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

  • 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.
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
And that isn't an escape. It's a gathering of people spread all over the planet so they can be all together for the first time and for them to all meet Christ in the clouds at the same time. That meeting is brief then they will follow Christ down to the Earth, possibly stopping at Armageddon first.
I can agree with that. What's your take on these scriptures? Do you think the armies that follow the rider on the white horse could be raptured saints referred to as "fowls in heaven" gathered together for the supper of God?

Revelation 19:
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Revelation 19:17-18
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,915
1,256
113
I can agree with that. What's your take on these scriptures? Do you think the armies that follow the rider on the white horse could be raptured saints referred to as "fowls in heaven" gathered together for the supper of God?
No, God does not support cannibalism. The dead will be eaten by birds that eat dead things.

Christ mentioned Armageddon here:

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
No, God does not support cannibalism. The dead will be eaten by birds that eat dead things.

Christ mentioned Armageddon here:

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
Lol agreed. I thought it was more figurative language. So God is going to recruit literal birds to gather with the armies that follow the rider on the white horse?
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
He doesn't abandon that Subject after v.1.

PAUL is the one BRINGING that Subject to bear on the problem, or false claim, being disclosed in verse 2--which verse is basically saying, don't let anyone persuade you into believing "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"... not the claim "that the rapture has already taken place," and not the claim "that Jesus Himself has already come," and not the claim "that His Kingdom age has already started"--the false claim he's pointing out in verse 2 wasn't any of those ideas;
Paul raised the issue of the Day of the Rapture, or the Coming of Jesus for the Church. He did not bring up, initially, any sense that there was this supposed "extended day," involving the rise of Antichrist. He did bring the Antichrist up, but only to show that he must precede Christ's coming for the Church.

He did not bring this day of Christ's Coming up to indicate that people believed that the Day of the Lord was an extended period of time, or that it had already begun. He was not stating that the Departure of the Church had to take place before an extended "Day of the Lord" could begin. Since he had raised the issue up of the coming of the Lord for the Church it is that particular Day that he indicated others were declaring had already taken place. That is, others were not saying an *extended Day of the Lord* had already begun. Rather, Paul was saying that these errant brothers were claiming that the literal Day of Christ's Coming had already happened, and that the Kingdom had come in them!

...which Subject we already know from his first epistle to them, that the Thessalonians "KNOW PERFECTLY" that "the day of the Lord ARRIVES" LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG" that COMES UPON a woman...
When Paul compared Christ's Coming to a birth pang that comes upon a woman at childbirth, the emphasis is on the birth of the child, and not on the birth pains!

1 Thes 5.1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

This allegory does not denote that the Day of the Lord is a "long day," beginning with a Tribulation Period and ending with the Millennial Kingdom! Rather, it is emphasizing the suddenness of the Coming itself! A "thief" does not come with a lot of preliminary warning signs!

The birth pains in this particular passage are *immediately before* the coming of the child. They can even be said to be simultaneous with the birth of the child. And so, Paul is saying that Jesus' Coming will take place immediately, without warning, at the 1st sign of birth. There will be no warning period--no Tribulation Period to serve as advance warning. People will only see trouble in the world, just as they've always seen. And as these troubles worsen, they only curse God, and have no sense that Armageddon is about to erupt.

The Day of the Lord, therefore, begins at the Coming pf Christ for his Church, and not with the trouble that precedes it. Paul is not calling the "Day of the Lord" the "birth pains." He is not calling the "Day of the Lord" the "Tribulation Period" that precedes the coming of Christ for his Church.

In this particular scenario, Paul seems to be speaking of a woman giving birth *immediately,* at the instant birth pains show up. This is very different from the scenario in the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus describes preliminary signs indicating the fall of Jerusalem is imminent.

Before Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, there were rumors of wars and trouble brewing. There were false prophets of peace, and false proclamations of God's Kingdom entering through Israel. These were extended signs, designed to warn Jewish Christians in advance of the fall of Jerusalem.

But the birth pains Paul is describing in 1 Thes 5 are different, and have to do with the Return of Christ. There will be no advance signs to warn the world of the coming judgment at Christ's return. As soon as the birth pains begin, the child is delivered.

Isa 66.8 Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children.

People of the world will not recognize the signs of the "Great Tribulation" period. They will not recognize the "Antichrist." They've seen many emperor and powerful kings in history. And they've seen a lot of wars and natural disasters. They will not be prepared for Christ's Coming "like a thief in the night." As soon as the birth pangs begin, the child is delivered.

So... the false claim, or false conveyors purporting a false claim in v.2, were not claiming "the rapture" already occurred. The text does not state that that is the Subject of the false claim... you are incorrectly supposing that to be what it entailed.
No, Paul is saying that these "false conveyors" were declaring the Coming of the Lord for the Church had already come. A present indicative, as applied to the "coming," does not indicate that they believed the "day of the Lord" had already started in the past and would continue to the present. Rather, the present indicative applies to the idea that these "false conveyors" believed something in the past and still were believing it, namely that Christ had already come for his Church, and that the Kingdom was being realized in their little cult.

The "day of the Lord" kicks-off with the "JUDGMENTs" aspect, before summing up with the "BLESSINGs" aspect... both transpiring OVER
No, the Day of the Lord elsewhere in the Bible is applied to a variety of things, including major judgments and major blessings. But there is no singular term "Day of the Lord" that technically applies, in all cases, to all of these.

Sometimes the "day of Christ's Coming" applies only to the 24 hour day in which he returns. Sometimes it refers to the eschatological judgment of the Antichrist. At other times it refers to the initiation of the Kingdom Age. But the term "Day of the Lord" does not have one established meaning such that it must refer to all of these in each instance.

Context is king, brother! Context must determine how a word or phrase is used. And the "day" 2 Thes 2 is speaking of explicitly refers to the 24 hour day in which Christ returns for his Church--not to an extended day, including judgments and blessings that precede and follow it. You are trying to transfer a distorted idea of the "day of the Lord" in 1 Thes 5 to 2 Thes 2, but you have the meaning of the "day of the Lord" wrong in 1 Thes 5!

The false claim entails that this is what is already here, having already ARRIVED, and 1Th5:2-3 tells the MANNER of its ARRIVAL that the Thessalonians already "KNOW PERFECTLY," according to that context (1Th5:1-3).
I believe you're misrepresenting what the Thessalonians knew and what the errant brethren were claiming, and there is nothing here in the Scriptures that claim what you are claiming. It is far more likely, from what we read, that Paul had taught the Thessalonians about the day of Christ's Coming and the "Rapture," as evidenced in 1 Thes 4. And it is much more likely that Paul did *not* define the "day of the Lord" used in 1 Thes 5 as you do, as an extended period of time, replete with pre-judgments and post-blessings.

It is far more likely that the Thessalonians had been taught what Paul, as a Jewish teacher knew, that in Dan 7 the Man of Sin would oppose God, produce a world-wide apostasy against Christ, and ultimately be destroyed at the coming of Christ 3.5 years later.

The errant brothers were teaching that somehow the Kingdom had already arrived in their cultic Christian movement, claiming authority that they didn't have. But Paul warned that their authority was feigned, and would not produce results. Instead, the Thessalonian Christians should expect continued opposition from the ungodly world until Christ himself comes back to judge the earth.

Paul, in these 3 verses, is telling how the one Subject (v.1's) fits in relation, time-/sequence-wise, to the other Subject (v.2's false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]" i.e. the "JUDGMENTs" aspect [unfolding upon the earth over a duration of time] that "the DOTL's ARRIVAL" and "IN THE NIGHT" section consists of...).
Actually Paul *is* in fact saying that these errant brothers thought the Rapture had already occurred, or at least that Christ had come to them. The Kingdom they claimed was in their cult movement, and they were somehow the Kingdom's judges and victors. Sounds a bit like Dominion Theology?
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,243
1,981
113
And that isn't an escape. It's a gathering of people spread all over the planet so they can be all together for the first time and for them to all meet Christ in the clouds at the same time. That meeting is brief then they will follow Christ down to the Earth, possibly stopping at Armageddon first.
I agree with you in one thing... this "gathering" is for all of them/us to all be "caught up AT THE SAME TIME" to all be present at "the meeting of the Lord in the air"...

... and as the verse informs us: "SO [/IN THIS MANNER] shall we [ALL of us together AT THE SAME TIME] ever be WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-WITH] the Lord"...

...in other words, this "rapture / caught-up" event (at one point in time) is the WAY IN WHICH the "UNIONed-WITH [G4862] the Lord" comes about (meaning, that "UNIONed-WITH [G4862] Him" thing will not have taken place at ANY TIME *prior* to this "CAUGHT UP" event that occurs IN ONE INSTANT at ONE POINT IN TIME *ONLY*... (it is HOW *we* get to the "SO/IN THIS MANNER shall we [all of us at the same time] ever be UNIONed-WITH [G4862] the Lord")...

... yet some want to insist that the verse is suggesting that, where it says "____ shall God BRING UNIONed-WITH [G4862] Him," that this is somehow referring to a point in time PRIOR TO the "caught up TOGETHER [/AT THE SAME TIME]" time-slot, the very event or action that BRINGS ABOUT this "UNIONed-WITH [G4862] the Lord" thing, see...

...missing the fact that what that part of the verse is saying is that this is HOW "the dead in Christ" will ALSO get to participate in the 'shall BRING UNIONed-WITH [G4862] Him' thing, by their first participating in the "caught up TOGETHER [AT THE SAME TIME]" thing, and "SO [/IN THIS MANNER] shall *we* [all of us, at the SAME time] ever be UNIONed-WITH [G4862] the Lord" i.e. BY MEANS of this rapture event, see... not PRIOR TO it, as some would be suggesting would be true of "the dead in Christ" segment of us...
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
Ok then, so no journey towards the "Rightly Divided Word Of Truth"?

btw, I do respect you "FIRMLY holding your conviction," even though I firmly
Disagree with you:cry:

Be Blessed!
Thank you brother. With me these disagreements never challenge my relationship with you, a brother. We are all part of the same body, the body of Christ. But you and I both have liberty to disagree, even emotionally, as long as we remain one spiritually, amen? :)
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,243
1,981
113
A present indicative, as applied to the "coming," does not indicate that they believed the "day of the Lord" had already started in the past
I didn't say "PRESENT indicative"...


...I said "PERFECT indicative" is how the wording is posed in the "false claim" that Paul is informing them about in v.2...

... and the word used there in the "false claim" Paul is informing them about (v.2) is NOT the word "COMING" (you are reading THAT word INTO the text of verse 2 which is NOT IN THAT VERSE / NOT IN THAT 'FALSE CLAIM' section!)...
...it's the word "G1764 - enestēken / enistémi" which in modern parlance is translated as "IS ALREADY HERE / IS ALREADY PRESENT"... "perfect indicative" meaning: "action completed at a specific point of time in PAST, with RESULTS continuing into the PRESENT."

(I'm NOT saying the verse [v.2] has the word in the "PRESENT tense indicative," as you continue to keep saying... as though I've said such a thing. I'VE NOT SAID that.)





The word "COMING [PRESENT tense indicative]" is NOT IN THE TEXT (v.2 we are discussing, here, regarding the "false claim" Paul is informing about). Since that's NOT in the text... then "reasoning through the text" [to ascertain its meaning] is going to be "OFF"
 
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
Gatherings.
The one on horses, rev 19 nas no gatherings , except to gather the saints ALREADY IN HEAVEN.

1thes 4, rev 14, mat 25, MAT 24, ACTS 1 , are all gatherings.

Yet you find a simple reading outside your reframing of those same verses heresy?

You POSITIVELY can not HONESTLY cram those gatherings into one event.

Red flag city. ...You need to seriously revomsider changing and skewing verses


Psssst....the WORD OF GOD.

You have never looked at them have you?
Sorry, but you are talking in bullet points and not in a calm explanatory way.
Whatever it is that is so blindingly obvious to you, is not really coming across
to me.

I understand a Day of the Lord, a day when Jesus returns to earth to gather
his overcoming saints into his heavenly ark, as stated everywhere in scripture

Matthew 24 31 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.


2 Thessalonians 2 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
18,476
7,263
113
Another thing that pre-tribs stumble over is that Revelation 3:10's, "keep thee from" which is the Greek "tereo ge ek".
"tereo ek" is only found in one other place in the bible and the context means to be kept from something while remaining present until it ends. This is true of examples of plagues, wrath, and tribulation where people were there and lived through those events and weren't
removed from the Earth to escape them.



John 16:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them [tereo ek] from the evil one.


No one is going to be taken out of the world so they can be "kept" from the evil one. That's not how God does things. The rapture is not an exception to that.

Anyone teaching a Pre-trib rapture is going directly against the teaching of Jesus in the above verse.
So you are saying that a promise made by Jesus Himself of keeping Christians from the hour of peirasmou = certain inevitable wholesale martyrdom?

Perish the thought....
 
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
He doesn't abandon that Subject after v.1.

PAUL is the one BRINGING that Subject to bear on the problem, or false claim, being disclosed in verse 2--which verse is basically saying, don't let anyone persuade you into believing "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"... not the claim "that the rapture has already taken place," and not the claim "that Jesus Himself has already come," and not the claim "that His Kingdom age has already started"--the false claim he's pointing out in verse 2 wasn't any of those ideas;

...the false claim he's actually pointing out and covering (v.2) is the false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"

...which Subject we already know from his first epistle to them, that the Thessalonians "KNOW PERFECTLY" that "the day of the Lord ARRIVES" LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG" that COMES UPON a woman... but doesn't consist of merely one birth pang... that's just the START of it (i.e. its ARRIVAL)... just like Jesus had already talked covered in His Olivet Discourse, to refer to the START of something ("the BEGINNING of birth pangs" cover a lot of ground/time, and they are just the BEGINNING of them, not the totality of them, and certainly not the END of them, i.e. both Jesus and Paul refer to this as covering a duration of time... IOW, Paul in 1Th5:2-3, when referring to the term "the DOTL" and its ARRIVAL is not referring to Christ's return to the earth at Rev19, as many suppose, but rather a point well-prior to that.)



So... the false claim, or false conveyors purporting a false claim in v.2, were not claiming "the rapture" already occurred. The text does not state that that is the Subject of the false claim... you are incorrectly supposing that to be what it entailed.

PAUL is the one bringing the Subject of our Rapture (v.1) to bear on the problem expressed in v.2, "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative--'ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►). In certain contexts the results are PERMANENT."--note: Caps original in the quote I just copied & pasted directly from Grk grammar site). The "day of the Lord" kicks-off with the "JUDGMENTs" aspect, before summing up with the "BLESSINGs" aspect... both transpiring OVER TIME (first the "IN THE NIGHT"/"DARK"/"DARKNESS" aspect [aka what we call the "7-yr Trib" aka "70th Week"]; then the "SUN of righteousness ARISE" and "reign GLORIOUSLY" aspect [aka the "BLESSINGs" aspect we call the "MK age"--His 1000-yr reign]).

The false claim entails that this is what is already here, having already ARRIVED, and 1Th5:2-3 tells the MANNER of its ARRIVAL that the Thessalonians already "KNOW PERFECTLY," according to that context (1Th5:1-3). Note: I do not say that they "know perfectly" it HAS ARRIVED, in 1Th5:1-3, which @randyk mistakenly assumed was my point, in another post. That hadn't been the point I was making there.

The reason that Paul refers to the Subject of our rapture event in verse 1, and the Subject of the false claim in verse 2 (having to do with a distinct Subject--the false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"--an earthly-located time-period) is because in v.3 he is then going to make the point regarding how the one fits in relation, time-wise/sequence-wise, to the other.

He is not at all abandoning the Subject of v.1 (Rapture), as you suggest would be the case according to my view; it only seems so to you because you are mis-defining the Subject of the false claim spoken of in v.2, and are therefore mislabeling what v.3a is starting off with. If we can separate v.3 into 3 parts, for the purpose of properly identifying each part (which you are not properly identifying or properly connecting), then this can be more easily seen... which I may make a post on again, later, for this post is already so long I'm pretty sure you won't even want to read what all I've put here already, let alone any more... lol



Paul, in these 3 verses, is telling how the one Subject (v.1's) fits in relation, time-/sequence-wise, to the other Subject (v.2's false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]" i.e. the "JUDGMENTs" aspect [unfolding upon the earth over a duration of time] that "the DOTL's ARRIVAL" and "IN THE NIGHT" section consists of...).

Paul is not in any way abandoning the Subject of "rapture" after v.1... but showing why "the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]" (v.2) cannot be true; he does so in v.3 where he refers to both of those Subjects and declaring the correct SEQUENCE of those two items.

The problem enters when people mis-label v.2's Subject and therefore mis-label v.3a's Subject (which is the same)... and the veering off the track of what Paul is actually conveying turns into a major misstep in interpreting this passage that is difficult to rectify in ppl's minds... so that they suggest things such as you have, that I'm saying something I'm NOT saying: that Paul abandons talking about "rapture" after v.1... but I've never made such a point. You only think I have because of your not grasping what v.2 (and therefore v.3a) are communicating, which is NOT as you suggest it is... (IOW, the false claim Paul brings up in v.2 is NOT that the rapture already occurred--the actual words in that verse do not convey such an idea... You are reading that idea INTO the text of verse 2, the Subject of the false claim... ) ;)
You don't seem to understand the logic of what Paul said.

2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


I.E. 'Do not be tricked into thinking that the Day of the Lord, which entails his coming and our gathering to him, is imminent.'

[What can Paul be driving at here? Maybe that some false teachers are deceptively teaching that the imminent destruction of Jerusalem is the day of the Lord?]

And then Paul gives a further signpost, as he is covering all the bases, (don't be tricked by any means). The Day of the Lord is preceded by an event he has already explained to the Thessalonikans - the coming of the Man of Sin.

That is to say - the Levitical Priests in Jerusalem must first anoint a false King of Israel in the temple. Paul is citing an event
that is absolutely unequivocal, unmissable, salient and epochal.

And it stands to reason that he already explained to the Thessalonikans that the Temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt 2000 years later for this event to take place.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
18,476
7,263
113
Sorry, but you are talking in bullet points and not in a calm explanatory way.
Whatever it is that is so blindingly obvious to you, is not really coming across
to me.

I understand a Day of the Lord, a day when Jesus returns to earth to gather
his overcoming saints into his heavenly ark, as stated everywhere in scripture

Matthew 24 31 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.

2 Thessalonians 2 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him
That's not what Joel says about the DOTL. Nor are/were Christians the intended audience. In fact Joel hadn't the slightest idea there would ever be such a thing as a Christian. Same goes for Zechariah. Or any of the OT prophets who spoke of the DOTL.

No.... you've got that all wrong....
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
18,476
7,263
113
I didn't say "PRESENT indicative"...


...I said "PERFECT indicative" is how the wording is posed in the "false claim" that Paul is informing them about in v.2...

... and the word used there in the "false claim" Paul is informing them about (v.2) is NOT the word "COMING" (you are reading THAT word INTO the text of verse 2 which is NOT IN THAT VERSE / NOT IN THAT 'FALSE CLAIM' section!)...
...it's the word "G1764 - enestēken / enistémi" which in modern parlance is translated as "IS ALREADY HERE / IS ALREADY PRESENT"... "perfect indicative" meaning: "action completed at a specific point of time in PAST, with RESULTS continuing into the PRESENT."

(I'm NOT saying the verse [v.2] has the word in the "PRESENT tense indicative," as you continue to keep saying... as though I've said such a thing. I'VE NOT SAID that.)





The word "COMING [PRESENT tense indicative]" is NOT IN THE TEXT (v.2 we are discussing, here, regarding the "false claim" Paul is informing about). Since that's NOT in the text... then "reasoning through the text" [to ascertain its meaning] is going to be "OFF"
The guy has made this exact same mistake at least 3 or 4 times. And you have graciously corrected him on every occasion.

Pretty exasperating eh? :eek:
 

ewq1938

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2018
4,915
1,256
113
Lol agreed. I thought it was more figurative language. So God is going to recruit literal birds to gather with the armies that follow the rider on the white horse?
Birds feeding on non-buried dead is a natural occurrence. It also symbolizes a form of an insult that the dead are not buried and are eaten. It shows how wicked and evil they were.
 
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
That's not what Joel says about the DOTL. Nor are/were Christians the intended audience. In fact Joel hadn't the slightest idea there would ever be such a thing as a Christian. Same goes for Zechariah. Or any of the OT prophets who spoke of the DOTL.

No.... you've got that all wrong....
Sorry, but what are you trotting out now?
It is hard enough trying to orbit with TDW
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
I didn't say "PRESENT indicative"...
Correct that to say "perfect indicative." Same argument. (I do not often throw around grammatical terms, because it isn't my thing. I'm avoiding asking help from my brother, who has been an English teacher and who has studied Greek." He is recovering from eye surgery.)

...I said "PERFECT indicative" is how the wording is posed in the "false claim" that Paul is informing them about in v.2...

... and the word used there in the "false claim" Paul is informing them about (v.2) is NOT the word "COMING" (you are reading THAT word INTO the text of verse 2 which is NOT IN THAT VERSE / NOT IN THAT 'FALSE CLAIM' section!)...
Verse 2 reads like this: "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. "

You're referring to what is translated in my Interlinear as the word "come," which is enesteken, a form of enestemi. It refers to being "present," and in this context, infers to "come." To make one present is for him to come.

In this case we're not talking about the coming of the Antichrist, nor about the belief by these errant ones that the Antichrist had come, or that the days of the "Tribulation" had begun. No, they specifically believed that the *Coming of Christ for his Church* had come!

That is the whole point that has been impressed upon you, that Paul introduced this entire section by referring to the literal day in which Christ comes for his Church! And yet, you want to change that literal 24 hour Day, the last day of the age, into a completely different day consisting of Antichrist, the Tribulation period, and the New Millennial Age!

Absolutely, you're trying to change the subject, as well as the Scriptures! And you should definitely take a new look at your eschatology, in light of this!
 
Oct 23, 2020
971
164
43
From Robertson

as that the day of the Lord is now present (ως οτ ενεστηκεν η ημερα του κυριου). Perfect active indicative of ενιστημ, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near. So "is imminent" (Lightfoot).
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,243
1,981
113
Another thing that pre-tribs stumble over is that Revelation 3:10's, "keep thee from" which is the Greek "tereo ge ek".
"tereo ek" is only found in one other place in the bible and [...]
--"[Jesus praying to the Father] I ask that You should keep them [the ones sitting there in His presence] from the evil / the evil one" [...is not exactly the same thing (or CONTEXT) as saying...]

--"[Because you have kept...(a certain "word")]... I also will [future tense] keep you from..."... "from" what? "from the evil / the evil one"?? as in the other CONTEXT?


NO... from a specific, future, LIMITED "TIME PERIOD" ["from the hour of the trial that is sure/certain [mello] to COME UPON..."]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,243
1,981
113
No, they specifically believed that the *Coming of Christ for his Church* had come!
The text does not state that (v.2).

IOW, that is not what the TEXT itself is saying that the "false claim" was expressing, that Paul was informing them about in v.2.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
From Robertson

as that the day of the Lord is now present (ως οτ ενεστηκεν η ημερα του κυριου). Perfect active indicative of ενιστημ, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near. So "is imminent" (Lightfoot).
In this case, the claim was being made that Christ had actually come for his Church--not that it had strictly become "imminent." The context is what determines how the word is being used. It is not that the Day of the Lord was claimed to have come and to continue up until the present. Rather, it was the *belief* that it had come, and it was the *belief* that continues up until the present.

These people believed that Christ had come--not that it was continuing. That is what DW is saying, and that is not correct. And I know that because of the crystal clear context! Paul introduced the subject by identifying, clearly, what the context was. And it was the literal 24 hour day of Christ's return for his Church. No mistake about that!

This is known to be the "last day" of the age, as indicated by Jesus in the Gospels, when the Church will experience resurrection. And the 1st Resurrection is identified in Rev 20 as being *at* the destruction of the Antichrist, and not before. And since it is called the *1st* resurrection, the Rapture, with its resurrection, could not have already taken place.

That's what Paul was saying, that our victory over the world will not be completed until *after* the reign of Antichrist, when Christ comes to defeat him and to establish his Kingdom on earth.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
The text does not state that (v.2).

IOW, that is not what the TEXT itself is saying that the "false claim" was expressing, that Paul was informing them about in v.2.
We absolutely disagree on this. I insist it *does* say this. The "false claim" was that the *coming of Christ for his Church* had already come. This was incorrect, according to Paul, because Antichrist's coming must precede the coming of Christ! Simple, and that is exactly what it says!

Do you have any evidence that is was read differently for 1800 years in the Christian Church?