The Tribulation and the Church, WHEN?

The article I posted in one of the 3 links I attached above (Post #676), was written in 1957 (if I recall), wasn't it?


Post #368 (of this thread):

Kenneth S Wuest, Greek scholar

Greek scholar or not, being a Moody Bible graduate the guy is dispensational. This is starting with a presupposition and attempting to prove it by bogus argumentation as did Daniel Davey.

I think I have made my case. And its is quite compelling. Beyond that, the pre-trib rapture is without doubt the correct and proper interpretation, as no other satisfies all of the Scripture extant. The alternatives are quite absurd. And Jesus Himself states literally dozens of times that He may return any moment.
Of course that is not what Paul is speaking to in 2 Thess. He is assuring believers that they had NOT MISSED the Rapture.
Your incorrect notion of falling away (thereafter disproven by my many posts) is uncalled for in the context. The correct term is "departure" spatially. This is well supported by my content. Quite indisputably. And you may pay heed to that very scripture that you invoke. And be careful not to be paying attention to doctrines of demons that seduce you into believing that Christ is not going to fulfill His commitment to prevent His Bride the Church from suffering the coming Wrath of God in the GT, when He clearly promises to deliver them from it.

"The pivotal question put forth by the Pre-Trib position concerns the clear reference to the Rapture in verse 1. It is rightly asked, "Why did Paul reassure the Thessalonians in his letter that they had not missed the Rapture?"

The point veiled behind this question is commanding and demands a reflective answer. If Paul had taught the Thessalonians a Mid or Post-Trib Rapture then they would not have had any reason to be confused about having entered the Tribulation. It is logical to deduce by Paul's assurance to them concerning the Rapture that the Thessalonians had been taught a Pre-Trib Rapture.

The Apostle Paul had been their teacher according to verse 5. If Paul wanted to remedy an incorrect Pre-Trib Rapture outlook then verses 1 & 2 would have been transposed in his letter to them. He would have encouraged them to prepare for the judgment day of Christ first and then the gathering together at the Rapture instead of vice-versa.

If the Rapture was something which they did not believe they may have missed, why then we must ask, was it addressed as their primary concern in verse 1? If verse 2 is still speaking of the Rapture as Pre-Trib opponents contend, then we must accept that the Apostle Paul had no intention of relieving their distress, but instead for some unfathomable reason intended to add even more. Paul would have in essence replaced their hope of deliverance by the Rapture with the terror of someday facing the Great Tribulation."

Let’s tell the whole story when we present evidence for our cause. See footnote 3 for exactly what the translators thought “the departure” was.

3 (*) Let no man deceive you by any means, (3) for that day shall not come, except there come a (♠) departing first, and that (e) the (♦) man of sin be disclosed, even the son of (♣) perdition,
(*) Ephesians 5:6 .
(3) The Apostle foretelleth that before the coming of the Lord, there shall be a throne set up clean contrary to Christ's glory, wherein that wicked man shall sit, and transfer all things that appertain to God, to himself; and many shall fall away from God to him.
(♠) A wonderful departing of the most part from the faith.
(e) By speaking of one, he pointed out the body of the tyrannous and persecuting Church.
(♦) This wicked Antichrist comprehendeth the whole succession of the persecutors of the Church, and all that abominable kingdom of Satan, whereof some were bears, some lions, others leopards, as Daniel describeth them, and is called the man of sin because he setteth himself up against God.
(♣) Who as he destroyeth others, so shall he be destroyed himself.

In my 1909 copy of "Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon," it says under "apostasia": "later form for apostasis " (i.e. apo stasis... 'a standing away [from a previous standing]') and under that entry (apostasis), it says, "2. departure or removal from"

I mentioned this in a previous post as well.

Riddle me this genius: why is it that ONLY ISRAELITES are preaching the gospel post Rev ch 3? Nowhere in scripture is the Church relieved of the mandate to preach the gospel. The fact is that it is perfectly clear that the Church is no longer on planet earth by the time the first seal is opened and the time of Tribulation and God's wrath begins.

Pre-Trib Rapture. Its the truth of God presented in Scripture.

Hardly, you are presenting bogus "case" from others as an appeal to some kind of authority.

The pivotal question is why are you and the guy you quoted making stuff up. Paul is not saying they missed the "rapture", he's talking about their gathering to Him in their lifetime, NOT some dispensational dudes and dudettes hundreds of years later

(2 Th 2:1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him)

Greek G1997 episunagoge - gather.

Paul is using the word exactly as Jesus used it here:

(Mat 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling )

(Mat 24:31“ And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.)

There is no concept of "rapture" found in Thessalonians.

Matthew 23:37 and Matthew 24:31 are (neither of them) referring to "Rapture"... Matthew 24:29-31 correlates with Isaiah 27:12-13, where THEY will be (it says) "gathered ONE BY ONE" (not "AS ONE") and "to worship the Lord in the holy mount at JERUSALEM" (JUST AS in Isaiah 24:21-23, esp 23, which passage is parallel with Rev19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5... are you saying Rev19 is "past" also??)

That's coz there is no such thing as rapture in the scripture, it only exists in dispensational minds.

Here's a link to a scan of the actual bible on 2 Thess K16:

https://archive.org/details/TheGenevaBible1560/page/n1143

Use the zoom in option in the bottom right side.

I will admit that I made the assumption that the Greek definitions you were presented with were correct. (NOT saying they were not correct - just took them to be correct)

Based on that - what he was saying seemed to make sense with regard to the greek words.

In any case...

"Requires more study..."

(than I can do right now - I am too tired)

Perhaps I might find some time to look into it later.

The problem with their "footnotes" (footnote 3) is [seems to be] that they are defining the "that day" in verse 3 as something OTHER THAN what it actually refers to, and that is, [actually referring to] the subject found in verse 2 (the IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING verse), NOT the subject found in verse 1 (it is grammatically incorrect to leap way back past and OVER the preceding verse [v.2], to ascertain what v.3 is referring to). Verse 3 is saying "[the Day of the Lord] will not be present if not shall have come The Departure FIRST..."

and "the Day of the Lord" [v.2] is not defined as either, 1) "the 24-hr day of His return," nor as 2) "starting at the time-slot of His return"... neither of those two options are what is meant by "the Day of the Lord" (and its presence to unfold upon the earth). We must look to the OT references to properly define it/understand it... and to see in those contexts, where the phrase "IN THAT DAY" is used alongside it, to refer to the SAME time period (the DOTL time period); THIS context (2Th) ALSO has that phrase within this context (being both chpts 1 & 2), and acknowledging this (in its usage here as well, when we examine it) proves that it is a time period of some duration, unfolding upon the earth PRIOR to His "return".

You are one strange cat.

Olivet Discourse page - row 21

Order Of Events page - column 'Resurrection & Rapture'

Second Coming page - column 'O'

Time Line page - 'Resurrection & Rapture'

~

This will probably take a series of posts - please be patient...

♠) A wonderful departing of the most part from the faith.

Did you read that part of footnote 3? It’s the first bullet point.

In verse 2, Paul is basically telling them not to be persuaded by anyone purporting that "the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT [perfect indicative]" [see also v.15, the other bracketed end of this section: "believe US, not THEM," basically ]

So then, our next step is to ascertain just what is meant by "the Day of the Lord" (many people define it incorrectly, and not according to scripture).

Paul was pretty "strange" too

It's possible I was seeing a different footnote? My point remains the same.

The verb form (of this "noun" word under discussion) is used in 1Tim4:1 "some SHALL DEPART FROM [G868 - apostēsontai / aphistémi (apo histemi--a standing away)] the faith"... and I had supplied the author (another Greek scholar, from what I recall) pointing out that the necessity of adding the words "[from] the faith" is because that idea (of departure from some FAITH issue) is not inherent in the word itself! (neither do we automatically assume that "a departure FROM MOSES" is what is meant here in 2Th2, just because this word is used in Acts 21:21 in just such a way [note: "forsake" is a VERB, but we are looking at a NOUN, here]--the basic meaning of the word is simply "departure"... the CONTEXT tells us "WHAT KIND" of departure is meant, and the definite article is used to point to something already/previously mentioned in the context, not the upcoming/later words in the context)

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”

(Sir Walter Scott)

Aaaahhh yes. No cogent response from the peanut gallery eh?

Gotchya!

Here is the Geneva Bible 1599 excerpt:

"Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition"

Yes, the Puritans believed as well. Good to know.

Still waiting for an answer to my post re: Israelites peaching mid-Trib. Good luck finding anwers. There aren't any that satisfy except a Pre-Trib Rapture!