Are you saying that the Antichrist does not come before the DOTL (which is the Second Coming)?
is Luke 21:28 referring to the rapture or Jesus' second coming
- Thread starter Radius
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
^ @selahsays,
See, already you are disregarding what Paul had previously stated about WHEN "the DOTL" ARRIVES... by your incorrectly stating it is at "the Second Coming" (Rev19).
Get this point correct ^ (as I've pointed out in the previous posts), and you will be moving more closely to what it is that Paul is actually conveying in this 2Th2 text.
["dinga-ling"! I HEAR you!
trackin' with ya, see!]
See, already you are disregarding what Paul had previously stated about WHEN "the DOTL" ARRIVES... by your incorrectly stating it is at "the Second Coming" (Rev19).
Get this point correct ^ (as I've pointed out in the previous posts), and you will be moving more closely to what it is that Paul is actually conveying in this 2Th2 text.
["dinga-ling"! I HEAR you!
trackin' with ya, see!]
^ @selahsays,
See, already you are disregarding what Paul had previously stated about WHEN "the DOTL" ARRIVES... by your incorrectly stating it is at "the Second Coming" (Rev19).
Get this point correct ^ (as I've pointed out in the previous posts), and you will be moving more closely to what it is that Paul is actually conveying in this 2Th2 text.
["dinga-ling"! I HEAR you!
@TheDivineWatermark , I am trying to follow this discussion, but your view is lost among the brackets and parenthetical remarks. Could you please state clearly and simply what you are valiantly trying to say.
Paul is addressing the matter of a false claim purporting that "THE DAY OF THE LORD IS PRESENT"... that the TRIB had already ARRIVED and had already been unfolding in their present experience FOR SOME TIME.
Not that "Jesus' RETURN" had already happened, which is what you are suggesting is what the "matter" was that Paul is addressing here (concerning the "false claim" of verse 2). It wasn't that, as you suggest.
"The day of the Lord" COMMENCES at SEAL #1 (not at Christ's Second Coming to the earth SEVEN YEARS AFTER THAT POINT, see). This is your first mis-step in the correct understanding of this passage and what Paul is actually conveying here.
But, believe as you wish, SELAH. = )
Not that "Jesus' RETURN" had already happened, which is what you are suggesting is what the "matter" was that Paul is addressing here (concerning the "false claim" of verse 2). It wasn't that, as you suggest.
"The day of the Lord" COMMENCES at SEAL #1 (not at Christ's Second Coming to the earth SEVEN YEARS AFTER THAT POINT, see). This is your first mis-step in the correct understanding of this passage and what Paul is actually conveying here.
But, believe as you wish, SELAH. = )
??? I have not seen any indication in any of selah’s posts that Jesus’ return had already happened. Where does that idea even come from?
Seal #1 is the (fake) white horse ridden by Satan himself. Deception. Satan claiming to be God. This must happen before the true Christ, the King of kings returns at the 7th trump.
@BeeBlessed,
I'm not saying that selahsays is suggesting that Jesus' return has already happened.
What I'm pointing out is, that this is what the sentence (in the "false claim") in v.2 would have to be ABOUT, in order for the text to be conveying what selahsays is suggesting it says (but it doesn't).
Determine WHAT the content of the false claim in v.2 IS ABOUT, and you will begin to grasp WHAT Paul is addressing ABOUT IT, and what SEQUENCE he is reiterating (between the two distinct items: his Subject (v.1) he is bringing to BEAR ON the Subject of the false claim in v.2): regarding "the day of the Lord IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative]" false claim (v.2)...
... not about "the day of the Lord [i.e. SECOND COMING] is present" (as the "false claim" in v.2)... No.
The matter Paul is addressing is the content OF THE FALSE CLAIM.
THAT (the DOTL / TRIB-aspect [7yr period]) is what "will not be PRESENT, if not shall have come [ONE THING] *FIRST* *and* the man of sin BE REVEALED..." (he's "revealed" at SEAL #1... NOT when he LATER "SITTETH in the temple of God" at MID-Trib, NO!)
I'm not saying that selahsays is suggesting that Jesus' return has already happened.
What I'm pointing out is, that this is what the sentence (in the "false claim") in v.2 would have to be ABOUT, in order for the text to be conveying what selahsays is suggesting it says (but it doesn't).
Determine WHAT the content of the false claim in v.2 IS ABOUT, and you will begin to grasp WHAT Paul is addressing ABOUT IT, and what SEQUENCE he is reiterating (between the two distinct items: his Subject (v.1) he is bringing to BEAR ON the Subject of the false claim in v.2): regarding "the day of the Lord IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative]" false claim (v.2)...
... not about "the day of the Lord [i.e. SECOND COMING] is present" (as the "false claim" in v.2)... No.
The matter Paul is addressing is the content OF THE FALSE CLAIM.
THAT (the DOTL / TRIB-aspect [7yr period]) is what "will not be PRESENT, if not shall have come [ONE THING] *FIRST* *and* the man of sin BE REVEALED..." (he's "revealed" at SEAL #1... NOT when he LATER "SITTETH in the temple of God" at MID-Trib, NO!)
Well, all I can say is that as an English teacher I’ve read many, many essays over the years; but your writing style is very difficult to understand.
^ @selahsays (post #50),
"Christ returns at the..."
The "false claim" in verse 2 had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the fact of "Christ's return" (at Rev19); the "false claimants" were not speaking about that.
Instead, the "false claim" (v.2) has to do with purporting "that the day of the Lord" (the TRIBULATION PERIOD set of years) "IS PRESENT" (had already ARRIVED at some point in the PAST and was unfolding in their present experience).
So when Paul addresses THIS FALSE CLAIM (warning the Thessalonians NOT to be DECEIVED by such a claim), he is not saying the false claim said "Jesus has returned" (or anything close to that idea). No.
Missing this (WHAT the "false claim" pertains to) takes one far afield of what Paul is actually conveying in this passage.
He is NOT conveying, "Jesus' return can't happen until ____ FIRST". No.
He is conveying, the Trib will not be present (as the false claim was saying was true) if not ______ ... and the man of sin be revealed (i.e. SEAL #1, as we now know it to be called... i.e. the FIRST / INITIAL MOMENT of the 7-y period at its START: THEN it WILL "be present," and not before that point!)
"Christ returns at the..."
The "false claim" in verse 2 had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the fact of "Christ's return" (at Rev19); the "false claimants" were not speaking about that.
Instead, the "false claim" (v.2) has to do with purporting "that the day of the Lord" (the TRIBULATION PERIOD set of years) "IS PRESENT" (had already ARRIVED at some point in the PAST and was unfolding in their present experience).
So when Paul addresses THIS FALSE CLAIM (warning the Thessalonians NOT to be DECEIVED by such a claim), he is not saying the false claim said "Jesus has returned" (or anything close to that idea). No.
Missing this (WHAT the "false claim" pertains to) takes one far afield of what Paul is actually conveying in this passage.
He is NOT conveying, "Jesus' return can't happen until ____ FIRST". No.
He is conveying, the Trib will not be present (as the false claim was saying was true) if not ______ ... and the man of sin be revealed (i.e. SEAL #1, as we now know it to be called... i.e. the FIRST / INITIAL MOMENT of the 7-y period at its START: THEN it WILL "be present," and not before that point!)
Now this I do understand:
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 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. 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; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (KJV)
That Day is the Day of the Lord when Jesus Christ the King of kings returns at the 7th trump AFTER the falling away and AFTER that man of sin (Satan) is revealed.
selah
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 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. 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; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (KJV)
That Day is the Day of the Lord when Jesus Christ the King of kings returns at the 7th trump AFTER the falling away and AFTER that man of sin (Satan) is revealed.
selah
^ Like I said in my Post #30, Paul had already written to the Thessalonians in his first letter, and there states...
... So, no. The "false claim" was not concerning what would take place / commence at the END of the Trib.
It concerns what will commence and unfold upon the earth starting at SEAL #1 (that is its ARRIVAL point in time, and the "false claimants" were purporting that that had ALREADY--at some point in the past--arrived... that is, "[it] IS PRESENT [perfect indicative... That's what "perfect indicative" means]"...
... the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular]" that comes upon a woman with child (1TH5:1-3!).
Many more "birth pangs [plural]" follow on from that initial birth pang and all together (all of those) lead up TO His Second Coming to the earth--which will still be "the DOTL," as will the entire MK age; but His Second Coming is not when the DOTL commences. It starts well-prior to that point. And the "false claimants" (per v.2) were purporting that it was already present (here and unfolding upon the earth)... meaning, the Trib years.
Which would be a completely "believable" thing for them to have been persuaded was TRUE, given the negative circumstances they were at that time enduring, per 2Th1:4! (per context)
... So, no. The "false claim" was not concerning what would take place / commence at the END of the Trib.
It concerns what will commence and unfold upon the earth starting at SEAL #1 (that is its ARRIVAL point in time, and the "false claimants" were purporting that that had ALREADY--at some point in the past--arrived... that is, "[it] IS PRESENT [perfect indicative... That's what "perfect indicative" means]"...
... the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular]" that comes upon a woman with child (1TH5:1-3!).
Many more "birth pangs [plural]" follow on from that initial birth pang and all together (all of those) lead up TO His Second Coming to the earth--which will still be "the DOTL," as will the entire MK age; but His Second Coming is not when the DOTL commences. It starts well-prior to that point. And the "false claimants" (per v.2) were purporting that it was already present (here and unfolding upon the earth)... meaning, the Trib years.
Which would be a completely "believable" thing for them to have been persuaded was TRUE, given the negative circumstances they were at that time enduring, per 2Th1:4! (per context)
In 2 Thessalonians, Paul gets down to the purpose of his second letter. Paul reminded them of his first letter to them, of Christ returning and our gathering back to Him. Because of the misunderstanding that could be drawn from the first letter, he writes the following.
Again, the subject of this letter is our gathering back to Christ.
2 Thessalonians 2:2 "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."
Paul doesn't want what he's about to say to be misunderstood. Paul advised them not to confuse what he is saying here with any other teaching, spirit, or even that first letter from him, which is why he keeps it straightforward. This is because the first letter contained a confusing section where false teachers had sneaked in and misrepresented Paul's words. Paul is saying, don't let anyone confuse you and tell you that the "day of Christ" is at hand. The "day of Christ“ is the day when Jesus Christ will return to earth and gather His saints to Him. This gathering will happen at the sounding of the seventh trumpet.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 "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;"
There must first be a falling away before Jesus Christ can gather anyone to Himself or come to earth. In Greek, the word "apostasy" refers to "falling away." Jesus revealed to John in Revelation 9:11 that "Apollyon" is one of Satan's names, and that name comes from the word apostasy.
^ @selahsays,
What you are suggesting is that, because both of the words "Apollyon [G623; active participle of G622 (G622 being from "apo [G575]" and the base of G3639, together)] and "apostasia" have the same part "apo" to start the word, that they are supposedly tightly connected and have connecting meanings.
I disagree, and believe that shows a lack of understanding of the Greek. It is a real stretch to think they are related in such a way.
For example, do you also find a snug connection in meaning amongst all of the following words that also start off with "apo"??:
ἀπογιγνώσκω
ἀπογκ-έω - ἀποδασ-τύς
ἀποδα^τέομαι - ἀποδέχομαι
ἀποδέω - ἀποδιορ-ιστέον
ἀποδιπλόομαι - ἀποδρομή
ἀπόδρομος - ἀποθεμελιόω
ἄποθεν - ἀποθρι_άζω
ἀποθριγκόω - ἀποιμώζω
ἄποινα - ἀποκαπν-ισμός
ἀποκα^πύω - ἀποκεκρυμμένως
ἀποκέλλω - ἀπό-κλεισμα
ἀπο-κλεισμός - ἀποκομ-ιστικός
ἀπόκομμα - ἀπο-κρϊσιάριος
ἄπο-κρι^σις - ἀποκωκύω
ἀποκώλ-υ_σις - ἀπόλεμος
ἀπολεοντόομαι - Ἀπολλ-ώνεια
Ἀπολλ-ωνιακός - ἀπολυτρ-ωτικός
ἀπολύω - ἀπομελίζω
ἀπομέμφομαι - ἀπομύζ-ουρις
ἀπομυ_θέομαι - ἀπονήχομαι
ἀπονία - ἀποξυ?́ρ-ω
ἄποξυς - ἀπο-περα^τίζω
ἀπο-περα^τόω - ἀποπληρ-όω
ἀποπληρ-ωματικός - ἀπό-πρι_σις
ἀπό-πρισμα - ἀποπυργίζοντες
ἀπο-πυ^ρίας - ἀπορρα^πιστέον
ἀπορράπτω - ἀπορχέομαι
ἀπος - ἀποσκευή
ἀπόσκημμα - ἀποσμίλ-ευμα
ἀποσμιλ-εύω - ἀπόστα
ἀπόσταγμα - ἀποστερνίζω
ἀποστεφα^νόω - ἀποστυ^φελίζω
ἀποστύφω - ἀποσφυ^ρηλα^τέω
ἀποσχάζω - ἀπό-τεισις
ἀπό-τεισμα - ἀποτίθησιν:
ἀποτίκτω - ἀποτρεπ-τικός
ἀπότρεπ-τος - ἀπο-τυ^πόω
ἀποτύπτω - ἀπο-φευκτικός
ἀπό-φευξις - ἀποφράς
ἀποφράση - ἀποχή
ἀποχηρόομαι - ἀποψα^λίζω
ἀπο-ψάλλω -
(note: the "dash" between the words means there are tons more "entries" between these that aren't even showing, here).
Certainly not all of these "apo" words can "mean" pretty much what "Apollyon" does, right? And it would be silly of me to suggest a thing, wouldn't you say?
So, what makes you think our word in verse 3 (2Th2 - "apo stasia / apo stasis") does? By just surmising it to be the case?
No. The word under present discussion is "apostasia [/apo-stasis; an "away-from standing" or a "standing away-from," that is, a "departure"]" (context determines WHAT KIND of "departure')... but with the definite article "the" before it, which serves a couple of purposes: to show that it is a definite event (not just a general condition); and to point BACK to something having already been referred to previously in the context (i.e. v.1's Subject... THAT one).
What you are suggesting is that, because both of the words "Apollyon [G623; active participle of G622 (G622 being from "apo [G575]" and the base of G3639, together)] and "apostasia" have the same part "apo" to start the word, that they are supposedly tightly connected and have connecting meanings.
I disagree, and believe that shows a lack of understanding of the Greek. It is a real stretch to think they are related in such a way.
For example, do you also find a snug connection in meaning amongst all of the following words that also start off with "apo"??:
ἀπογιγνώσκω
ἀπογκ-έω - ἀποδασ-τύς
ἀποδα^τέομαι - ἀποδέχομαι
ἀποδέω - ἀποδιορ-ιστέον
ἀποδιπλόομαι - ἀποδρομή
ἀπόδρομος - ἀποθεμελιόω
ἄποθεν - ἀποθρι_άζω
ἀποθριγκόω - ἀποιμώζω
ἄποινα - ἀποκαπν-ισμός
ἀποκα^πύω - ἀποκεκρυμμένως
ἀποκέλλω - ἀπό-κλεισμα
ἀπο-κλεισμός - ἀποκομ-ιστικός
ἀπόκομμα - ἀπο-κρϊσιάριος
ἄπο-κρι^σις - ἀποκωκύω
ἀποκώλ-υ_σις - ἀπόλεμος
ἀπολεοντόομαι - Ἀπολλ-ώνεια
Ἀπολλ-ωνιακός - ἀπολυτρ-ωτικός
ἀπολύω - ἀπομελίζω
ἀπομέμφομαι - ἀπομύζ-ουρις
ἀπομυ_θέομαι - ἀπονήχομαι
ἀπονία - ἀποξυ?́ρ-ω
ἄποξυς - ἀπο-περα^τίζω
ἀπο-περα^τόω - ἀποπληρ-όω
ἀποπληρ-ωματικός - ἀπό-πρι_σις
ἀπό-πρισμα - ἀποπυργίζοντες
ἀπο-πυ^ρίας - ἀπορρα^πιστέον
ἀπορράπτω - ἀπορχέομαι
ἀπος - ἀποσκευή
ἀπόσκημμα - ἀποσμίλ-ευμα
ἀποσμιλ-εύω - ἀπόστα
ἀπόσταγμα - ἀποστερνίζω
ἀποστεφα^νόω - ἀποστυ^φελίζω
ἀποστύφω - ἀποσφυ^ρηλα^τέω
ἀποσχάζω - ἀπό-τεισις
ἀπό-τεισμα - ἀποτίθησιν:
ἀποτίκτω - ἀποτρεπ-τικός
ἀπότρεπ-τος - ἀπο-τυ^πόω
ἀποτύπτω - ἀπο-φευκτικός
ἀπό-φευξις - ἀποφράς
ἀποφράση - ἀποχή
ἀποχηρόομαι - ἀποψα^λίζω
ἀπο-ψάλλω -
(note: the "dash" between the words means there are tons more "entries" between these that aren't even showing, here).
Certainly not all of these "apo" words can "mean" pretty much what "Apollyon" does, right? And it would be silly of me to suggest a thing, wouldn't you say?
So, what makes you think our word in verse 3 (2Th2 - "apo stasia / apo stasis") does? By just surmising it to be the case?
No. The word under present discussion is "apostasia [/apo-stasis; an "away-from standing" or a "standing away-from," that is, a "departure"]" (context determines WHAT KIND of "departure')... but with the definite article "the" before it, which serves a couple of purposes: to show that it is a definite event (not just a general condition); and to point BACK to something having already been referred to previously in the context (i.e. v.1's Subject... THAT one).
[ @selahsays 's Post #55]
All of the following marks the START / ARRIVAL of "the day of the Lord" earthly-located time period (aka TRIB-aspect):
--Paul says in 1Th5:1-3, that the DOTL's ARRIVAL is "exactly like" the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular]" that comes upon a woman with child (not at the END of those abundance of "birth pangs," see); Paul is referring to that which JESUS had spoken of in His Olivet Discourse;
--the INITIAL one of those that Jesus listed (of "the BEGINNING of birth pangs [plural]") is: "A CERTAIN ONE [G5100 - tis]," i.e. "A CERTAIN ONE" bringing deception ("For there shall be MANY..." but ONE IN PARTICULAR is the one that "kicks off" that specific, future, limited time-period we commonly call the TRIB [the ARRIVAL and 7-yr aspect of "the DOTL" time-period in its entirety], i.e. 7-yr period leading up to Christ's "return" to the earth at Rev19; v.2's "false claim" was concerning THIS, purporting that it "IS PRESENT");
--"the BEGINNING of birth pangs" ARE the "SEALS" of Rev6, so the INITIAL ONE of those birth pangs or Seal #1 is: the rider of the white horse with a "BOW" ('bow' often meaning 'deception'... aka the AC / man of sin, at the "kick-off" point of the 7-yr period);
--the "whose COMING / ARRIVAL / ADVENT / PRESENCE / PAROUSIA" of the man of sin "IN HIS TIME" (2Th2:9a; 2Th2:6);
--[which likewise corresponds with] Daniel 9:27a's "FOR ONE WEEK [7 yrs]" (when he will "confirm the covenant with the many" at the START of that future 7-yr period);
All of this (and more) is the biblical evidence that "the DOTL" (the Subject of the "false claim" in v.2) was about the false claimants "purporting that the Day of the Lord [the Tribulation aspect] IS PRESENT," in other words, had already started and had been playing out already for some amount of time (that includes ALL OF THE ABOVE, plus further "birth pangs" which follow on from that initial moment, as well).
This is what Paul was covering (his "corrective" to such a "false claim"--he's not wanting them to be deceived by).
Also, there is no evidence that the "false claimants" (of whatever stripe, in whatever form, Paul says) had access to Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians and had supposedly BASED their false claim on anything that Paul had written therein, either (not that I agree that anything in his first letter says what you're suggesting it does--I do not).
All of the following marks the START / ARRIVAL of "the day of the Lord" earthly-located time period (aka TRIB-aspect):
--Paul says in 1Th5:1-3, that the DOTL's ARRIVAL is "exactly like" the INITIAL "birth PANG [singular]" that comes upon a woman with child (not at the END of those abundance of "birth pangs," see); Paul is referring to that which JESUS had spoken of in His Olivet Discourse;
--the INITIAL one of those that Jesus listed (of "the BEGINNING of birth pangs [plural]") is: "A CERTAIN ONE [G5100 - tis]," i.e. "A CERTAIN ONE" bringing deception ("For there shall be MANY..." but ONE IN PARTICULAR is the one that "kicks off" that specific, future, limited time-period we commonly call the TRIB [the ARRIVAL and 7-yr aspect of "the DOTL" time-period in its entirety], i.e. 7-yr period leading up to Christ's "return" to the earth at Rev19; v.2's "false claim" was concerning THIS, purporting that it "IS PRESENT");
--"the BEGINNING of birth pangs" ARE the "SEALS" of Rev6, so the INITIAL ONE of those birth pangs or Seal #1 is: the rider of the white horse with a "BOW" ('bow' often meaning 'deception'... aka the AC / man of sin, at the "kick-off" point of the 7-yr period);
--the "whose COMING / ARRIVAL / ADVENT / PRESENCE / PAROUSIA" of the man of sin "IN HIS TIME" (2Th2:9a; 2Th2:6);
--[which likewise corresponds with] Daniel 9:27a's "FOR ONE WEEK [7 yrs]" (when he will "confirm the covenant with the many" at the START of that future 7-yr period);
All of this (and more) is the biblical evidence that "the DOTL" (the Subject of the "false claim" in v.2) was about the false claimants "purporting that the Day of the Lord [the Tribulation aspect] IS PRESENT," in other words, had already started and had been playing out already for some amount of time (that includes ALL OF THE ABOVE, plus further "birth pangs" which follow on from that initial moment, as well).
This is what Paul was covering (his "corrective" to such a "false claim"--he's not wanting them to be deceived by).
Also, there is no evidence that the "false claimants" (of whatever stripe, in whatever form, Paul says) had access to Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians and had supposedly BASED their false claim on anything that Paul had written therein, either (not that I agree that anything in his first letter says what you're suggesting it does--I do not).
Post tribbers feels like a spin off of works based salvation to me, they feel like they have to show their worth, earn their way by putting on their rambo gear and taking on the AC. While pre tribbers accept that we can't earn it, it's all by grace, something that we don't deserve.