Thief in the Night-- Pretrib or Second Coming?

[TheDivineWatermark]

Again (for old times' sake ), I offer the entries from the 1871 Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (and another, below that), where under the entry for "apostasia [G646]" it clearly states,

"later form for apostasis" (i.e. the same word with the same meanings! SEE THAT DEFINITION!) - pg 93, far righthand column, where BOTH words are located - A lexicon abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon : Liddell, Henry George, 1811-1898 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive



--[and another, same] pg 191, middle column, where BOTH WORDS are located - A Greek-English lexicon, based on the German work of Francis Passow : Liddell, Henry George, 1811-1898 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive




[recall, here in this 2Th2:3 text, it is "THE" apostasia... a DEFINITE one]




note: Strong's Concordance is a more recent thing, and is not as thorough of a resource and not meant to be




____________


Another noun, "apostasion / apostasiou [G647]" means properly "something SEPARATIVE" (i.e. 'movement' is involved )

 

[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.

I think the scales tip very strongly toward 2 Thes 2 "the departure" interpretation. The intentional uninterrupted flow of extraordinarily succinct, punctual, non-arbitrary events is clear in the text. Furthermore, a pre-trib rapture is UTTERLY terminal and far beyond any vagrant notions to the contrary. I mean, when you are snatched, you are snatched and there will be no doubt about it when it happens.

This "fuzzy" notion of some kind of inevitably drawn out lengthy (months/years/decades?) apostasy business just does not fit. At all.

Paul wanted to remove ALL DOUBT. And he used strict indelible terms to provide that assurance to the Thessalonians. And end the controversy once and for all.

 

[DavidTree]

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)



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...)

Brother, you keep erring on this subject and make excuses that are not validated by Scripture.

If you refrain from 'adding to and taking away' from the words of God you will begin to see the clear error of pre-trib rapture.

YESHUAH will leave no Saints behind at His Coming.

Carnal/human/religious understanding can never rightly divide the word of Truth.

Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to TRUTH.

This is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE..................

 

[DavidTree]

Religion always does...........

 

[cv5]

Come on lady. I look far more like this than that.......

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

YESHUAH will leave no Saints behind at His Coming.

We are not "partial-rapturists"... We are NOT saying He will "leave saints behind" when we are raptured. NO!

It is a matter of WHEN people come to faith. You don't seem to be whining, "but why CAN'T I be an OT saint?!?! NO FAIR!!" That would be silly, as they came to faith at a different time... you can't be one. It's that simple.

 

[cv5]

Carnal/human/religious understanding can never rightly divide the word of Truth.

Cluelessness doesn't help much either....

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

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

That's not what we are pointing out regarding this verse; IOW, we are not saying it ^ how you are expressing it.

At no time have we suggested that the word "rapture" would be found in v.3 TWICE.

Remember, it only goes in place of the words "THE Departure" (he apostasia), nowhere else (i.e. a SECOND MENTION) in that verse (v.3), as you are incorrectly surmising that we are saying of it, above ^ . NO!

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Come on lady. I look far more like this than that.......

I'm prepared to take your word for it since I can't actually see you.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

We are not "partial-rapturists"... We are NOT saying He will "leave saints behind" when we are raptured. NO!

It is a matter of WHEN people come to faith. You don't seem to be whining, "but why CAN'T I be an OT saint?!?! NO FAIR!!" That would be silly, as they came to faith at a different time... you can't be one. It's that simple.

Congratulations, You have just won the back pedaling world cup.

 

[DavidTree]

Cluelessness doesn't help much either....

You do not have to be clueless - the LORD gave us His word and the promise of the Father.

Follow the Path of Truth.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

@Lucy-Pevensie , I don't see it as any kind of "back pedaling" to say there is a distinction between:

--"leaving behind His saints" (at the time of "our Rapture"), which I am NOT saying and have never said; and

--they come to faith FOLLOWING "our Rapture" (IN / DURING / WITHIN the tribulation period), thus are "saints" (of a distinct time-period--Again, FOLLOWING "our Rapture"--and who, like the OT saints, have never been promised "harpazo / snatch / rapture / caught up" IN THE AIR... to the meeting of the Lord, THERE; no, they are still located ON THE EARTH upon His RETURN THERE, as all passages in the Gospels accounts speak to...)

 

[DavidTree]

We are not "partial-rapturists"... We are NOT saying He will "leave saints behind" when we are raptured. NO!

It is a matter of WHEN people come to faith. You don't seem to be whining, "but why CAN'T I be an OT saint?!?! NO FAIR!!" That would be silly, as they came to faith at a different time... you can't be one. It's that simple.

Who do you believe this passage speaks of:
"I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,"
Daniel ch7

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

@Lucy-Pevensie , I don't see it as any kind of "back pedaling" to say there is a distinction between:

--"leaving behind His saints" (at the time of "our Rapture"), which I am NOT saying and have never said; and

--they come to faith FOLLOWING "our Rapture" (IN / DURING / WITHIN the tribulation period)

You don't believe PTR then? "tribulation saints" "left behind" "church age" - these are all common PTR terms.
I certainly haven't invented them.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Who do you believe this passage speaks of:
"I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,"
Daniel ch7

Same persons and person that Rev13:5,7 speak of (far-future from when it was prophesied); that's DURING the future Tribulation period.

The first beast (individual-person ASPECT of it, aka the AC / man of sin), and the saints said of them that he is given "to make war with the saints, and to overcome them" (these are saints having come to faith in Christ FOLLOWING "our Rapture" when they are IN the Trib years; Rev20:4b speaks of their resurrection, these being the last saints to have died, not all WILL die though and Rev20:4a speak of THEM, just as does Daniel 7:22 where similar phrasing is used (plz compare with 20:4a), saying, in Dan7:22 "and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High" (i.e. the ones still-living at the end of the Trib yrs)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

@Lucy-Pevensie , when "our Rapture" takes place, NO BELIEVER / SAINT / member of the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY will be "left behind"; Thus, ALL who are present on the earth at the start of the Trib yrs are UNSAVED / UNBELIEVERS (however you want to say it).

But they don't STAY that way; I don't mean all of them, I just mean MANY ppl will be coming to faith in Christ THEN / DURING the trib years, and thus will BECOME "saints" (the "saints" being spoken of in the passages covering that time-period).




Matt24:14 [26:13] is what msg will be going out DURING the Trib years (FOLLOWING "our Rapture"); it is not speaking of what msg is going out presently. [let the readers compare Matt24:14 with Rev7:9, for example]

 

[DavidTree]

Same persons and person that Rev13:5,7 speak of (far-future from when it was prophesied); that's DURING the future Tribulation period.

The first beast (individual-person ASPECT of it, aka the AC / man of sin), and the saints said of them that he is given "to make war with the saints, and to overcome them" (these are saints having come to faith in Christ FOLLOWING "our Rapture" when they are IN the Trib years; Rev20:4b speaks of their resurrection, these being the last saints to have died, not all WILL die though and Rev20:4a speak of THEM, just as does Daniel 7:22 where similar phrasing is used (plz compare with 20:4a), saying, in Dan7:22 "and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High" (i.e. the ones still-living at the end of the Trib yrs)

You said: "(these are saints having come to faith in Christ FOLLOWING "our Rapture" when they are IN the Trib years;"

Can you provide the Scripture that gives factual evidence to your assumption.

Rules for Engagement require that EVERYONE must Abide within the definition given concerning Facts/Truth:

Factual: based on and restricted to the facts = whereas the facts are only found in the Scripture; and only within the Boundaries permitted by the Facts = Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19

 

[cv5]

You don't believe PTR then? "tribulation saints" "left behind" "church age" - these are all common PTR terms.
I certainly haven't invented them.

I don't know where how you came up with that. TDW nor myself have any such notions. Whatsoever.

 

[DavidTree]

I don't know where how you came up with that. TDW nor myself have any such notions. Whatsoever.

Please respond with your scriptural reference that dictates a pre-trib rapture before the Resurrection of the Dead in Christ as per the cumulative dictum of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John and our Lord Yeshua HaMoshiach.

Please show forth the dictum of our LORD Yeshua specifying their will be two seperate Resurections for the Just and then a third resurrection for the unjust as per your and TheDivineWatermark statements wherby you adhere to these things, ie; pre-trib rapture before the Resurrection and then another Church Body of Christ springing up after this supposed pre-trib rapture along with another seperate rapture for the Tribulation Saints who make it unto your claim to a Third Coming of the LORD.

 

[presidente]

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

Again I ask you what level of expertise you have with Greek, and if you are relying on experience reading the language, commentaries about Greek, or just making 'educated guesses' for some of your pronouncements about Greek grammar. I notice you keep neglecting to respond to this point.

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

I wasn't quoting. But the day of the Lord won't happen until the apostacy and the man of sin be revealed. I don't know enough Greek to know if the aorist subjunctive passive use of "apokalyphthē " glossed as 'shall have been revealed' has to precede the apostacy or not.... because I don't want to make guesses about the language that I cannot support from my own expertise or reading others who have exertise on the subject matter. That is because I am a new student of the Greek language.

What about you? Do you personally know enough about Greek grammar to answer this question based on what the Greek means, and not what you think it should mean?

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.

Good points. So how does that apply to your understanding of the Greek language? Do you know Greek? Do you have extensive hours behind you of actually reading Greek and understanding how the grammar works? Are your commentaries and pronouncements about Greek grammar based on what you THINK it says, or do you have real expertise.

By the way, I suggest you answer the question, because in your interactions with me, you just may see these types of questions in post after post. I would encourage other posters to do the same.

The "ye / you" of the Olivet Discourse is a "proleptic 'you'" (meaning basically, "all those in the future OF THE SAME CATEGORY"), and in this context, He is speaking to them as THOSE TO WHOM the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom WAS PROMISED (believing Israel).

In Matthew 24, His own disciples ask Him what will be the sign of His coming and of the end of the age, and He responds with signs and things to wait for, and how their behavior should be when the Son of Man comes after the tribulation, which He also describes as 'great tribulation.'

The Lord Jesus did not know the day or hour. The group that Jesus describes here includes the apostles. It doesn't make sense as an interpretation to say that there is a coming of the Son of man prior to the one mentioned in the apostles that the apostles would take part in if Jesus was saying 'ye' statements about the one coming of the Son of Man that is actually mentioned in the chapter.