The Galilean wedding is the model for the pre-trib rapture

[Spiritual Israelite]

You need not apologize, I'm not bothered.

Based on past discussions, it seems that you are sometimes easily offended, so I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't mean any offense by what I said.

Personally I find your argument to be impossible considering the wording and grammar of the passage, but like I've been saying to Randy, it's not about our opinons. Just what the Scriptures say.

I see no reason to trust you as an expert on the wording and grammar of the passage.

Personally I think you may benefit tremendously from some study of Koine Greek grammar. It's not all exactly the same as English grammar. Kione Greek is a much more precise language than is English, one of the reasons I love that God choose that language for the New Testament.

How would you know whether or not I have done that? Are you claiming to be a Koine Greek expert?

Yes, I realize the English translation, and how you see that.

View attachment 46498
"is present" is how this interlinear translates the word. Young's Literal Translation put this as, "as though the Day of Christ hath arrived." JP Green translated as "as if the day of Christ has come."

The word is "has in stood", in the perfect tense, which means having begun, it remains. "As though the day of Christ is here and remains here." This is what Paul wrote.

That is your opinion no matter how much you try to act as if it's a fact. The fact of the matter is that the Greek word "enistēmi" can mean "is present" and can also mean "close at hand".



As you can see, different Greek resources don't all agree on what the word means in 2 Thess 2, just as we don't agree on that. This indicates that it's being used in the sense of being near. Something impending. Can you acknowledge that the word has more than one definition? It's not as if those who understand Greek never disagree on anything in scripture. Just as is the case in English, most Greek words have multiple definitions and determining which definition should be used depends on the context of a given verse.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say Paul was talking about them hearing or reading from someone that the day of the Lord was already present. My arguments would still stand. What they would be confused about is how that could be the case when Paul taught them it wouldn't occur until the falling away and revealing of the man of sin happened first. We agree on that point. What we disagree on is that "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our being gathered to Him" happen at the same time. And we disagree that Paul's reference to "the day of Christ" or "day of the Lord" was just another way of referring to the day that Christ comes and we are gathered to Him.

Isn't that what we are doing?

You weren't talking about what he taught them by saying that he taught them that they would be gathered before the day of the Lord. You can't point to any scripture where he taught them that. So, I'm saying to stick to what he actually taught them as can be found in scripture.

Perhaps I'm not "missing" anything, perhaps I have a different view? Perhaps I could say "what you are missing"? Does that further the discussion or detract from it?

This is why I said "I'm sorry, but...." before. It seems that you are sometimes easily offended. Surely, I am not intending to offend. Can you just give me the benefit of the doubt on that? When I say you're missing something I'm obviously saying that it is my opinion that you're missing something. And, it's obviously your opinion that I'm missing something. Nothing to be offended about.

2 Thessalonians 1:4-10 KJV
4) So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
5) Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
6) Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7) And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9) Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10) When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Where exactly do you see the rapture spoken of in this passage? Can you point to the particular words to help me understand what you are seeing?

Is it that He is not "glorified in his saints" unless we are being raptured at that time? Or do you have something else in mind?

Yes, it seems clear to me that when the rapture occurs and his saints are gathered to Him, He will then "be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe". I believe if it wasn't for doctrinal bias, you would see it that way, too. In my opinion, to be clear. Not trying to offend. Just being honest as to how I see it.

Colossians 3:4 KJV
When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

When He appears, we appear with Him. Doesn't that suggest we are with Him when He appears?

Of course we will be. We will be caught up to meet Him when He appears and we will appear with Him in glory at at that point. This does not support the pre-trib rapture view in any way, shape or form. In my view what that is saying is that He will appear and then right after that we will be caught up to Him and appear with Him in glory.

Like, when you see me, you'll see my watch fob? Because I have it with me.

This is a bad analogy, in my opinion. You are assuming that we are already with Him before He appears, but Colossians 3:4 does not say that. It says we will appear with Him when He shall appear, but says nothing about us being with Him before that. That is only an assumption on your part. We will be with Him after we are caught up to meet Him when He appears.


Edit: Just to be clear for anyone reading this, note that I'm only talking in this post about being with Jesus BODILY. I do believe the souls of believers are with Him in heaven even now. But, the context of what is being discussed here is being with Jesus bodily.

 

[RedFan]

Matthew 24:36
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only..../KJV

And you want historical evidence for this truth?

Absolutely not what I asked for! I wanted historical evidence for this:

1. Neither the bride nor groom knew the exact day when the wedding would take place. No one knew except the groom’s father. It was left up to him alone to decide the exact day of the wedding.

@Jericho is supporting his thesis by drawing an analogy between Matt. 24:36 and what he claims was a marriage custom of that era. I want to see the evidence for such a custom. I want to see even a single historical reference to a Galilean father of a groom deciding on the date of his son's wedding and keeping it close to the vest so nobody knows the date! Because I'm about one inch away from accusing him of gerrymandering his facts to support his thesis -- but wanted to give him a chance to support it first.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.

I can't help you there.

Odd that you would dismss 2TH 2:7 and the identity of the "Restrainer" when it certaintly is releveant to that discussion.

If you can't understand the verses I gave you from 2 Thes 2, how do you expect to discuss the Restrainer?

I agree that he's relevant to the conversation, but not directly to the point. In the Early Church it was recognized from Dan 2 and 7 that the Antichrist could not come until the 4th Kingdom had reigned in unity for awhile, eventually dividing into 10 kings. And so, they viewed the Roman Empire as the Restrainer of the coming and appearance of Antichrist.

So hopefully you can see why the Restrainer is not relevant if viewed in this way? In modern times, and perhaps much earlier, some have viewed the Restrainer as the Holy Spirit, holding back the appearance of Antichrist. But there is no basis for this interpretation from the book of Daniel, where the prophecy of Antichrist originates.

Regardless, when Jesus established the Church, He said, "The gates of Hades (Hell) shall not prevail against it" (Mat 16:18). If the Anti-Christ overcame the Church, it would contradict the words of Jesus, and that is not possible.

Actually, Jesus is the source of the book of Revelation. And in that revelation, we are told that the Beast is given to overcome the saints. So you're not correct in this. You may be correct that the Gates of Hell will not prevail, which has to do with Death. We will overcome Death via resurrection. But certainly Satan was able to have Christ crucified. And Jesus said we are not greater than our Master. If wicked men persecuted him, they will persecute us, his disciples, also.

 

[marks]

it seems that you are sometimes easily offended,

Um, no offense, but this is what wastes time. Completely useless on your part.

You might say that I have a penchant for pointing out when others speak inappropriately. No need to confuse that with some supposed emotionalism, no need to project what you imagine.

All I ask is you stick to the topic, and I'm not the topic.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

No,you made an argument that is accusatory against those who inject Scriptural evidence you refuse to consider.

False. I consider anything and everything you wish to discuss. What I don't care for is discarding the arguments to bicker over who offended who.

Claiming information you don't concur with is propaganda and idolatry, is an appeal to emotion and is a personal attack upon those you're responding to using such language.

Yes, it's an "attack" of sorts--one that demands a response. And so, my aggressive position is that you're presenting information to be accepted on your word alone, instead of on the authority of Scriptures. You've completely ignored the Scriptures that say Christ's Coming for his Church *cannot take place* unless the Antichrist comes 1st. It also indicates that when Christ comes for his Church, it will be at the time that he comes to destroy Antichrist "with the breath of his mouth."

You completely ignore this, and instead choose to argue about emotional issues. Let's stay on track please?

The Scriptures do not require you to agree with them,nor approve their message, for those Scriptures to be valid.

There is evidence of a pre tribulation rapture in God's words.
If you knew what the Great Tribulation entails,you would realize why God's Elect would not suffer so.

There is zero evidence of a Pretrib Rapture that is *explicit,* which has been my point all along. I've not said there is no evidence at all for it--just that the evidence is insubstantial. It lacks explicit doctrinal statements to that effect.

You don't seem to know what the Great Tribulation entails yourself, so why do you wish to berate my understanding of the same? I've studied this for years and years. Technically, the Great Tribulation, as Jesus defined it in the Olivet Discourse, referred to the Jewish Diaspora, beginning in his generation. During that time Jewish believers suffered abuse and a loss of homeland along with their unbelieving brethren.

But the term did not apply to the Reign of Antichrist as Christians want to apply it today. That is not what Jesus said in Luke 21!

But you don't seem to know this, and wish to lecture me on how to understand it? Or perhaps you think you have some esoteric understanding of how grave the Reign of Antichrist will be such that God would never let Christians suffer such a level of abuse?

However, the entire story of the Revelation is that the saints suffer beheading by the Antichrist. Why then would you say God wouldn't allow Christians to suffer during this period? You don't seem to know your subject well at all!

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's all about values, and choice. I value personal bounderies, and not being accusatory, so I choose to post accordingly. If you truly want to polish things up a bit, this is what you will do.

I value addressing the argument, and not the person, and so I try to lead a discussion back to the topic when it gets personal, and therefore, the posts I've written to you.

Being "feelings led" can be problematic. Value driven is what I strive for, personally. We should be in control of our feelings, not the other way around.

I appreciate your desire to do well!

Much love!

I always wish to do well. But my points still stand. I offered a biblical evidence for Paul teaching explicitly that Christ cannot come for his Church until after the revelation of Antichrist and actually only at the destruction of Antichrist. Your claim that this evidence is non-explicit is flat out wrong! And you have yet to clean that up.

 

[BlessedPeace]

False. I consider anything and everything you wish to discuss. What I don't care for is discarding the arguments to bicker over who offended who.

Not true. The bickering excuse is just that.

Yes, it's an "attack" of sorts--one that demands a response. And so, my aggressive position is that you're presenting information to be accepted on your word alone, instead of on the authority of Scriptures. You've completely ignored the Scriptures that say Christ's Coming for his Church *cannot take place* unless the Antichrist comes 1st. It also indicates that when Christ comes for his Church, it will be at the time that he comes to destroy Antichrist "with the breath of his mouth."

You completely ignore this, and instead choose to argue about emotional issues. Let's stay on track please?

We are on track. If you want only responses that concur with your opinion you should never join a forum.


Write a journal instead.

There is zero evidence of a Pretrib Rapture that is *explicit,* which has been my point all along. I've not said there is no evidence at all for it--just that the evidence is insubstantial. It lacks explicit doctrinal statements to that effect.

You don't seem to know what the Great Tribulation entails yourself, so why do you wish to berate my understanding of the same? I've studied this for years and years. Technically, the Great Tribulation, as Jesus defined it in the Olivet Discourse, referred to the Jewish Diaspora, beginning in his generation. During that time Jewish believers suffered abuse and a loss of homeland along with their unbelieving brethren.

Believe as you wish .

But the term did not apply to the Reign of Antichrist as Christians want to apply it today. That is not what Jesus said in Luke 21!

But you don't seem to know this, and wish to lecture me on how to understand it? Or perhaps you think you have some esoteric understanding of how grave the Reign of Antichrist will be such that God would never let Christians suffer such a level of abuse?

However, the entire story of the Revelation is that the saints suffer beheading by the Antichrist. Why then would you say God wouldn't allow Christians to suffer during this period? You don't seem to know your subject well at all!

I know enough not to continue to discuss a topic with a steadfast intractable errant individuals opinion.

You invite us to discuss a topic you know little about because you are set in your view. That's not how debates or education works.


This is not a thread inviting dialog. It is one that allows you a stage for your errant intractable monologue.

Evidence exists and is offered.

You refuse to see this. This does not, cannot , prove there to be no evidence to the contrary of your view.


Believe what you wish.

 

[marks]

I see no reason to trust you as an expert on the wording and grammar of the passage.

This is why I suggested you learn these things for yourself.

How would you know whether or not I have done that?

Based on what you've written, defending a translation/interpretation that does not agree with the grammar of the Greek. I'd be very surprised if you said the same thing if you knew the grammar of the passage.

Are you claiming to be a Koine Greek expert?

No I am not. But I have some education in Biblical Greek, and many years of working with it.

That is your opinion no matter how much you try to act as if it's a fact. The fact of the matter is that the Greek word "enistēmi" can mean "is present" and can also mean "close at hand".

Close at hand in the perfect tense? This is where we need context and syntax. Close at hand in the perfect tense means it never comes, always remains "close at hand". My suggestion is to review every place the word appears in the New Testament, paying particular attention to where it may appear in that syntax, to see the meaning. I find this seems to work very well towards understanding how the Bible uses it's words. I think the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say Paul was talking about them hearing or reading from someone that the day of the Lord was already present. My arguments would still stand.

You weren't talking about what he taught them by saying that he taught them that they would be gathered before the day of the Lord. You can't point to any scripture where he taught them that. So, I'm saying to stick to what he actually taught them as can be found in scripture.

No, we're talking about the timing. Anyway, I think we're getting to dead horse territory on this particular point.

It seems that you are sometimes easily offended.

I have no idea how you are seeing "offended" in what I wrote.

I believe if it wasn't for doctrinal bias, you would see it that way, too. In my opinion, to be clear. Not trying to offend. Just being honest as to how I see it.

Believe me, I get it, you are merely expressing your opinion. Your opinion is that I'm biased and therefore not an honest student of the Bible. And since I'm replying on point, you'll likely again post that your opinion is that I'm getting bent out of shape. Thank you for sharing your poor opinion of me. And even though I'm calling your opinion of me to be "poor", no need to assume I'm getting teary eyed or something.

Personally, I don't see how broadcasting one's poor opinions of someone helps the discussion.

If you think I'm misunderstanding a passage, show me the correct understanding. If you things I'm missing a Scripture, just post the Scripture. Do the things that further the discussion.

I already know you don't really have good sense of who I am, what I'm about. Because I do actually have some self-awareness about me. Maybe the strongest feeling in my at the moment is sadness that we can't seem to rise above sharing our poor opinions of others as if that were an argument in the debate.

And, it's obviously your opinion that I'm missing something.

I don't really think in those terms. I just try to share information primarily. I'm not trying to diagnose you, only to understand what you are expressing, and to express something to you that I hope brings something good with it. A new learning, a new way of looking at things. We are all growing, learning, there is no shame in that. But it's not for me to tell you about you. I'm much more interested in the Bible. No offense!

This does not support the pre-trib rapture view in any way, shape or form.

I agree, this does not support pretrib, but it does harmonize with it.

In my view what that is saying is that He will appear and then right after that we will be caught up to Him and appear with Him in glory.

In the passage our appearing with Him is linked to His appearing.

Where it says we will appear with Him, the Greek word "sun" is used, which means we are doing this together. Where Paul wrote, I've been crucified with Christ, the same word is used, to say we are co-crucified. We were on the cross together with Christ. Here we will appear with Him, together with Him. There is no "right after that" allowable in the text. It happens together.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Your claim that this evidence is non-explicit is flat out wrong!

Perhaps we have differing definitions of explicit. The rapture will be after the Great Tribulation. That is an example of an explicit statement as I see it.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

To me this is very straighforward. Very plain, the way Paul wrote it.

Unless you have determined that "the day of Christ", or "the day of the Lord" = the rapture, there's no other way to see it. And if you make the "day of Christ" to be the rapture, the passage doesn't made sense.

It can not make any other sense to me, since this is precisely what we are told. Paul defined Christ's Coming as being to "assemble the Church."

2 Thes 2.1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him....

How can you *not* see this coming of the Lord as being the Rapture of the Church??

Let's put it to the test:

(the following is re-worded to show the implications:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-5 KJV
1) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
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 "gathering to our Lord" is at hand.
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;
4) 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.
5) Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Why would they be troubled?

As I told you earlier, Jesus warned his disciples that false believers would rise up to pretend to be establishing the Christian Kingdom, supporting this with false prophecy. Paul ran into that in his own ministry, with false apostles proclaiming their own movements as being of God when they were not.

These were cults, and Satan used them to trouble Christians into thinking they were missing something. I've seen them in my own life and experience. I've had friends get into the latest spiritual fad, the Walk, the Way, etc. etc. These cults left traditional Christianity to be an elite cult group supposedly leading the way to the Promised Land. But they were just a big ego trip.

This is what troubled the believers of Paul's time. They were used to spiritual phenomena, and this spiritual phenomena had claims to the same, which regular believers had not experienced. They were tempted to think this was something more from God when it was just the "flesh." It was pretend Christianity attempting to mimic the supernatural power of God. They were Egyptian magicians trying to copy the miracles of Moses. We should not be troubled!

Christ said that the true sign of his Coming would not be some earthly cultic movement, but rather, his descent from the clouds. We would be caught up at the moment of his Coming so that we share in his glory and Kingdom.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Perhaps we have differing definitions of explicit. The rapture will be after the Great Tribulation. That is an example of an explicit statement as I see it.

Much love!

Here is explicit Postrib Doctrine. If there was an explicit Pretrib Doctrine, as well, perhaps we could fit it in in front of a Postrib Coming. But we don't have that.

Dan 7.11 I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. ...13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven....14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Luk 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled... 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

2 Thes 2.1 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...8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

If you honestly ask yourself what these 3 passages are teaching, you will have to admit that they are teaching the same truths, that Christ is coming to deliver the saints after the Jewish tribulation of the present age and after the reign of Antichrist. Jesus is coming specifically to destroy Antichrist and in that way save the Church.

2 Thes 1.6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

This is all spelled out in the most explicit way, meaning that it is not the product of logical thinking and "fitting things together," but rather, straight forward doctrine that we should believe and trust in.

 

[RedFan]

Regardless, when Jesus established the Church, He said, "The gates of Hades (Hell) shall not prevail against it" (Mat 16:18). If the Anti-Christ overcame the Church, it would contradict the words of Jesus, and that is not possible.

You've got it backwards. Gates are defensive barricades, not offensive weapons. Saying "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against the Church means they will not withstand the Church's attack. This has nothing to do with the Anti-Christ overcoming the Church. (No doubt the Anti-Christ will never overcome the Church -- but Matt. 16:18 is just not a proof text for that.)

 

[marks]

2 Thes 2.1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him....

How can you *not* see this coming of the Lord as being the Rapture of the Church??

He gives two topics here, conjoined with kai, which is either copulative (two different things, "the bat and the ball") or explicative (one is the same as the other, "the boat, even the catamaran", the second term explains the first). You read it as explicative, and I read it as copulative.

Either is a valid translation of that word.

As I told you earlier, Jesus warned his disciples that false believers would rise up to pretend to be establishing the Christian Kingdom, supporting this with false prophecy. Paul ran into that in his own ministry, with false apostles proclaiming their own movements as being of God when they were not.

These were cults, and Satan used them to trouble Christians into thinking they were missing something. I've seen them in my own life and experience. I've had friends get into the latest spiritual fad, the Walk, the Way, etc. etc. These cults left traditional Christianity to be an elite cult group supposedly leading the way to the Promised Land. But they were just a big ego trip.

This is what troubled the believers of Paul's time. They were used to spiritual phenomena, and this spiritual phenomena had claims to the same, which regular believers had not experienced. They were tempted to think this was something more from God when it was just the "flesh." It was pretend Christianity attempting to mimic the supernatural power of God. They were Egyptian magicians trying to copy the miracles of Moses. We should not be troubled!

Christ said that the true sign of his Coming would not be some earthly cultic movement, but rather, his descent from the clouds. We would be caught up at the moment of his Coming so that we share in his glory and Kingdom.

I think it's a lot simpler than this, and that the terms of what he's talking about are all there in these particular letters to this church. They were in the midst of persecution, and someone was telling them this was the day of the Lord, that is, you've missed the rapture, and now you're in it.

I don't see anyone trying to mimic spiritual power to draw them off into a cult, where again is he saying that? I don't see that in these verses.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not true. The bickering excuse is just that.

We are on track. If you want only responses that concur with your opinion you should never join a forum.


Write a journal instead.


Believe as you wish .

I know enough not to continue to discuss a topic with a steadfast intractable errant individuals opinion.

You invite us to discuss a topic you know little about because you are set in your view. That's not how debates or education works.


This is not a thread inviting dialog. It is one that allows you a stage for your errant intractable monologue.

Evidence exists and is offered.

You refuse to see this. This does not, cannot , prove there to be no evidence to the contrary of your view.


Believe what you wish.

You've completely lost the debate. Indeed you cannot debate because you don't seem to understand what it is.

I'll tell you, though, what it is not. It is not just posting a bunch of Scripture references expecting others to read into them what you wish them to see. It is not claiming others don't know what the Great Tribulation is when you don't seem to know what it is yourself. And it is not claiming other views are presented as "intractable" when your own views appear equally "intractable." ;)

 

[marks]

2 Thes 1.6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Let's take this one. Would you quote this passage, and bold or underline or something the words which to you mean "rapture"? That would be a useful starting point for me.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

He gives two topics here, conjoined with kai, which is either copulative (two different things, "the bat and the ball") or explicative (one is the same as the other, "the boat, even the catamaran", the second term explains the first). You read it as explicative, and I read it as copulative.

Either is a valid translation of that word.

True that is. I do view Paul stating that Christ's Coming is for the purpose of assembling the Church. And you view Christ's Coming as being for what purpose?

The "kai" could represent different truths it is true. However, this cannot be unless the context warrants it.

And if there is no basis for a Pretrib Rapture inserted into the general Postrib theology, then it is unnatural to force something that doesn't exist into the passage. Structurally, your approach is possible. But it is highly unlikely unless there is a source for inserting a separation between the Coming of Christ and the assembling of the Church.

I think it's a lot simpler than this, and that the terms of what he's talking about are all there in these particular letters to this church. They were in the midst of persecution, and someone was telling them this was the day of the Lord, that is, you've missed the rapture, and now you're in it.

This is what I mean by stating things that are not explicitly taught in Scriptures. "Missed the Rapture?" That's what they thought.? Are we told that specifically, that that's what they thought?

No. It has to be logically deduced as such. And the trouble with that for me is that there is no Scriptural doctrine substantiating that. In other words--I need doctrinal statements!

What we do know for certain is that Christ is coming back for the purpose of assembling the Church. And we do know that he is coming back to rescue the saints from the Antichrist.

Furthermore, we know that the resurrection of the saints precedes the Rapture of the Church. And if the Resurrection takes place at the 2nd Coming *after* the destruction of Antichrist, then the Rapture of the Church must also be after the reign of Antichrist. Again, this is explicit biblical doctrine, as given in the book of Revelation. And we are warned not to tamper with its words!

I don't see anyone trying to mimic spiritual power to draw them off into a cult, where again is he saying that? I don't see that in these verses.

Much love!

Those are my experiences of what Jesus talked about in the Olivet Discourse--the appearance of false Christs and false prophets. And the story of the Egyptian magicians is in Exodus.

2 Cor 11.13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.

2 Thes 2.9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Um, no offense, but this is what wastes time. Completely useless on your part.

You might say that I have a penchant for pointing out when others speak inappropriately. No need to confuse that with some supposed emotionalism, no need to project what you imagine.

All I ask is you stick to the topic, and I'm not the topic.

Much love!

Ugh. I try to explain what I mean and tell you that I'm not trying to offend and you still get offended. Come on, man. I guess you are rejecting my request for you to give me the benefit of the doubt? Why do I have to walk on eggshells with you? That's not fair to me. You can't take my word for it that I'm not trying to offend you? You can't give me any leeway here? There's no need to nitpick everything I say like this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Based on what you've written, defending a translation/interpretation that does not agree with the grammar of the Greek. I'd be very surprised if you said the same thing if you knew the grammar of the passage.

What reason do I have to take comments like this seriously when I know that you are not a Greek expert? I showed how my Greek resource did not agree with yours. So, maybe we should try not to rely on those too much? I think so. They can be helpful, but don't put your full trust in them.

No I am not. But I have some education in Biblical Greek, and many years of working with it.

So, you are not an expert. But you act like one. You should not do that. Beyond that, even Greek experts don't all agree on these things, so learning Greek does not guarantee an accurate understanding of what we're talking about here. Spiritual discernment is always necessary when it comes to things like this (1 Corinthians 2:9-16).

Close at hand in the perfect tense? This is where we need context and syntax. Close at hand in the perfect tense means it never comes, always remains "close at hand". My suggestion is to review every place the word appears in the New Testament, paying particular attention to where it may appear in that syntax, to see the meaning. I find this seems to work very well towards understanding how the Bible uses it's words. I think the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself.

I do exactly that often using blueletterbible.org as a resource. Many words in the Bible are not always used in the same context, so seeing how a word is used elsewhere can be helpful, but does not necessarily mean it has to be used that way in the verse you are looking at. In the case of the word translated as "at hand" in 2 Thess 2:2, it is used to refer to the present time in a few other verses, but to refer to a coming time in this verse:

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.(enistēmi Strong's G1764).

No, we're talking about the timing. Anyway, I think we're getting to dead horse territory on this particular point.

That's for sure. Here's something we can agree on.

I have no idea how you are seeing "offended" in what I wrote.

I can't see what it is that you were referring to here since the post you responded to is now on a previous page, but let's just stop wasting time worrying so much about what words we are using here. You can either take my word for it that I'm not trying to offend you (without being able to guarantee that I never will) or not. If you think I'm trying to do so purposely, then if I was you I wouldn't talk to me anymore. Simple solution. But, if you believe me that I'm not trying to offend you then maybe you can just extend some grace towards me and not point out every time I don't say something in the way you would prefer.

Believe me, I get it, you are merely expressing your opinion. Your opinion is that I'm biased and therefore not an honest student of the Bible.

Nope. A person can be biased without even realizing it. That's how I'm thinking of it here. Nothing to do with you being purposely dishonest. It's clear to me, that despite my request, you have chosen to not give me the benefit of the doubt and have chosen to believe that I'm purposely trying to offend you and make things personal. It's just not the case.

I already know you don't really have good sense of who I am, what I'm about. Because I do actually have some self-awareness about me. Maybe the strongest feeling in my at the moment is sadness that we can't seem to rise above sharing our poor opinions of others as if that were an argument in the debate.

Can we rise above being nitpicky about the words we choose to use and give each other some grace and the benefit of the doubt and not assume that the other is trying to make things personal?

I don't really think in those terms. I just try to share information primarily. I'm not trying to diagnose you, only to understand what you are expressing, and to express something to you that I hope brings something good with it. A new learning, a new way of looking at things. We are all growing, learning, there is no shame in that. But it's not for me to tell you about you. I'm much more interested in the Bible. No offense!

I am more interested in that, too. But, you don't seem to agree. I can't help that.

I agree, this does not support pretrib, but it does harmonize with it.

It harmonizes with post-trib as well, as I explained. It all depends on how you look at it.

In the passage our appearing with Him is linked to His appearing.

Yes, it is. That does not indicate one way or another WHEN we appear with Him. It does not indicate whether we are with Him bodily even before He appears and then when He appears or if we appear with Him bodily after He first appears, which is how I see it. He will appear and then we will be changed bodily and be caught up to Him and appear with Him. There's no reason why the verse can't be understood that way.

Where it says we will appear with Him, the Greek word "sun" is used, which means we are doing this together. Where Paul wrote, I've been crucified with Christ, the same word is used, to say we are co-crucified. We were on the cross together with Christ. Here we will appear with Him, together with Him. There is no "right after that" allowable in the text. It happens together.

Judging by what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 in regards to us being changed in the twinkling of an eye it will seem as if we appear with Him at the same time "in the air" because it will all happen very quickly. So, I disagree with your argument here that it can only support your view.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Let's take this one. Would you quote this passage, and bold or underline or something the words which to you mean "rapture"? That would be a useful starting point for me.

2 Thes 1.6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Yes, the phrase "the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven" is taken directly from Dan 7 where the Son of Man is revealed from the clouds. And the context for this is the deliverance of the saints from the Antichrist, the "Little Horn."

Dan 7.8 “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully... 11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire... 13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven... 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom."

This deliverance of the holy people from the Little Horn is the Rapture of the Church.

2 Thes 1.This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.

This passage, "he comes to be glorified in his holy people," is a reference to the Rapture of the Church. We are "glorified" when Christ catches us up to give us new glorified bodies. This teaching is not in a few isolated passages but exists in the background throughout the NT Scriptures and doctrines. It is very much explicitly taught.

I do appreciate the friendly approach to discussing the subject. In reality, I almost *never* get this!

Matt 24.30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

Please note how all of these references are linked by the picture of the Son of Man coming from heaven, or with the clouds. In the context of Dan 7, Christ comes to establish his Kingdom on earth and to glorify his saints, delivering them from the Antichrist.

There is absolutely no place for a Pretrib Rapture. That has to be read into the text. That's why I say we must go by what is explicitly taught, rather than try to "fit in" the doctrine we were taught.

 

[MA2444]

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church exerted control over the production and dissemination of the Bible. Only the upper clergy and educated elite were allowed to read the Scriptures, as it was believed only they could understand and explain the teachings to the common people.

It's that way now too or at least they're trying. But that isn't scriptureal either. Scripture tells us to be like the Bereans and study it for ourselves to show ourselves approved, (Ding!)

Dan 12:9 And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Daniel and his generation would not have understood how one man could control the entire world, but because of modern technology, we do. Time itself is a revealing factor. We gain knowledge and understanding in proportion to the resources and education available to us. That makes us capable of understanding certain things that not even the Biblical prophets could have understood. It only makes sense then that as we get closer to the end of this age, the more God reveals to us about the rapture and end times.

Yep. And now knowledge has been increased. I'm watching a grand division takng place before my eyes. Many Believers are waking up (and non-Believers) to the truth and many others are going absolutely insane at the same time. It's spooky. But you may be right it is an escatalogical thing I think. I notice that persons escatology pretty much is how they understand the Bible. Some see it as more literal and some see is it as more symbolic in nature. So they fall into two camps is my understanding. AMils and PreMils. I am PreMil and every time I had trouble understanding a passage and proved myselfwrong about it, it was because I wasnt reading it literally enough. True story. So I wonder if I am correct and the AMils have an allegorical escatalogical view? I *think* this is true.

Either way there is a division taking place. I think it says in scritpure that it will be so in the end times also. (I come not to bring peace but a sword, which we know from Ephesians 6 is the Word of God!

Absolutely not what I asked for! I wanted historical evidence for this:


@Jericho is supporting his thesis by drawing an analogy between Matt. 24:36 and what he claims was a marriage custom of that era. I want to see the evidence for such a custom. I want to see even a single historical reference to a Galilean father of a groom deciding on the date of his son's wedding and keeping it close to the vest so nobody knows the date! Because I'm about one inch away from accusing him of gerrymandering his facts to support his thesis -- but wanted to give him a chance to support it first.

From what I learned about the wedding customs is that the Father of the Bride and the Father of the Groom would both get together and arrange it all and cut the deal for the dowry or whatever or the payment price for the Daughter and that the Father of the groom provided the land or whatever was needed for the Groom to prepare a place for her. And that the Father tells the son at some point, go get your bride. As if the preperations are done or he can touch up whats left to be done? Go get her. So that falls in line with what Jerico was saying. I know that us westerners do it differently than they did but that's how it was. The Father says go at his personal timing. I dont have chaper and verse notes about that teaching or any refrences to give you about it, not everything made it into my notes, lol. But that is essentially the way that I understodd it to be. Yes, the Father makes that decision, the Father of the groom.