Holman Christian Standard Bible
not to be easily upset in mind or troubled, either by a spirit or by a message or by a letter as if from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has come.


Good News Translation
not to be so easily confused in your thinking or upset by the claim that the Day of the Lord has come. Perhaps it is thought that we said this while prophesying or preaching, or that we wrote it in a letter.


GOD'S WORD® Translation
Don't get upset right away or alarmed when someone claims that we said through some spirit, conversation, or letter that the day of the Lord has already come.


International Standard Version
not to be so quickly upset or alarmed when someone claims that we said, either by some spirit, conversation, or letter that the Day of the Lord has already come.


NET Bible
not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.


New Heart English Bible
not to be quickly shaken in your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as from us, saying that the day of the Lord had come.


Darby Bible Translation
that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as [if it were] by us, as that the day of the Lord is present.


English Revised Version
to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is now present;


Literal Standard Version
that you are 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 the LORD has arrived;


Berean Literal Bible
for you not quickly to be shaken in mind, nor to be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as if by us, as that day of the Lord is present.


Aramaic Bible in Plain English
That you would not be soon shaken in your minds, neither be troubled, either from word, nor from a spirit, neither from an epistle that is as if from us, namely, that, “Behold, The Day of our Lord has arrived.”


Godbey New Testament
that you be not suddenly shaken from your mind, nor disturbed, whether by a spirit, or through word, or a letter as by us, as that the day of the Lord has come.


Weymouth New Testament
not readily to become unsettled in mind or troubled--either by any pretended spiritual revelation or by any message or letter claiming to have been sent by us--through fancying that the day of the Lord is now here.


Worrell New Testament
that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as from us, as that the day of the Lord has set in.





...considering that they are purporting that it "IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]," it would be a PERFECTLY REASONABLE thing for them to be [wrongly] persuaded was TRUE [tho false], because of their PRESENT and ONGOING, *very negative* PERSECUTIONS and TRIBULATIONS they were already ONGOINGLY *enduring* per 1:4... THAT made what the false conveyors were purporting to be COMPLETELY *BELIEVEABLE*.

The other suggestions ppl offer to what the false conveyors were purporting (v.2) are NOT things which REASONABLE people would be persuaded by, at least not for longer than about 3.5 MINUTES! You seem to be wanting me to think the Thessalonians were utter dunces, even after Paul informs us that THEY "KNOW PERFECTLY" the manner of the ARRIVAL of "the DOTL" that it will be LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" that COMES UPON a woman... (and yet they've suddenly *forgotten* what they, just a short time ago, "KNEW [KNOW] PERFECTLY"... what a laugh! ... I remain unconvinced of your viewpoint.)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Let me point out the terrible gaff in your post here. 2 Thess 2:3 doesn't have "in that day". It has "that day". What a difference.

The "gaff" is on your part.

I've pointed out that v.3 does not have the words "that day" IN THE TEXT (but that's beside the point).

*I* was referring to "BOTH CHAPTERS" (the "CONTEXT"), where Paul uses BOTH OF THESE TERMS... one here in chpt 2 (v.2), and the OTHER in CHPT 1.

--"the day of the Lord" (is referred to in CHPT 2);

--"IN THAT DAY" (is referred to IN THE SAME OVERALL CONTEXT, in CHPT 1)



These two phrases refer to the SAME TIME-PERIOD, just as they do in all other CONTEXTS where they are used in close proximity... ...thereby *proving* that Paul is addressing A TIME-PERIOD

Paul was referring to a very SPECIFIC DAY in v.3, which links back to v.1 and "the coming of our Lord".

Nope. "day" is not in the text of v.3... but the CONTRASTIN "NOT" (to the "IS" is v.2) IS in v.3... but a whole separate point to the one above.

So "that day" in v.3 is "the coming of the Lord" in v.1. Both are specific days. neither are the DotL.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Nope. "day" is not in the text of v.3... but the CONTRASTIN "NOT" (to the "IS" is v.2) IS in v.3... but a whole separate point to the one above.

EDIT... this should read: ""day" is not in the text of v.3... but the CONTRAST IN the word "NOT" (to the "IS PRESENT" in v.2) IS in v.3... but a whole separate point to the one above."




Whatever it is that the false conveyors were purporting (from VERSE 2), THAT is what Paul is saying "NOT [will be present]" about, in v.3a... and he goes ON to explain WHY in v.3b...

...what do you say they were falsely purporting (v.2)??

 

[randyk]

Are you sure though? I am not sure they are the Church, because John doesn't recognize them.
And they only now seem to be in a relationship with Jesus.

For the Lamb at the center of the throne
will be their shepherd;
‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’

I think they are all those gentiles from history who are now being brought in to the Church

Actually, that's what I was trying to say. The Great Multitude are those who come out of the Great Tribulation of the current era. This era includes the time when Israel went into judgment to today, and continues on until the end of the age, including the time of Antichrist's reign.

What I'm doing is defining the "Great Tribulation" as Jesus defined it, and not as it is commonly defined today. It is in our time often defined as the time of Antichrist's reign, whether for 7 years or for 3.5 years. This is *not* how Jesus used the term. And thus, I agree with you--the "Tribulation" should not be used in conjunction with 2 Thes 2.

 

[OldSage]

Actually, that's what I was trying to say. The Great Multitude are those who come out of the Great Tribulation of the current era. This era includes the time when Israel went into judgment to today, and continues on until the end of the age, including the time of Antichrist's reign.

What I'm doing is defining the "Great Tribulation" as Jesus defined it, and not as it is commonly defined today. It is in our time often defined as the time of Antichrist's reign, whether for 7 years or for 3.5 years. This is *not* how Jesus used the term. And thus, I agree with you--the "Tribulation" should not be used in conjunction with 2 Thes 2.

I agree with you. Re Revelation I am always very confused. I just wondered if the mixed multitude could actually
be those Jesus rescued.

7 But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said,

“When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive;
he gave gifts to his people.”

9 (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended[a] into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.)

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

The armies of HEAVEN, means US and the ANGELS, will ride behind CHRIST, as HE wars the the Nations, at the Second Coming.

Because [the Grk word used for] "armies" PLURAL is never used but in the SINGULAR when referring to the "angels" (alone)

Precious friend(s), please explain the following CHANGE!:

Rev_19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed Him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Why?:

Rev_19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse, and against His army.

Perchance, on the way, were ONE "of the ARMIES {Body Of CHRIST?}" assigned
their Heavenly positions of reigning and rulership, "vacated" by the fallen angels?

Thanks. Be Blessed!

 

[randyk]

Speaking of the phrase "the day of Christ"... here's a post I'd made about the phrasing in v.2 (the thing that the false conveyors were purporting "IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"):

[LISTING from BibleHub--23 Versions having it as "day of the Lord" i.e. the EARTHLY-LOCATED time-period (not "day of Christ"--when WE will be UP THERE *with HIM*)]

As I said, this is the literal "day" in which Christ returns for his Church, in connection with Daniel's presentation of the coming of the Son of Man in a particular moment in time when the Antichrist has been persecuting God's People for 3.5 years. So he is coming on a *literal day* to put an end to the 3.5 years of abuse that the Antichrist is doing to God's people. I cannot, therefore, be a "period of time," and it certainly cannot include the "Tribulation Period," since Christ is there depicted as coming to *terminate* that time period!

...considering that they are purporting that it "IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]," it would be a PERFECTLY REASONABLE thing for them to be [wrongly] persuaded was TRUE [tho false], because of their PRESENT and ONGOING, *very negative* PERSECUTIONS and TRIBULATIONS they were already ONGOINGLY *enduring* per 1:4... THAT made what the false conveyors were purporting to be COMPLETELY *BELIEVEABLE*.

Though that makes sense, it is not reasonably fit into this particular context, nor is it true of biblical eschatology overall. It makes total sense to say that if Christians believed they would be spared these tribulations at Christ's coming, they might think that they missed his coming if they continued to experience them.

The trouble with that is, that's not what is being said. That is what *you're saying* it says! You are adding all kinds of elements to Paul's message that simply aren't there in the text.

For example, nowhere is it said that Christians would be spared tribulation by Christ's coming. Rather, Paul assumes that Christians already know that Christ is coming to terminate Antichrist's reign at the end of a 3.5 years period. There is nothing at all, in the Scriptures, that say Christians are spared tribulation before that time!

The problem with Pretribbers is that they say Tribulation equals God's Wrath, and that's not accurate. It is true that God pours wrath out on unbelievers, and not on believers. But it is not true that believers are exempt from experiencing some of the problems in this world that falls upon us all because of the sins of unbelievers.

We go through hurricanes, earthquakes, wars, and illnesses all due to human sin. But we've been forgiven our sins, and have repented. Still, God asks us to go through these troubles in order to testify to Him in an ungodly world, in hopes that some will repent.

Going through tribulation, thus, is *not* going through God's wrath. But it is going through what unbelievers are experiencing as God's wrath. We shouldn't get it confused. Nor does God's wrath always mean that there can be no repentance. Jews have been going through God's punishment, or "wrath," for 2000 years. And still God is offering them repentance, forgiveness, and restoration.

So this false claim that there was Christian belief that Christ's coming would end our tribulations is false. That would happen, as Paul said, only after the destruction of Antichrist. That is the whole message of the book, which you completely are ignoring!

Again, it is completely unnatural to define "the day of Christ's coming for the Church" as an "extended time period." It is a *moment in time* in which Christ delivers the Church from the persecutions of the Antichrist, as depicted in Dan 7. Dan 7 is the obvious basis for all of this eschatology because it is the *only* place in the OT that deals this specifically with the subject.

The other suggestions ppl offer to what the false conveyors were purporting (v.2) are NOT things which REASONABLE people would be persuaded by, at least not for longer than about 3.5 MINUTES! You seem to be wanting me to think the Thessalonians were utter dunces, even after Paul informs us that THEY "KNOW PERFECTLY" the manner of the ARRIVAL of "the DOTL" that it will be LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" that COMES UPON a woman... (and yet they've suddenly *forgotten* what they, just a short time ago, "KNEW [KNOW] PERFECTLY"... what a laugh! ... I remain unconvinced of your viewpoint.)

No, this does not properly represent the argument, which explains why you feel it's foolish. The argument is much more rational than you are putting it. It's like this.

Paul was arguing in the same vein that Jesus had presented it, that false Christs would come. This means Christians are to expect false Millennial movements, Christians who claim to *be* the Kingdom of God arrived, people who believe that God is bringing authority to earth before the real arrival of the Kingdom of God.

We are to watch out for these. It isn't in the least irrational or foolish, since there have been a number of millennial movements in history, and cults, like the JWs, who think they are God's Kingdom active on earth. And there is even a "Kingdom Now" movement today, in which so-called "prophets" are claiming they are doing spiritual things with the authority of God when they are *not* doing those things!

This is a carnal display of power in the name of "spirituality," but is actually a false representation of Christ and his Kingdom. It is claiming faith to overcome Satan in this world, faith to assume prosperity and blessings against satanic opposition, etc. etc. But in reality, Satan and the Antichrist are given to "defeat" the saints in the present age, in some respects. In other respects, Satan can *never* defeat the Church. But our victory today is not carnal, but spiritual, and that is the message here.

Paul is warning us what Jesus had already said, that he didn't come to take us out of the world and its tribulations, that in the world we would, while we are still in the world, experience tribulations. This isn't experiencing God's wrath against us, but rather, our experiencing God's judgment against a rebellious, independent world. And some will be saved through our testimony. That's why we're called upon to "endure to the end!"

So those who were nearly being deceived by Christians who thought they were exercising this eschatological authority were informed that we are not given such power in the present age. Until Christ comes again there will be antichrists trying to usurp God and His authority in heaven. They will ultimately be defeated at Christ's Kingdom, and until that time comes we are to be aware of this kind of carnality and deception.

 

[cv5]

^ @randyk [re: your Post - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4575164 and your comments about "definitions" and so forth...], here's what I've put in past posts (in part... for brevity):

--"the day of the Lord" is defined already in Scripture, and it is NOT how the "Amill-teachings" (etc) define it;

--ALSO, in every place that the phrase "the day of the Lord" is used in close proximity [/same contexts] as the phase "IN THAT DAY," they always refer to the SAME TIME-PERIOD (and such is the case in this 2Th1&2 context, where Paul also uses BOTH PHRASES, meaning the IDENTICAL *time-period* [future]);

--1:7-8 says, "ye who are troubled rest/repose with us IN THE REVELATION OF the Lord Jesus from heaven with His mighty angels [note: "7 angels... 7 trumpets... 7 vials ] in flaming fire INFLICTING *VENGEANCE ON them that..." (on those *same* persons that 2Th2:10-12 says that "GOD SHALL SEND TO THEM great delusion, SO THAT they should believe the LIE / the FALSE / the PSEUDEI" *during* that SAME FUTURE, SPECIFIC, LIMITED TIME-PERIOD) [*where "AVENGE IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (Lk18:8) is the SAME TIME-PERIOD that Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 says of "the things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (same phrase also in Rom16:20 "shall CRUSH Satan UNDER YOUR FEET *IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"...) ALL speaking of that SAME *future*, specific, LIMITED time-period we call "the 7-yr Trib" (i.e. from SEAL #1 to His RETURN to the earth in Rev19)].

--Paul, in using these TWO RELATED PHRASES (again, in the SAME CONTEXT, chpts 1 & 2... under the second entry above), is telling of the TWO CONTRASTING *beliefs* ppl will be coming to IN / DURING / WITHIN the future TRIB yrs [FOLLOWING "our Rapture" event!]... *CONTRASTING* beliefs, but in/within the SAME future *TIME-PERIOD* ("the day of the Lord / IN THAT DAY" is the SAME *future* time-period... just as these two related phrases have been used throughout Scripture in the OT, but which the "Amill-teachings" [etc] completely disregard, by their own "made up" definition)

--Paul had already acknowledged in his first letter that the Thessalonians "KNOW PERFECTLY" the manner of the ARRIVAL of "the DOTL"... that it will be like the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" that COMES UPON a woman... and this is exactly what Jesus had ALSO *already* spoken of, in His Olivet Discourse!! (Matt24:4/Mk13:5, in "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" that He spoke of, Matt24:4-8/Mk13:5-8 and DESCRIBED [LIKEWISE] in Lk21:8-11)

--[keep in mind that I could say tons more, and have in past posts... I'm trying to stay BRIEF here, LOL]

--in the Latin Vulgate, 400s (long before "Darby" et al) it uses the word "discessio" which means "departure"...

[quoting old post]
[quoting from "WordHippo]

What does discessio mean in Latin? (wordhippo.com)

--"More meanings for discessio
departure noun"

____________

[quoting again from "WordHippo"]

What's the Latin word for departure? Here's a list of translations.
More Latin words for departure
discessus noun
separation, parting, going away, marching off, decamping

- https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/latin-word-for-8eb9612e70b5f2464138e25aa0a6b15100e60b80.html#/


____________
The Latin Vulgate (400s), a Latin word was used that means "departure" / "a departing":

ne quis vos seducat ullo modo quoniam nisi venerit discessio primum et revelatus fuerit homo peccati filius perditionis

[end quoting old post]
____________


--Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1871) also says the SAME POINT: "apostasia = apostasis [apo STASIS]= a standing away from [a previous standing], or DEPARTURE

[see also the word "STASIS / STASIN" ^ used in its 9th occurrence, as compared with its previous 8 occurrences... and note especially ITS CONTEXT: "... while the first tabernacle [the one IN THE WILDERNESS, per the 'furnishings' of v.4] yet having A STANDING [/STASIN (STASIS)]: which is A PARABLE for the PRESENT TIME..."; yes... the word in 2Th2:3 can LEGIT be translated "THE DEPARTURE" (i.e. a SPECIFIC ONE!! And one already referred to in the context [another function of the "definite article" pointing BACK TO such]... i.e. the one referred to in v.1)]

--the word "apostasia" was also used in that era for "the departing of a fever" " the departing of a boat from a dock"

--the word was also, in the FIRST SEVEN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS (before kjv existed), translated as "a departing" or "departure"... (and, of course, WE know "the definite article ['the']" is present in the Grk text, so should be there)




...so, it is not ME that is "changing the definitions" etc...

...and yes, grasping these things very much so DOES impact the "understanding" of the text and what it is actually conveying

"We do not BELONG to the night or to the darkness"

We will not be in the midst of the time or place of the "darkness" "night" time of wrath/tribulation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Let me point out the terrible gaff in your post here. 2 Thess 2:3 doesn't have "in that day". It has "that day". What a difference.

Paul was referring to a very SPECIFIC DAY in v.3, which links back to v.1 and "the coming of our Lord".

So "that day" in v.3 is "the coming of the Lord" in v.1. Both are specific days. neither are the DotL.

??
asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

Here's the 3 verses from 2 Thess 2-
1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,
2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.
3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

v.1 red words refers to the Second Advent of Christ. His second visit to earth.
v.2 blue words refers to a lengthy time period, which begins with the Second Advent.
v.3 red words refers back to the specific day that Christ returns.

 

[randyk]

I agree with you. Re Revelation I am always very confused. I just wondered if the mixed multitude could actually
be those Jesus rescued.

7 But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it is said,

“When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive;
he gave gifts to his people.”

9 (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended[a] into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.)

I think that the "rescue" of the Church refers to the rescue of all mankind from the ravages of sin. At the coming of Christ, this will specifically begin with our rescue from death, and from the persecutions of this world against righteousness. It will be our "immortalization" event, along with vindication against the slanders of Satan and the Antichrist, and all those who follow them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The "gaff" is on your part.

I've pointed out that v.3 does not have the words "that day" IN THE TEXT (but that's beside the point).

Out of 21 translations on biblehub.com 12 translations had "that day", and 6 had "it" in the place of "that day". The remaining 4 had translations that didn't make sense.

Formatting posts:

*I* was referring to "BOTH CHAPTERS" (the "CONTEXT"), where Paul uses BOTH OF THESE TERMS... one here in chpt 2 (v.2), and the OTHER in CHPT 1.
You have quotes 3x, all caps 3x, parentheses 2x, bold 2x, and huge print 1x.

You mention "both chapters" (the context"). But you failed to cite the verse # from ch 1.

Here is 1:10 - on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Sure sounds exactly like Christ' Second Coming. But the verse doesn't say "that day". Just "on the day". But whatever. The point is the words indicate a specific single DAY when the Lord comes. So we can forget about the DotL.

--"the day of the Lord" (is referred to in CHPT 2);

--"IN THAT DAY" (is referred to IN THE SAME OVERALL CONTEXT, in CHPT 1)

<sigh> Can't you resist all the caps, bolds, parentheses? btw, I couldn't find the words "in that day" anywhere in ch 1 or 2.

These two phrases refer to the SAME TIME-PERIOD, just as they do in all other CONTEXTS where they are used in close proximity... ...thereby *proving* that Paul is addressing A TIME-PERIOD

If you could resist all the dramatic emphasis techniques and just be more clear and plain, it would be a lot easier to follow your posts.

You have NOT proven how "these 2 phrases refer to the same time-period". Then you add "as they do in all other context", but you failed to note ANY other context. All I have is your claims, but no evidence. Why should I accept anything you say when you don't provide the actual evidence for what you say?

And, again, when Jesus comes again, at the Second Advent or Coming, that will be a specific day, not a time period. In fact, Jesus referred to His second coming in "day and hour" terms. That's pretty specific.

So you are wrong about 2:1-3 being about a time period. Nope. It's a specific day.

 

[randyk]

Well, that is NOT what you said some 50 pages ago (or whatever--however long ago that was), where you said it DOES.

Make up your mind... stick to ONE STORY! (does your wife tell you that you speak "out of both sides of your mouth," often??)




You literally "FLIP-FLOP" on this point whenever the opposite point helps the current point you are attempting to convey, in any given post of yours...

I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE... OR EASY TO BE CONVINCED BY... HELLO!

Whether he flip-flopped or not I don't know. But I do believe he is right, that 2 Thes 2 is talking about the literal "day" in which Christ comes for the Church, commonly known as "the Rapture." You are calling the entire "Great Tribulation" period the "Day of the Lord," including the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, and the 2nd Coming. But this is not what Paul actually said.

Paul was specifically referring to *the Rapture!* He was not including in that Rapture event the "Great Tribulation," nor the reign of Antichrist.

Yes, the "Day of the Lord" can have many applications, a day of divine wrath, a day of divine blessing, the day of Messiah's coming, the day in which the Kingdom comes, etc. But in this particular context, Paul is talking about the expectation of the Rapture! Paul informed the Thessalonians that they should not expect this as long as Antichrist had not yet come.

Christ's coming would actually be to destroy the Antichrist, and thus he could not have already come. The Thessalonians' thought that maybe Christ had already come is explained as a "false Messianic movement," in which certain Christians claimed to be somehow associated with the coming of Christ's Kingdom. Paul's job was to expose this as a false Messianic movement, much as Christ warned his apostles of the coming of "false Christs."

 

[FreeGrace2]

Whatever it is that the false conveyors were purporting (from VERSE 2), THAT is what Paul is saying "NOT [will be present]" about, in v.3a... and he goes ON to explain WHY in v.3b...

...what do you say they were falsely purporting (v.2)??

It should be obvious that since the Second Coming of Christ will occur on a specific DAY, v.2 is referring to the coming of our Lord from v.1.

You cannot honestly argue that "the coming of our Lord" refers to a time-period. It will occur on a specific DAY. Not over the course of many days. Or months, or years, or millennia.

 

[cv5]

What, exactly, would that have to do with what Paul wrote? It doesn't.


The OT prophets had very limited knowledge of end times specifics.

Patenly ludicrous denial of the unassailably obvious facts.

Anyhoo....TDW's ineffable scholarship wins the day in devastating fashion. It wasn't even a fair fight lol...

 

[randyk]

Out of 21 translations on biblehub.com 12 translations had "that day", and 6 had "it" in the place of "that day". The remaining 4 had translations that didn't make sense.

Formatting posts:

*I* was referring to "BOTH CHAPTERS" (the "CONTEXT"), where Paul uses BOTH OF THESE TERMS... one here in chpt 2 (v.2), and the OTHER in CHPT 1.
You have quotes 3x, all caps 3x, parentheses 2x, bold 2x, and huge print 1x.

You mention "both chapters" (the context"). But you failed to cite the verse # from ch 1.

Here is 1:10 - on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Sure sounds exactly like Christ' Second Coming. But the verse doesn't say "that day". Just "on the day". But whatever. The point is the words indicate a specific single DAY when the Lord comes. So we can forget about the DotL.


<sigh> Can't you resist all the caps, bolds, parentheses? btw, I couldn't find the words "in that day" anywhere in ch 1 or 2.


If you could resist all the dramatic emphasis techniques and just be more clear and plain, it would be a lot easier to follow your posts.

You have NOT proven how "these 2 phrases refer to the same time-period". Then you add "as they do in all other context", but you failed to note ANY other context. All I have is your claims, but no evidence. Why should I accept anything you say when you don't provide the actual evidence for what you say?

And, again, when Jesus comes again, at the Second Advent or Coming, that will be a specific day, not a time period. In fact, Jesus referred to His second coming in "day and hour" terms. That's pretty specific.

So you are wrong about 2:1-3 being about a time period. Nope. It's a specific day.

I have asked DWM for years to stop adding so many embellishments to his posts, due to the confusing array of misdirections that that can involve. Instead of letting a verse speak for itself, we read DWM's misdirections, which is the whole point of his doing that! He *cannot* let the Scriptures speak for themselves, because they *do not say* what he wants them to say!

Also, I've complained to him for years that he gathers up bits of prophecy or eschatology from all over the Scriptures to apply in a single passage. That would be fine if he applied them with a proper systematic theology.

Instead, he redefines the "day of Christ's coming" in one place as a "day of the Lord" in another place. And obviously, there have been days of the Lord in the past that had nothing whatsoever to do with Christ's coming. And even if they did have something to do with Christ's coming, they may, in context, be referring to other elements other than just Christ's coming.

And quite frankly, just because an OT prophecy refers to the Messianic Kingdom and mentions the "Lord's day" it does not infer that the "Lord's day" has to always be used the same way. This would be applying an Interpretive Fallacy. In *every passage* in which the "Lord's day" is referred to, it has to be defined within its own context. One cannot confuse two separate passages, even if they are referring to a similar time.

A true lesson in interpretation is to apply a statement in its immediate context--not just search throughout the Bible to find the definition for a word that we want to apply in a particular passage. There may be, in the OT, a "day of the Lord" that can apply to the entire Messianic Kingdom in the totality of its age. But that doesn't mean it has to be applied the same way in other passages dealing with that time period.

It certainly doesn't mean the "day of the Lord" applies in this way to 2 Thessalonians 1 and 2, where the day specifically referred to is the day in which Christ defeats the Antichrist with the "breath of his mouth," and delivers his people by gathering them to himself.

This is, in its immediate context, a specific and literal day, just as it is shown in the original blueprint in Dan 7. There, the Son of Man comes down from heaven to establish God's Kingdom and to destroy the Man of Sin. This is a *specific day* Paul is referring to, and cannot include the 3.5 years of Antichristian rule, since the very purpose of the coming of the Son of Man is to destroy the Antichrist.

 

[randyk]

Patenly ludicrous denial of the unassailably obvious facts.

Anyhoo....TDW's ineffable scholarship wins the day in devastating fashion. It wasn't even a fair fight lol...

I should think you have a better occupation than "cheerleading?" Can we just visit the arguments, rather than declare the battle over prematurely? I've argued this with TDW for years on another forum, and he has *never* won! I respect the man, but I don't feel that he's done much more than confuse an otherwise simple biblical eschatology.