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

[Absolutely]

How do you know it isn't?

Strong's definitions for each word in this compound word:

The question is, CAN this word mean something else? It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."

Here is what Strong's says about "apo:

of separation... ...of local separation,
...after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...

of separation of a part from the whole......where of a whole some part is taken

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

of a state of separation, that is of distance...physical, of distance of place



At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.
Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.
The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

But we cannot and should not form doctrine from one word, as in pulling it out of its context. We must determine its meaning IN its context.

Paul wrote this passage with parallels:

Verse 3: Apostasisa - the man of sin revealed
Verse 6: Something restraining - might be revealed
Verses 7-8: restraining force removed - the man of sin revealed

There can be NO DOUBT that Paul's intent in "Apostasia" has to do with the man of sin being revealed. Therefore it has to do with the restraining force being "taken out of the way.

Then Paul wrote: "And now you know what is restraining him [from being revealed at this time " (AMP)

Why would Paul write this UNLESS He had just told us what or who this restraining power was? In fact, Paul DID tell us, but did it in a cloaked manner, then wrote "now you know" so people would go back and read again and discover his meaning. Just guessing, because Paul did not tell us, but is it possible he wrote this in a manner that the only people who would really understand would be those who had read his first letter?

It is an absolute truth that in verse 3b, Paul shows us the man of sin revealed.
It is just as much truth that in verses 6-8 he explains the only way that could happen: the power restraining - that power we are suppose to know now - has been taken out of the way.

A good student of the bible should then ask: HOW Paul" HOW or WHERE do you show this restraining power "taken out of the way" somewhere in verse 3a?

Is a "falling away" (from what we can't tell) equal to "taken out of the way?"
Could a "falling away" possibly in any way be a restraining force preventing the man of sin from being revealed too soon?

I don't see how either of these is possible. Yet it seems that Paul's intent is that hidden in "apostasia" must be that power restraining being "taken out of the way" so that in 3b the man of sin is revealed.

That is the point i was making.

Once all the components are on the table...postribs have the "force restraining" as anathema.

How silly

 

[lamad]

Now you have a resurrection order problem that contradicts pre-trib rapture.

"Then there is 1 Cor 15:23 that clearly indicates 2 "groups" in the resurrection. Christ the firstfruits, and then "those who belong to Him" Sounds like a single group in "those who belong to Him".

Then there's Rev 20:5 which speaks of tribulational martyrs who are in "the FIRST resurrection".

Please explain how they are in "the first resurrection" when you believe there is another one that is 7 years BEFORE theirs."
Thanks @FreeGrace2

There is no real problem.

Without a doubt, I think we all believe Christ was the very first human to raise from the dead with a resurrection, flesh and bone body that can walk through walls and never die, hense: "firstfruits."

Do the dead in Christ "belong to Him?" They are in heaven WITH HIM - so of course they belong to Him.
Do those who are alive and "in Him" belong to Him? Of course they do. There, in this respect, ONE GROUP.
However, most of those raptured or caught up into the air will be the dead in Christ. That could be one subgroup; while those alive and in Him could be another subgroup. So what?

Why make a simple text into something difficult? There is one resurrection for the righteous, and one for the unrighteous. John has labeled the resurrection for the righteous as the chief or first of these two resurrections. OF COURSE Jesus was the firstfruits of this primary or chief resurrection, or else you must place Him in the "second death" one, which would be silly. John tells us there will be only two, and shows us who will be in each one. It is very simple.

Some people imagine by "first" resurrection that John is saying there will not be any resurrection before this one at the end of the 70th week. They have not studied the Greek behind first and found out the real meaning John intended is first in honor, not in any kind of timing position. You really should have known this.

 

[cv5]

I've been over that verse about a thousand times... but y'all keep ignore what I've put:

v.23 "[re: resurrection] but EACH [a word that means 'of more than TWO'] IN HIS OWN ORDER / RANK" (there doesn't remain only ONE)


--"firstfruit Christ" (1st "RANK")


--"[THEN - G1899 - epeita - 'properly, only then (emphasizing what precedes is a necessary precursor).'] ONLY THEN those [plural] OF Christ [/ 'ARE Christ's'] at/in the coming of Him" (OT saints-Daniel was told this; Job well-knew this; Martha well-knew this; all OT saints grasped this; AND Trib saints who will have DIED in the trib, Rev20:4b [20:4a speaking of "still-living" saints at the time being referenced--His Second Coming to the earth (and of which the "144,000" [not necessarily DYING] are "FIRSTFRUIT" (the SECOND mention of "FIRSTFRUIT" in Lev23, in v.17 "TWO [PLURAL] loaves" and "baken WITH LEAVEN" [<--(NOTE!!!)THAT ain't US/'the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY'/'we are ONE BREAD'/'ye are UNLEAVENED')]--so this category is the 2nd "RANK")


--"[THEN - G1534 - eita (SEQUENCE word only, NO time-element involved)] THEN the end... " (when the last enemy, death, is destroyed... after all the "DEAD [/unsaved]" OF ALL TIMES will be "death and hell delivered up" [and "the sea gave up"] to stand before the GWTj--3rd "RANK")


____________

THEN, recall all of my posts about:

--1Cor15:51-54 "THIS corruptible" ('the DEAD IN Christ') and "THIS mortal" (the part "IN Christ" being the 'we which are ALIVE and remain') (with the word "THIS" meaning, "A CERTAIN ONE"--which pertains to Paul having just said, "Behold, I *SHEW* you a mystery..." [i.e. what Paul was given to "shew"])

--"IN Christ" designation re: "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (ALL those saved "in this present age [singular]" [Eph1:20-23 WHEN (as to its existence); Eph1:10 not speaking of "NOW" as all other parts of this epistle ARE speaking of]

--"God hath chosen [G138 - heilato / haireó (related to G142 - airo - 'raise, lift up, take away, remove'); a DIFFERENT "chose/chosen" word from OTHER passages] you [corporate 'you'] firstfruit [aparche or ap' arche, depending on manuscript]"

--James 1:18 saying "A KIND of firstfruit / A CERTAIN firstfruit" (i.e. more than ONE KIND--which KIND are WE/the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" ?? Paul makes this abundantly clear throughout his epistles [his task to disclose this info TO "the Church WHICH IS HIS [Christ's] BODY"... the "ONE BODY" (ALL those saved "in this present age [singular]")])

--"quickened-together-with Him," that is, WHEN HE was! And having to do with His "BODY" [resurrected] (this idea is repeated over and over throughout what the Spirit wrote via Paul's pen--TO/FOR/ABOUT "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY"); thus, having been, WHEN HE WAS, this means that when He did the John 20:17 thing ON FIRSTFRUIT (His resurrection day), fulfilling Lev23:10-12, WE were taken there WITH HIM, positionally/legally and were "SEATED [G4776 - synekathisen ]" there (in the heavenlies) "IN Christ Jesus"--can you tell by now that (as I've said) I do NOT believe it was the "many who rose" on that same day that he took up to Heaven with Him on that day (His FIRST ascension ['I [ACTIVE] ASCEND']... I believe Scripture PURPOSELY informs us of WHERE THEY WENT, that day, INSTEAD (also as a 'picture / pattern' [an earthly-located one]) "into the holy city, and appeared unto many"

--the Rev20:6 "BLESSED and holy is the one HAVING A PART IN the resurrection, the first" (i.e. resurrection OF LIFE); this is NOT saying this is the FIRST TIME anyone will have been resurrected, for the 2W will have already been (at a time-slot DISTINCT from when all others will be: "6th Trumpet / 2nd Woe" time-slot !!)

--MUCH, much more... but I've already made TONS of posts concerning this issue, over and over and over again...

You are absolutely correct.
Why would I or anyone else be assured that you are correct?
Rightly applied hermeneutics taking into account the entirety of the Word of God.

Attributes otherwise woefully lacking on this thread.

 

[Runningman]

There is no real problem.

Without a doubt, I think we all believe Christ was the very first human to raise from the dead with a resurrection, flesh and bone body that can walk through walls and never die, hense: "firstfruits."

Do the dead in Christ "belong to Him?" They are in heaven WITH HIM - so of course they belong to Him.
Do those who are alive and "in Him" belong to Him? Of course they do. There, in this respect, ONE GROUP.
However, most of those raptured or caught up into the air will be the dead in Christ. That could be one subgroup; while those alive and in Him could be another subgroup. So what?

Why make a simple text into something difficult? There is one resurrection for the righteous, and one for the unrighteous. John has labeled the resurrection for the righteous as the chief or first of these two resurrections. OF COURSE Jesus was the firstfruits of this primary or chief resurrection, or else you must place Him in the "second death" one, which would be silly. John tells us there will be only two, and shows us who will be in each one. It is very simple.

Some people imagine by "first" resurrection that John is saying there will not be any resurrection before this one at the end of the 70th week. They have not studied the Greek behind first and found out the real meaning John intended is first in honor, not in any kind of timing position. You really should have known this.

First resurrection at the return of Christ:

1 Thessalonians 4:16
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

The first resurrection are those who belong to Him:

1 Corinthians 15:23
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

The tribulation saints are included in the first resurrection:

Revelation 20:4-5
4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

In summary, placing the coming of Christ and the first resurrection before the great tribulation creates a myriad of Biblical contradictions such as excluding those who will be martyred in the great tribulation from the first resurrection.

This should be enough red flags to make you immediately pivot toward a different interpretation.

Placing the resurrection at the return of Christ, after the great tribulation, is Biblical and creates no dilemmas in scripture for the resurrection.

 

[Absolutely]

There is no real problem.

Without a doubt, I think we all believe Christ was the very first human to raise from the dead with a resurrection, flesh and bone body that can walk through walls and never die, hense: "firstfruits."

Do the dead in Christ "belong to Him?" They are in heaven WITH HIM - so of course they belong to Him.
Do those who are alive and "in Him" belong to Him? Of course they do. There, in this respect, ONE GROUP.
However, most of those raptured or caught up into the air will be the dead in Christ. That could be one subgroup; while those alive and in Him could be another subgroup. So what?

Why make a simple text into something difficult? There is one resurrection for the righteous, and one for the unrighteous. John has labeled the resurrection for the righteous as the chief or first of these two resurrections. OF COURSE Jesus was the firstfruits of this primary or chief resurrection, or else you must place Him in the "second death" one, which would be silly. John tells us there will be only two, and shows us who will be in each one. It is very simple.

Some people imagine by "first" resurrection that John is saying there will not be any resurrection before this one at the end of the 70th week. They have not studied the Greek behind first and found out the real meaning John intended is first in honor, not in any kind of timing position. You really should have known this.

Not only that there is no postrib "first resurrection".
Rev 20 is referring to the previous " first resurrection" years prior which is multi component and yet in entirety one resurrection. Or "first resurrection" , with Jesus being firstfruits of that same first resurrection.

Postribs are so sloppy in their doctrine in that they need a postrib resurrection. Rev 19 has the church already in heaven so the rapture HAD TO HAPPEN sometime before that...which consequently the dead HAD TO precede the living.

Now they try to make some nonexistent resurrection FOLLOWING rev 19????

Such a sloppy deal trying to defend the impossible.

Rev 14 has a gathering that they would be better off parking in.

( even though it aint the rapture)

And would cut their failure rate in half.

But still would be gross gross error.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Apparently you have not been paying attention.
2 Thess 2:1-3 clearly speaks of the rapture as post trib.
1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,

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.
3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

No, you're doing what most people tend to do when ascertaining "what" Paul is pointing to in his words in v.3a.

In v.3a (in the words "that day shall NOT be present, if not shall have..."), he's speaking there of the Subject (from v.2) that the false conveyors said "IS HERE / IS PRESENT" (<--that being [as they 'purported/alleged' is HERE], "the day of the Lord" earthly-located time-period of JUDGMENTs unfolding upon the earth--the thing Paul DIDN'T want the Thessalonians to be "deceived" into believing was true / accurate... because it WASN'T!)

Again, do not skip back OVER AND PAST v.2's Subject, when ascertaining what v.3a's "that day [will NOT be present, if not shall have...]" is speaking to... Because it was the false conveyors who were the ones saying (falsely) "that [it] IS HERE / IS PRESENT"... and this is the issue Paul is setting straight, in their minds (by means of the rest of the text).


IOW, you're connecting the WRONG DOTS (grammatically speaking).



____________

[for the readers] Post #716 - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4535782

[and]

[Post #724 supplemental] https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4535805

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Where Paul speaks, in v.1, of "our episynagoges UNTO HIM" (and that WHOLE verse 1), he is speaking of an event (at a particular point in time) where ONLY "OUR" eyeballs will SEE HIM ('at the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR')... we (the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY) will be the ONLY ONES in His "presence" THERE. NO ONE ELSE.

It's like this verse in the OT:

Numbers 10:4 ['trumpets' chpt]: "But if only one is sounded, then the leaders, the heads of the clans of Israel, are to gather UNTO YOU [/Moses]." (i.e. NO ONE ELSE is to be PRESENT THERE "UNTO YOU / HIM / MOSES"!!!)





Later (further down) in Paul's passage (context), here, he DOES speak of when Jesus will be "manifest" BEFORE *ALL* (ALL EYEBALLS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!) -- v.8b "... with the breath of His mouth and will annul by the appearing/manifestation of His coming/presence" (that is, IN THE SIGHT OF EVERYONE IN THE WORLD!!!--completely different and distinctly-worded from that of v.1's Subject! )

 

[Runningman]

No, you're doing what most people tend to do when ascertaining "what" Paul is pointing to in his words in v.3a.

In v.3a (in the words "that day shall NOT be present, if not shall have..."), he's speaking there of the Subject (from v.2) that the false conveyors said "IS HERE / IS PRESENT" (<--that being [as they 'purported/alleged' is HERE], "the day of the Lord" earthly-located time-period of JUDGMENTs unfolding upon the earth--the thing Paul DIDN'T want the Thessalonians to be "deceived" into believing was true / accurate... because it WASN'T!)

Again, do not skip back OVER AND PAST v.2's Subject, when ascertaining what v.3a's "that day [will NOT be present, if not shall have...]" is speaking to... Because it was the false conveyors who were the ones saying (falsely) "that [it] IS HERE / IS PRESENT"... and this is the issue Paul is setting straight, in their minds (by means of the rest of the text).


IOW, you're connecting the WRONG DOTS (grammatically speaking).



____________

[for the readers] Post #716 - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4535782

[and]

[Post #724 supplemental] https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4535805

The verses read entirely different than the way you're presenting them. I'll just stick with the word of God here.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

-Concerning the coming of Christ and our gathering to Him
1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

-The day of Christ (and our gathering to Him) has not come. Ipso facto - don't be troubled because you didn't miss the gathering.
2That 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.

-The day of Christ (and our gathering to Him) will not come except there is a falling away first and the man of sin revealed.
3Let 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;

It's a post-tribulational rapture by any sound standard. The Bible is very clear on this topic. It's only your failure to accept these simple truths as plainly revealed to you.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

First resurrection at the return of Christ:
1 Thessalonians 4:16
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

This word "first" is in relation to the "THEN" in THIS CONTEXT:


--[which is in relation to the] "THEN"... the live-ones of us [/'the Church which is His body'] will be "caught up TOGETHER [/AT THE SAME TIME] with them in the clouds, to the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR..." -1Th4:16-17;


--[but which is NOT in relation to] "but the REST of the dead lived not again UNTIL..." Rev20:5 [b/c of being a DISTINCT "CONTEXT," because Rev20:4b was speaking SOLELY and SPECIFICALLY about "certain saints who die in a certain time-period under certain, very specific circumstances which are not yet present in our world, but WILL be (2nd half trib yrs ONLY [a "future" 3.5yrs!])"--i.e. NOT *ALL* saints of *ALL* time-periods, per THAT "CONTEXT", see ]




Let us get the CONTEXTS straight in our minds... then we'll be able to see these items accurately!



["correctly apportioning the word of truth," as we are called to do! 2Ti2:15]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

-The day of Christ (and our gathering to Him) has not come. Ipso facto - don't be troubled because you didn't miss the gathering.

Nope.

NOT what the text informs us.

[INSTEAD] Don't be troubled because you [wrongly] believe something "IS HERE / IS PRESENT" (<--the thing that the FALSE CONVEYORS were SAYING WAS / IS HERE / IS PRESENT!! per v.2... i.e. an earthly time-period of JUDGMENTs unfolding upon the earth, aka "the day OF THE LORD").


NOT "... because you think you *missed* something" and didn't. NO! NOT what the TEXT INFORMS US!


(Rather, that something "IS HERE / IS PRESENT"... the thing the false conveyors SAID "IS HERE / IS PRESENT" v.2b)

 

[FreeGrace2]

Perhaps the Day of Christ will be His THIRD coming: when He comes to Armageddon.

Except there aren't 3 Advents. Just two.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Speaking of what is in scripture:
He came once, and was nailed to a cross.
He will come the second time but only to the air as shown in 1 Thes. 4 and in 1 Cor. 15.

You say "speaking of what is in Scripture", then you ASSUME/PRESUME/SPECULATE/GUESS that Jesus makes a huge U-turn back to heaven with the resurrected and changed believers. Why do you not take your own advise? There is NOTHING in Scripture about Jesus taking resurrected and raptured believers BACK UP to heaven.

Yes, I am quite sure! ;-)

I am sure you are confused.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not only that there is no postrib "first resurrection".
Rev 20 is referring to the previous " first resurrection" years prior which is multi component and yet in entirety one resurrection.

I would say you aren't reading Scripture well at all.

Rev 20-
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.

Those who can't see that this "first resurrection" is about trib martyrs who will rule with Christ for 1,000 years, simply can't read it right. The Millennium, obviously.

Or "first resurrection" , with Jesus being firstfruits of that same first resurrection.

Which is, according to Rev 20:5 is AFTER He returns at the Second Advent.

Postribs are so sloppy in their doctrine in that they need a postrib resurrection.

Nope. "Sloppy" applies to your reading skills concerning Rev 20.

Rev 19 has the church already in heaven so the rapture HAD TO HAPPEN sometime before that...which consequently the dead HAD TO precede the living.

No. It has ALL the dead saints from Adam on in heaven, including at least 2,000 years of NT believers up there. All waiting for the wedding. Just look at the wording and those who can read will see what IS COMING:

Rev 19-
7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.
These red words are describing something that is about to happen. Not something that DID happen in the past.

8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)
Yes, wedding clothes were provided by the father of the groom in Jesus' day.

9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

The red words clearly indicate what is about to occur. Which will be when Jesus comes to earth to include all the living believers.

Now they try to make some nonexistent resurrection FOLLOWING rev 19????

Rev 20 clearly identifies "the first resurrection" which occurs when Jesus comes to earth.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, you're doing what most people tend to do when ascertaining "what" Paul is pointing to in his words in v.3a.

In v.3a (in the words "that day shall NOT be present, if not shall have..."), he's speaking there of the Subject (from v.2) that the false conveyors said "IS HERE / IS PRESENT" (<--that being [as they 'purported/alleged' is HERE], "the day of the Lord" earthly-located time-period of JUDGMENTs unfolding upon the earth--the thing Paul DIDN'T want the Thessalonians to be "deceived" into believing was true / accurate... because it WASN'T!)

The words "that day" refers to the Second Advent, obviously. I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.

Again, do not skip back OVER AND PAST v.2's Subject, when ascertaining what v.3a's "that day [will NOT be present, if not shall have...]" is speaking to... Because it was the false conveyors who were the ones saying (falsely) "that [it] IS HERE / IS PRESENT"... and this is the issue Paul is setting straight, in their minds (by means of the rest of the text).

The verses are clear enough. I think you are the one having problems discerning what Paul was saying.

IOW, you're connecting the WRONG DOTS (grammatically speaking).

You are free to your own opinion.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Except there aren't 3 Advents. Just two.

context...

depends on who (and where) will His "presence / parousia / advent / arrival" is said to be, in any given context

(i.e. who it is scripture itself SAYS will be "in His presence" and the LOCATION... which y'all are continually wanting to CHANGE, or BLUR-TOGETHER completely distinct items)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The words "that day" refers to the Second Advent, obviously. I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.

No, in v.3a ('that day') is speaking of the FALSE IDEA that the false conveyors had been saying (in v.2)... "[purporting / alleging] that the day of the Lord IS HERE / IS PRESENT" (not "Jesus Himself"... not His Second Coming to the earth... not His Kingdom... not our Rapture... but a "TIME-PERIOD").

It wasn't.

And Paul tells WHY this is NOT SO.


(you're wanting to hold to the "Amill-teachings" incorrect definition of "the day of the Lord")


Verse 1's Subject (Paul's Subject) is DISTINCT FROM v.2's Subject (the false conveyors' Subject)




... and Paul is telling how these TWO *DISTINCT* items "fit" (in relation to each other) SEQUENTIALLY (3x in context)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Perhaps the Day of Christ will be His THIRD coming: when He comes to Armageddon.

Here's how I'm seeing that (and have made posts in the past on this point):

--"the day of Christ / -our Lord Jesus Christ / -our Lord Jesus" is when WE go UP-UP-UP (via "our Rapture"--so shall we ever be with [G4862 - UNIONed-with / IDENTIFIED-with] the Lord"... [distinct from "the day of the Lord"-earthly-located];

--"the day of Christ" is when WE (the Church which is HIS BODY) will experience [the rewards of] the BEMA of Christ

--notice Paul said he would be awarded a "stephanos/crown IN THAT DAY" 2Ti4:8 (and "not to [him] only"--i.e. this is not speaking of the "day" he DIES)

--notice the "24 elders" are wearing "stephanon/crowns" and are seated on "THRONES" (before the FIRST SEAL is opened in the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time-period [1:1/1:19c/4:1 "FUTURE" aspects], when that commences)... that this SETTING is in the CONTEXT of Rev5:4's words "WAS FOUND" which indicates that a "searching judgment" has ALREADY been concluded, just like that phrase/word ("[was] found [G2147]") is used re: Paul in the LATTER parts of Acts, when he was called before their "human [/earthly] bema [judgment]"

--notice the CONTEXTS of the phrase "the day of Christ / our Lord Jesus Christ / our Lord Jesus" (and how they are DISTINCTLY-described, from that of the phrase "the day of the Lord" which is ALWAYS "earthly-located" [<--THIS is what the false conveyors said "IS HERE / IS PRESENT" as having already arrived to unfold upon the earth;... Paul is saying "the man of sin" will also be present IN THAT EARTHLY TIME-PERIOD (its first phase, anyway [aka the TRIB yrs], till he becomes tossed out on his ear! )])

--more later, if I've forgotten something (I'm in a hurry to get somewhere! LOL)

 

[Truth7t7]

He will come the second time but only to the air as shown in 1 Thes. 4 and in 1 Cor. 15.

The main scripture used by supporters of the Pre-Trib Rapture teaching is 1 Thess 4:15-17 below, this is nothing more than the (Second Coming) (Last Day) resurrection, not a Pre-Trib rapture.

1. Is a resurrection of the believer seen in 1 Thess 4:15-17 below, 100% yes!

2. Does this resurrection take place on the (Last Day) as Jesus Christ taught below in John 6:39-40, 100% yes!

3. Is the (Last Day) the time of final judgement as Jesus Christ taught in John 12:48 below, 100% yes!

Many deny the truth of Gods words below, that are simple, clear, and very easy to understand.

(THE SECOND COMING, LAST DAY RESURRECTION)

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17KJV
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

(THE LAST DAY RESURRECTION)

John 6:39-40KJV
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

(THE LAST DAY JUDGEMENT)

John 12:48KJV
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[GaryA]

Perhaps the Day of Christ will be His THIRD coming: when He comes to Armageddon.

'Day of Christ' ==> Second Coming

Armageddon is part of the Second Coming.

 

[Truth7t7]

Thats sure a lot of working around other verses.

Force fitting weak dynamics.

Bad exegesis.

A True Sign Of "Defeat", Retreating To Personal Attacks