Thief in the Night-- Pretrib or Second Coming?

[TheDivineWatermark]

Indeed, it is in fact true that the DOTL can only begin post-rapture per 2 Thes 2:3. THEN the man of sin is revealed......to those who dwell upon the earth. We however will be dwelling in the Father's house (as promised per John 14) by that point.

Right.

Even apart from the phrase "THE departure" (which @Runningman is frequently pointing out his disagreement with the interpretation / definition from Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon we've supplied many times over ), even APART from that section of the sentence, the rest of the sentence is basically saying that the day of the Lord will not be present... without its key-player / -character: the man of sin.


3 ...that day will not be present if not/unless shall have come [____ FIRST] AND the man of sin be revealed...


Without "the man of sin" (present and operating in his role) the day of the Lord will not be present, and cannot be said to be (as was the false claim saying it is, per v.2)




V.9a "whose COMING [/ arrival / advent / presence / parousia]" speaks of his first moments in said role. (2Th2:4 is not that moment.)

 

[cv5]

And, may I point out that in NEITHER passage is there ANY mention of Jesus taking anyone to heaven.

So the Fathers house is not in heaven, and the 24 Elders (the Church) are not in heaven, the throne of God is not in heaven, and the cherubim are not in heaven either? Doesn't sound right to me bro.

Rev 11:16
And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

Rev 14:3
And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

Rev 19:4
And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.

 

[DavidTree]

At the center of the [real] issue that @DavidTree was trying to address was your incorrect use of the word 'paraphrase'.

When you say that you are going to 'paraphrase' a passage of scripture, it means that you are going to "quote" scripture "using your own words" (and, often/usually, with only memory to rely on) - or, restate it in different words for the purpose of clarification.

Whatever you say still has to reflect what scripture actually says - just, in your own words.

If you add or take away - it is not a paraphrase - it is an interpretation.ue

To 'paraphrase' something is to restate it another way but while still having the same meaning.

I knew what you meant even if you did not say it "perfectly"; therefore, I think David over-reacted just a bit.

His intend was to warn you concerning not promulgating scripture correctly. And, I can understand that.

Based on what I believe your intent was, you have not really done anything wrong. Don't worry about it.

Just try to be clear about when you are going to 'paraphrase' and when you are going to 'interpret'.

Thank You Brother GaryA,

Since you understand me, i thank you for your clarity on the subject as i can get to the direct point without the dance.

Some may confuse this with being harsh, which i am not, except to those who claim to have knowledge but they then twist the Holy Scripture so that it conforms to their image.

Peace and Good Morning

 

[Runningman]

Right.

Even apart from the phrase "THE departure" (which @Runningman is frequently pointing out his disagreement with the interpretation / definition from Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon we've supplied many times over ), even APART from that section of the sentence, the rest of the sentence is basically saying that the day of the Lord will not be present... without its key-player / -character: the man of sin.


3 ...that day will not be present if not/unless shall have come [____ FIRST] AND the man of sin be revealed...


Without "the man of sin" (present and operating in his role) the day of the Lord will not be present, and cannot be said to be (as was the false claim saying it is, per v.2)




V.9a "whose COMING [/ arrival / advent / presence / parousia]" speaks of his first moments in said role. (2Th2:4 is not that moment.)

We just disagree on a great many of things that culminate in a vastly different interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2. Aside from all of that, departure in that chapter doesn’t mean moving from one spatial location to another. I know you’ll disagree vehemently because the pre-trib withers up and dies if the 2 Thessalonians 2 departure actually means apostasy… and it does.

 

[ZNP]

We just disagree on a great many of things that culminate in a vastly different interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2. Aside from all of that, departure in that chapter doesn’t mean moving from one spatial location to another. I know you’ll disagree vehemently because the pre-trib withers up and dies if the 2 Thessalonians 2 departure actually means apostasy… and it does.

No it doesn't. Revelation 3:3, Revelation 4:1, the Lord's word that it would be as the days of Noah, as the days of Lot, and a whole lot of OT prophecies and types.

I could go on, and on, and on.

Many who do not believe in a pre trib rapture do believe the dead in Christ will be caught up before the tribulation. So how does this make sense that the blessed hope for two thousand years for Christians is that they would be caught up to heaven, but it doesn't apply if you are alive at the end of the age?

Then of course there is Daniel, if you equate the 70th week in Daniel to the 7 year tribulation then this time period that begins with the AntiChrist confirming the covenant (that we assume means they can rebuild the temple and begin the sacrifices again), this 70th week is a conclusion to the covenant with the Jews and it begins when "the times of the Gentiles ends". Since the times of the Gentiles began with Jesus, as a grain of wheat, being sown into the ground, it would make sense that the conclusion would be the wheat harvest.

I know many Pre tribbers who believe that 2Thessalonians 2 is referring to the apostasy, myself included. However, I do not believe that all Christians who are alive will be raptured before the tribulation, in fact I think the Bible is clear that somewhere between 80-90% will be here for the tribulation.

 

[DavidTree]

No, "the wrath coming" IS "the day of the Lord" (the thing Amos says, "Woe unto you that DESIRE the day of the Lord")

So, in 1Thessalonians 1:10, it is INSTEAD saying, "the One DELIVERING us OUT-FROM [ek] the wrath COMING" (we will not be present on the earth to experience or go through that TIME PERIOD);


Instead, you should be comparing 2Th2:2's wording (in the "false claim") with 1Th5:1-3, because THAT's where it speaks of its ARRIVAL point, and that's NOT at His Second Coming (Rev19) NOR at "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" event--"the day of the Lord" is an EARTHLY-located time period (consisting, in part, of JUDGMENTS unfolding upon the earth over SOME TIME--something indeed to be ALARMED by, if you believed the "false claim" that it "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE"... and Paul doesn't want them to fall for that false claim and be "troubled" by such an idea)

CORRECT VIEW from Heaven Above:

A.) 1 Thess 1:10 - CHRIST'S SECOND Coming is to bring RESURRECTION for the Dead in HIM and Salvation to all who eagerly wait for HIM. These Abiding Saints will not suffer the Day of the Lord = God's Wrath = the Wrath of the LAMB.

B.) 1 Thess 4:13-18 at the SECOND COMING of CHRIST, GOD brings with YESHUA the Dead in Him, who will be Resurrected and only after that the remaining living Saints are Caught UP to be with those who have been Resurrected UP.

C.) 1 Thess 5:1-11 the Abiding Saints who SEE the DAY of the LORD approaching will not be Left Behind (Matt 25:1-13) as the Apostle CLEARLY wrote in chapters 1 thru 4.

Elementary my Dear Watson

 

[presidente]

You are mistakenly thinking that the text states that both of these items are "FIRST"...

... but that is not actually what the text itself is saying.


Only ONE THING is said to be "FIRST" (not TWO / both of those things, no... NOT how the text itself reads in verse 3--but many people mistake this, too, so I can understand where you're coming from).


Read the text again, and note this.




And in view of this fact that only ONE THING is said to be "FIRST" (not BOTH items in v.3), I am pointing out how Paul repeats this same sequence 3x in this passage (in 2Th2:3-8a).

I meant first in the sense of these things happening before that day, but you are right that 'proton' is used in reference to the apostacy.

 

[presidente]

Not only that, but from everything we know of the Thessalonians, Paul would have had no cause to have written them cautioning them not to be persuaded by anyone trying to tell them "the day of Christ is AT HAND" (coz that's when WE go UP THERE *WITH HIM* and experience the Bema-seat Rewards, which is only FOR "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" i.e. via the Rapture / Snatch / Caught UP avenue leading there to "the day of CHRIST" [whereas "the day of the Lord" is entirely EARTHLY-located])

I am still waiting for what you see the evidence for pretrib is to motivate you to interpret II Thessalonians in such a bizarre fashion.

You are grasping at straws to figure out how to make these passages first with pre-trib. But why believe in pre-trib in the first place? Why not just believe in pre-trib and interpret these passages in a straight-forward manner?

 

[DavidTree]

No it doesn't. Revelation 3:3, Revelation 4:1, the Lord's word that it would be as the days of Noah, as the days of Lot, and a whole lot of OT prophecies and types.

I could go on, and on, and on.

Many who do not believe in a pre trib rapture do believe the dead in Christ will be caught up before the tribulation. So how does this make sense that the blessed hope for two thousand years for Christians is that they would be caught up to heaven, but it doesn't apply if you are alive at the end of the age?

Then of course there is Daniel, if you equate the 70th week in Daniel to the 7 year tribulation then this time period that begins with the AntiChrist confirming the covenant (that we assume means they can rebuild the temple and begin the sacrifices again), this 70th week is a conclusion to the covenant with the Jews and it begins when "the times of the Gentiles ends". Since the times of the Gentiles began with Jesus, as a grain of wheat, being sown into the ground, it would make sense that the conclusion would be the wheat harvest.

I know many Pre tribbers who believe that 2Thessalonians 2 is referring to the apostasy, myself included. However, I do not believe that all Christians who are alive will be raptured before the tribulation, in fact I think the Bible is clear that somewhere between 80-90% will be here for the tribulation.

Love the Squirrel pic.

SEE Post #626 for religious free understanding.


Peace

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

We just disagree on a great many of things that culminate in a vastly different interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2. Aside from all of that, departure in that chapter doesn’t mean moving from one spatial location to another. I know you’ll disagree vehemently because the pre-trib withers up and dies if the 2 Thessalonians 2 departure actually means apostasy… and it does.

Since the "definite article ['the']" (which is not ordinarily necessary in the Greek) is used here (unlike in Acts 21:21) and serves the function of pointing BACK to something ALREADY having been spoken of in the text (which includes everything prior to v.3, even chpt 1), please point out to us where you believe such an idea (of a "definite" thing) is being conveyed previously in this text:


[which could legit be called] "he apostasia / THE departure"... and more specifically, "THE departure FIRST" (before the other thing which the false claim purported "IS PRESENT," v.2, can legitimately / rightly be said to "[be] present").


Again, the "definite article" functions to POINT BACK to something PREVIOUSLY stated in the text. So, what is it (according to your view)?

 

[presidente]

CORRECT VIEW from Heaven Above:

A.) 1 Thess 1:10 - CHRIST'S SECOND Coming is to bring RESURRECTION for the Dead in HIM and Salvation to all who eagerly wait for HIM. These Abiding Saints will not suffer the Day of the Lord = God's Wrath = the Wrath of the LAMB.

The Bible does not say the saints will not see the day of wrath. Paul writes in I Thessalonians ...ye are not appointed unto wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do you believe the saints that come out of the great tribulation, who overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony are appointed unto wrath instead of to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[DavidTree]

The Bible does not say the saints will not see the day of wrath. Paul writes in I Thessalonians ...ye are not appointed unto wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do you believe the saints that come out of the great tribulation, who overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony are appointed unto wrath instead of to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ?

Clarity Update = the phrase i used," See the Day", means the Abiding Saints will not suffer under the Wrath of God at His Second Coming
= 1 Thess 1:10 and 1 Thess 5:9

Satan's wrath is expected upon us = John 15:19 , John 16:31-33, Matt 24:9, Rev 13:5-10 , Daniel 7:25 , Acts 14:22 etc etc

PLEASE review Rev chapters 6 & 7

Peace

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I am still waiting for what you see the evidence for pretrib is to motivate you to interpret II Thessalonians in such a bizarre fashion.

What is so "bizarre" about defining "the day of the Lord" as the entire rest of Scripture itself defines it (rather than the faulty way that the "Amill-teachings" make up their own definition of it, here, by their disregarding how Scripture itself defines it)... I don't know how you can classify that a part of some "bizarre" interpretation.

Why not just believe in pre-trib and interpret these passages in a straight-forward manner?

I am... according to how the Greek puts it.

For example, the sentence does NOT say, "the apostasy... and the man of sin BE REVEALED FIRST..."


The word "first" goes with the former not the latter of these two.

That's not "bizarre interpretation," it's what the text itself actually conveys... Not what we might ruminate in our minds to THINK it says, or have often heard others REPEAT it this wrong way so that it sounds "right" to our ears... If the text itself does not have it written that way, then we are incorrect to say that's what it means, when it doesn't say that and doesn't mean that.

 

[presidente]

I agree with you that "THE departure" refers to the rapture, i.e. "our episynagoges unto Him" (and no one else involved).

The thing about the definite article ("the") used here (and not used in Acts 21:21 "a departure from Moses"), where in Greek the definite article is not typically necessary, the definite article functions to point BACK to something already mentioned in the text (which v.1's rapture subject certainly fits)

I am asking you again. You keep avoiding the question. Have you studied Greek and had enough experience with Greek manuscripts to make these pronouncements about the Greek language? Are you relying on commentaries of people who know Greek? Or is this your 'educated guess' as someone who uses an interlinear.

I try not to present myself as an expert in areas where I lack expertise. I'll be straightforward. I signed up for an online Classical Greek class in the first semester. I'm making 'A's', but man is it overwhelming. Greek uses definite articles all over the place. It's not the same as English. The biggest difference I have noticed at my level is definite articles before names... or not necessarily write before names. Other words can be in between.

But my 'educated guess' is that Paul was referring to a specific apostacy they knew of that were a part of his end times teaching. Those who had heard him before may have been aware of 'the apostocy' that was coming.

I Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

The Greek word translated 'depart' is ἀποστήσονταί /apostēsontai. A grammatically-inflected form of ἀφίστημι.

Are you one of these guys who think the apostacy is the rapture? Can you find any place where Paul uses the term to refer to the rapture? He refers to a departing from the faith, like James mentions departing from Moses, as you pointed out.

The idea that the rapture won't take place until the rapture doesn't make much sense anyway.

Here is another verse to consider from Matthew 24:
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

 

[cv5]

We just disagree on a great many of things that culminate in a vastly different interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2. Aside from all of that, departure in that chapter doesn’t mean moving from one spatial location to another. I know you’ll disagree vehemently because the pre-trib withers up and dies if the 2 Thessalonians 2 departure actually means apostasy… and it does.

One single solitary word does not a doctrine make bro.

 

[DavidTree]

One single solitary word does not a doctrine make bro.

100% CORRECT in your case.
For you make a false claim by saying that the word "departure" must be interpreted as pre-trib rapture in 2 Thess ch2

Of course the Apostles and the Holy Spirit prove otherwise = 1 Timothy 4:1 and 1 John 2:18-19

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.
19They went out from us, but they did not belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us.
But their departure made it clear that none of them belonged to us.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

This is the epitome of pride, arrogance, ignorance, and a few other things - to believe that "anyone who does not believe in pre-trib rapture will be left behind to experience the tribulation" (or, does not believe as they do) - and then, to shove-it-in-the-face of a brother/sister in Christ... NOT SMH

The Lord's love for us is not shaken by how smart or dumb we are in our knowledge of the End Times Scenario.

You should be ashamed of yourself for having that attitude and disposition.

 

[presidente]

What is so "bizarre" about defining "the day of the Lord" as the entire rest of Scripture itself defines it (rather than the faulty way that the "Amill-teachings" make up their own definition of it, here, by their disregarding how Scripture itself defines it)... I don't know how you can classify that a part of some "bizarre" interpretation.

It's not just the day of the Lord lasting a long time in your interpretation. The appearing of Christ has to last a long time. The parousia has to last a long time or else be two events.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The Bible does not say the saints will not see the day of wrath. Paul writes in I Thessalonians ...ye are not appointed unto wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul's TWO Thessalonians epistles are in the context of an "eschatological salvation" (not like the eternal salvation / justification / soul-saving, etc type thing); so in the sense of being "delivered" (from adverse circumstances, or the like), just as 1Th1:10 is saying.

--"[put on]... and for an helmet, the HOPE of salvation" [which speaks of "our Rapture" event and our bodily glorification / perfection occurring at that time]

--"but to obtain salvation" (an eschatological salvation)

Do you believe the saints that come out of the great tribulation, who overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony are appointed unto wrath instead of to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ?

First of all, this text is governed by the "you" (that's who--referring to and addressed to "the Church which is His body"--ALL those having come to faith "in this present age [singular]"... and just like how Paul in v.10's "that WHETHER WE MAY WATCH or WHETHER WE MAY SLEEP" is distinct from that which Jesus was saying [re: WATCH or else!]);

We already know from the OT that "saints" (thus are "saved" persons in that sense) will exist during the time period we now know as the tribulation period and the GREAT tribulation, of whom Scripture itself had said of them, "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints and PREVAILED AGAINST THEM" (corresponding with Revelation 13:5,7, yet future); but we see that Jesus said something specific in Matthew 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades not will prevail against it."


Where 1Th1:10 says, "the One delivering US out-from THE WRATH COMING," it is saying "us" (the Church which is His body); it is not saying that there will exist no "saints" (having come to faith IN / DURING / WITHIN the Trib yrs) nor that they will be taken out prior to "the wrath coming" (and again, it is not specifying ONLY GOD's wrath, here, it just speaks of "THE WRATH COMING," tho yes, God's wrath can be seen as early as the "2nd Seal WARS" if one compares Scripture with Scripture and considers that Ezek38:18-19's "WRATH" words pertain as PART of those "wars").

So, sure there will be "saints" who come to faith WITHIN that time period; but the text in 1Th5:8-9 ("not appointed US to wrath, but to obtain salvation [eschatological 'salvation' i.e. being physically delivered out-of certain circumstances that will exist upon the earth]) is specifically addressed pertaining to (to / for / about) "US" (not to all other "saints" of all other time periods, i.e. Trib saints--this passage is not addressed to them);

and recall (lest you consequently think "wrath" would then be DIRECTED TOWARD them, as "saints" [which I'm not suggesting]), that in the "70ad events" section of the Olivet Discourse (past events, from our perspective), it says, "and WRATH upon this people" Luke 21:23,20 (see also Matt22:7, speaking of that same set of events, back in 70ad and surrounding, "But when the king heard thereof, he was WROTH: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and BURNED UP THEIR CITY"--corresponding also with Jesus' words in Lk19:41-44 spoken on what we call Palm Sunday, the precise day of the conclusion of the 69 Weeks--that the "70 Weeks prophecy" pertaining also to "Jerusalem / the city / "are determined upon... thy [Daniel's] holy city" );

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that 1Th1:10's "the wrath coming" WAS those 70ad events, just that there was His "wrath" then as well. And again, the text in 1Th1:10 does not specify WHOSE wrath (so Satan's wrath can ALSO be INCLUDED in this, see... not that that makes any significant difference, it's just something you hear people saying all the time...)

 

[Runningman]

One single solitary word does not a doctrine make bro.

But a single contradiction in a doctrine breaks the doctrine and requires a different interpretation to be made. Departure does just that. There’s a word for traveling or moving from one location to another in the Bible and it isn’t apostasia. I’m saying pre-trib simply isn’t Biblically possible.

That’s not my preference. It’s just a matter of scholarly honesty.