The Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

[rollinTHUNDER]

I don't see any place in the scriptures where the good are "taken away".

The wicked are taken away, and the meek inherit the land.

In Matthew 24, when Christ sends the angels to gather His elect, where one man in the field is taken, and one woman working in the mill is taken, do you suppose these are wicked? If so, why is He warning that we must be ready?

Christ sheds more light on this in the next parable. The five wise virgins that were ready are taken by the Bridegroom, do you also suppose that they are wicked as well?

rT , I don't understand how you are getting that the ones taken are the elect. In Noah's day the wicked were taken & taken by surprise as seen in Matt 24:38,39.~For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating & drinking, marrying & giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Noah wasn't the one that "knew not" what was coming. The verse says that it will be the same at the end; so since the wicked were taken in Noah's day, the wicked will also be taken at the end. Noah was warned before the judgement & we have been too.

Hi Deb,

No doubt, this is a very complex mystery and Christ intended it to be that way on purpose. It's important to understand that right after He mentioned sending the angels to gather His elect, He gave a series of parables to serve as clues. These are not just cute little stories. Parables are not intended to be taken literally either, although some parts of them may happen literally. They were given to give us understanding of something He said previously, as they contain very important and well hidden clues. I'm not going to go too far into this here, but I believe you'll see what I mean when my book comes out, which is now in the final stages of production.

I think you are reading more into the parable of the virgins than is actually there. It does not say that the bridegroom takes them anywhere. They go out to meet Him & enter in to the marriage. The door is also shut at that time. If the foolish virgins have been left behind (as a result of a 'taking') , how do they have access to this door that they cannot enter? They come & cry to the Lord to 'open to them' & He answers that He does not know them.

More of the same here. I believe the gathering of the elect is so confusing and controversial because the parables that Christ used has caused a great stumbling block to scholars, yet they hold secrets about the kingdom of heaven that have been hidden since the foundation of the world. Have you ever noticed that when teachers teach about the rapture or second coming in Matthew 24, they all of a sudden get stopped dead in their tracks when they reach the parables, especially in chapter 25? Why is that?

It seems funny that many scholars claim He was talking about the rapture, as many others say it is the second coming. Who is right and how do we reach the truth? They each give their own version of why they believe this or that, but none of them can prove their claims.

Actually, Jesus mentioned both, the rapture and the second coming when He gave His answer, yet scholars are still arguing over this to this day. In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Him a question pertaining to, when will these things be, and what shall be the sign of your coming and the end of the world or age? Have you ever noticed that Christ began answering that question in verse (4), but He did not stop at the end of chapter 24, which is where all of our scholars stop. No, He continues His answer all the way through chapter 25, through all of the parables and He doesn't finish answering this question until verse (1) in chapter 26, which even states that He had, in fact, finished His answer.

Anyone can interpret a parable, but not everyone interprets them correctly. But it gets even more difficult, because to understand the answer He gave, you have to interpret (all of them) correctly, and when you do this, all of these parables are compatable with each other and the flow like a river. On the other hand, if you get something wrong, the parables appear unrelated, and not only that, but they also won't match what you believe about the gathering of His elect.

There's quite a bit to this, so I'm only going to go so far here. But I believe I will be the first to go all the way through these parables and have my interpretation agree with my beliefs about the gathering of His elect. He has given me the keys to unlock the hidden meanings in the parables. I know that may sound daring and even very bold, but I'm prepared to let my book prove this. I believe this is why the Lord told me I was going to write, in the summer of 1989. I also believe the message He has given me, is for the final generation that will witness His coming. But be patient, it still has a little ways to go yet.

Cheers

[Guest borderline]

The King James Version

Selected Text Strong's Greek #646 ...come, except there come a falling away first, and that man ... 646 apostasia { ap-os-tas-ee’-ah} feminine of the same as 647; TDNT - 1:513,88; n f AV - to forsake + 575 1, falling away 1; 2 GK - 686 { ἀποστασία } 1) a falling away, defection, apostasy

How can the going UP to meet Christ in the clouds have anything to do with falling away?

The reason why some people associate this 'falling away' with the rapture is because pre-tribulationist teach that the word 'falling away' or apostasy means to depart. The more accurate meaning of the word is 'to forsake' as in Acts 21:21.

[archmichael]

I don't see any place in the scriptures where the good are "taken away".

The wicked are taken away, and the meek inherit the land.

In Matthew 24, when Christ sends the angels to gather His elect, where one man in the field is taken, and one woman working in the mill is taken, do you suppose these are wicked? If so, why is He warning that we must be ready?

Christ sheds more light on this in the next parable. The five wise virgins that were ready are taken by the Bridegroom, do you also suppose that they are wicked as well?

rT , I don't understand how you are getting that the ones taken are the elect. In Noah's day the wicked were taken & taken by surprise as seen in Matt 24:38,39.~For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating & drinking, marrying & giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Noah wasn't the one that "knew not" what was coming. The verse says that it will be the same at the end; so since the wicked were taken in Noah's day, the wicked will also be taken at the end. Noah was warned before the judgement & we have been too.

Hi Deb,

No doubt, this is a very complex mystery and Christ intended it to be that way on purpose. It's important to understand that right after He mentioned sending the angels to gather His elect, He gave a series of parables to serve as clues. These are not just cute little stories. Parables are not intended to be taken literally either, although some parts of them may happen literally. They were given to give us understanding of something He said previously, as they contain very important and well hidden clues. I'm not going to go too far into this here, but I believe you'll see what I mean when my book comes out, which is now in the final stages of production.

I think you are reading more into the parable of the virgins than is actually there. It does not say that the bridegroom takes them anywhere. They go out to meet Him & enter in to the marriage. The door is also shut at that time. If the foolish virgins have been left behind (as a result of a 'taking') , how do they have access to this door that they cannot enter? They come & cry to the Lord to 'open to them' & He answers that He does not know them.

More of the same here. I believe the gathering of the elect is so confusing and controversial because the parables that Christ used has caused a great stumbling block to scholars, yet they hold secrets about the kingdom of heaven that have been hidden since the foundation of the world. Have you ever noticed that when teachers teach about the rapture or second coming in Matthew 24, they all of a sudden get stopped dead in their tracks when they reach the parables, especially in chapter 25? Why is that?

It seems funny that many scholars claim He was talking about the rapture, as many others say it is the second coming. Who is right and how do we reach the truth? They each give their own version of why they believe this or that, but none of them can prove their claims.

Actually, Jesus mentioned both, the rapture and the second coming when He gave His answer, yet scholars are still arguing over this to this day. In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Him a question pertaining to, when will these things be, and what shall be the sign of your coming and the end of the world or age? Have you ever noticed that Christ began answering that question in verse (4), but He did not stop at the end of chapter 24, which is where all of our scholars stop. No, He continues His answer all the way through chapter 25, through all of the parables and He doesn't finish answering this question until verse (1) in chapter 26, which even states that He had, in fact, finished His answer.

Anyone can interpret a parable, but not everyone interprets them correctly. But it gets even more difficult, because to understand the answer He gave, you have to interpret (all of them) correctly, and when you do this, all of these parables are compatable with each other and the flow like a river. On the other hand, if you get something wrong, the parables appear unrelated, and not only that, but they also won't match what you believe about the gathering of His elect.

There's quite a bit to this, so I'm only going to go so far here. But I believe I will be the first to go all the way through these parables and have my interpretation agree with my beliefs about the gathering of His elect. He has given me the keys to unlock the hidden meanings in the parables. I know that may sound daring and even very bold, but I'm prepared to let my book prove this. I believe this is why the Lord told me I was going to write, in the summer of 1989. I also believe the message He has given me, is for the final generation that will witness His coming. But be patient, it still has a little ways to go yet.

Cheers

I believe Christ was talking only about His Appearing at the time of the gathering of the Elect, in his discourses. Christ may have reasoned that that should be enough, because what follows The Rapture on earth is rather inconsequential to Christians. Christians, after their gathering, will be readying themselves for the wedding supper in heaven. I believe Christ told us all we need to know in his discourses, relative to what shall transpire prior to His Appearing. And it is clear we shall suffer Great tribulation before we are raptured. Christ may have also reasoned that there would be no need to discuss what shall come after his appearing, in his discourses, because he had prior knowledge that The Revelation would be composed after his discourses. ....why repeat the wrath of God and his 2nd coming twice, especially if christians aren't going to be on earth during that time?

Just my two cents....

Edited August 30, 2011 by archmichael

[Guest alley1979]

The Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

by Dr. Thomas Ice

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

-2 Thessalonians 2:3

I believe that there is a strong possibility that 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is speaking of the rapture. What do I mean? Some pretribulationists, like myself, think that the Greek noun apostasia, usually translated "apostasy," is a reference to the rapture and should be translated "departure." Thus, this passage would be saying that the day of the Lord will not come until the rapture comes before it. If apostasia is a reference to a physical departure, then 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is strong evidence for pretribulationism.

I totally agree with this one. God has to take away those who believe in him so that the antichrist can take over. As long as there is at least one person in the world that believes in jesus satan cant do anything. God is rewarding us with safe passage because we did the right thing and followed the path less traveled. The people who are left here are going to have to prove to god that they are willing to follow him. Praise the lord we are almost there.

[archmichael]

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

-2 Thessalonians 2:3

Alley1979 wrote:

Thus, this passage would be saying that the day of the Lord will not come until the rapture comes before it.

The people who are left here are going to have to prove to god that they are willing to follow him.

My emphasis in bold.

First, Paul is referring to "The Gathering", or The Rapture, in 2 Thess 2:1-3.

Secondly, he is saying that The Gathering of the Elect will not come until the AntiChrist is revealed as sitting on the throne of God. So, unless the AntiChrist FIRST sits on the throne of God, then The Rapture cannot take place. In other words, the AC first sits on the throne, AND THEN, AND NOT UNTIL AFTER THAT, will The Rapture take place.

Obviously, as a pe-tribber, you believe that those people posing as Christians, and who are left behind, must somehow gain worthiness with God, through works, rather than through grace, to be counted worthy to enter the Kingdom? Just exactly when are these "second-chance" Christians going to be collected into the kingdom, if The Gathering has already taken place?

I believe when Paul says the "Day of Christ", he is literally referring to Christ's Appearing and NOT the "Day of The Lord".

Edited August 31, 2011 by archmichael

[Guest yod]

I don't see any place in the scriptures where the good are "taken away".

The wicked are taken away, and the meek inherit the land.

In Matthew 24, when Christ sends the angels to gather His elect, where one man in the field is taken, and one woman working in the mill is taken, do you suppose these are wicked? If so, why is He warning that we must be ready?

Christ sheds more light on this in the next parable. The five wise virgins that were ready are taken by the Bridegroom, do you also suppose that they are wicked as well?

First of all, only the wicked are ever mentioned as being "taken away". The elect are "gathered" but no mention of them being "taken away".

Secondly - Matt 24:38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

This explicitly says that it is the wicked who are taken away (as in the days of Noah)

Thirdly - the millennial banquet is described in Isaiah 25 as being on the mountains of Israel. The concept of "going to heaven" and celebrating while Israel is being pummelled on the earth is a theological presumption that isn't supported by the scriptures anywhere that I can find...

I'm very familiar with the various theological positions of raptures. They all seem to ignore the fact that it is the wicked who are taken away, according to Jesus.

[Bold Believer]

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

-2 Thessalonians 2:3

Alley1979 wrote:

Thus, this passage would be saying that the day of the Lord will not come until the rapture comes before it.

The people who are left here are going to have to prove to god that they are willing to follow him.

My emphasis in bold.

First, Paul is referring to "The Gathering", or The Rapture, in 2 Thess 2:1-3.

Secondly, he is saying that The Gathering of the Elect will not come until the AntiChrist is revealed as sitting on the throne of God. So, unless the AntiChrist FIRST sits on the throne of God, then The Rapture cannot take place. In other words, the AC first sits on the throne, AND THEN, AND NOT UNTIL AFTER THAT, will The Rapture take place.

Obviously, as a pre-tribber, you believe that those people posing as Christians, and who are left behind, must somehow gain worthiness with God, through works, rather than through grace, to be counted worthy to enter the Kingdom? Just exactly when are these "second-chance" Christians going to be collected into the kingdom, if The Gathering has already taken place?

I believe when Paul says the "Day of Christ", he is literally referring to Christ's Appearing and NOT the "Day of The Lord".

The gathering, or synagoguing, together of the Believers is a last day event. Jesus says so.

Also, you KEEP inserting antichrist into a passage where the word is not used. Don't you know there is a curse upon those who do that? You can't change the Scripture to suit your theology.

Furthermore, the Day of the LORD and the Day of Christ ARE THE SAME. Jesus Christ IS Lord. There is no other Lord from which He must be distinguished.

[archmichael]

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

-2 Thessalonians 2:3

Alley1979 wrote:

Thus, this passage would be saying that the day of the Lord will not come until the rapture comes before it.

The people who are left here are going to have to prove to god that they are willing to follow him.

My emphasis in bold.

First, Paul is referring to "The Gathering", or The Rapture, in 2 Thess 2:1-3.

Secondly, he is saying that The Gathering of the Elect will not come until the AntiChrist is revealed as sitting on the throne of God. So, unless the AntiChrist FIRST sits on the throne of God, then The Rapture cannot take place. In other words, the AC first sits on the throne, AND THEN, AND NOT UNTIL AFTER THAT, will The Rapture take place.

Obviously, as a pre-tribber, you believe that those people posing as Christians, and who are left behind, must somehow gain worthiness with God, through works, rather than through grace, to be counted worthy to enter the Kingdom? Just exactly when are these "second-chance" Christians going to be collected into the kingdom, if The Gathering has already taken place?

I believe when Paul says the "Day of Christ", he is literally referring to Christ's Appearing and NOT the "Day of The Lord".

The gathering, or synagoguing, together of the Believers is a last day event. Jesus says so.

Also, you KEEP inserting antichrist into a passage where the word is not used. Don't you know there is a curse upon those who do that? You can't change the Scripture to suit your theology.

Furthermore, the Day of the LORD and the Day of Christ ARE THE SAME. Jesus Christ IS Lord. There is no other Lord from which He must be distinguished.

First of all, my "bent" is a post-trib, mid-week, pre-wrath rapturist POV. And I have every right to defend that POV, especially when I consider the pre-trib rapture / Doctrine of Imminency, as the greatest lie ever propagated by this end times church. And that interpretation suggests that the Rapture is indeed, NOT A LAST DAY EVENT.If you disagree with what I've interpreted, and stated, then by all means you can ignore it, deny it, or refute it.

Secondly, if the "man of sin" who commits the Abomination of Desolation, as described by Paul, is not the AC, then who do you say he is? Prophetic scripture elsewhere clearly defines who the AC is, and what atrocities he commits. And there should be no confusion as to the who and what Paul is referring-to in 2 Thess 2, by anyone. BTW, I am cursed no more than anyone - including you - who attempts to distinguish The Truth from prophetic scripture. I do not hold to a trinity doctrine, as God being three entities. I believe that God, The Father, Christ, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate entities, with the same mindset. Otherwise, the Lamb couldn't stand simultaneously before The Father who is on the throne in The Rev.

In my opinion, the day of the Lord, and the day of Christ are not the same thing. You have every right to disagree with my belief.....

[Bold Believer]

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

-2 Thessalonians 2:3

Alley1979 wrote:

Thus, this passage would be saying that the day of the Lord will not come until the rapture comes before it.

The people who are left here are going to have to prove to god that they are willing to follow him.

My emphasis in bold.

First, Paul is referring to "The Gathering", or The Rapture, in 2 Thess 2:1-3.

Secondly, he is saying that The Gathering of the Elect will not come until the AntiChrist is revealed as sitting on the throne of God. So, unless the AntiChrist FIRST sits on the throne of God, then The Rapture cannot take place. In other words, the AC first sits on the throne, AND THEN, AND NOT UNTIL AFTER THAT, will The Rapture take place.

Obviously, as a pre-tribber, you believe that those people posing as Christians, and who are left behind, must somehow gain worthiness with God, through works, rather than through grace, to be counted worthy to enter the Kingdom? Just exactly when are these "second-chance" Christians going to be collected into the kingdom, if The Gathering has already taken place?

I believe when Paul says the "Day of Christ", he is literally referring to Christ's Appearing and NOT the "Day of The Lord".

The gathering, or synagoguing, together of the Believers is a last day event. Jesus says so.

Also, you KEEP inserting antichrist into a passage where the word is not used. Don't you know there is a curse upon those who do that? You can't change the Scripture to suit your theology.

Furthermore, the Day of the LORD and the Day of Christ ARE THE SAME. Jesus Christ IS Lord. There is no other Lord from which He must be distinguished.

First of all, my "bent" is a post-trib, mid-week, pre-wrath rapturist POV. And I have every right to defend that POV, especially when I consider the pre-trib rapture / Doctrine of Imminency, as the greatest lie ever propagated by this end times church. And that interpretation suggests that the Rapture is indeed, NOT A LAST DAY EVENT.If you disagree with what I've interpreted, and stated, then by all means you can ignore it, deny it, or refute it.

Secondly, if the "man of sin" who commits the Abomination of Desolation, as described by Paul, is not the AC, then who do you say he is? Prophetic scripture elsewhere clearly defines who the AC is, and what atrocities he commits. And there should be no confusion as to the who and what Paul is referring-to in 2 Thess 2, by anyone. BTW, I am cursed no more than anyone - including you - who attempts to distinguish The Truth from prophetic scripture. I do not hold to a trinity doctrine, as God being three entities. I believe that God, The Father, Christ, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate entities, with the same mindset. Otherwise, the Lamb couldn't stand simultaneously before The Father who is on the throne in The Rev.

In my opinion, the day of the Lord, and the day of Christ are not the same thing. You have every right to disagree with my belief.....

That was a royal (inclusive) you, not directed at you specifically.

That said, the 'rapture' IS most definitely a last day event. Look at I Cor 15. Look at John 6 in various places. Both refer to the last day and the resurrection as occurring on the Last Day and not before. The hrapazo is the changing of the body from mortal flesh to immortal flesh. It occurs on the heels of the resurrection and the resurrection happens on the Last Day.

Let me also remind you of this: It is written in 2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. You don't interpret anything.

Furthermore, you (Archmichael) espouse the heresy of modalism. God is three Persons of One essence. The early Church settled that issue a long time ago.

Prophetic scriptures say NOTHING of antichrist. Teaching Scriptures however do. 1st John tells us exactly what antichrists are. Antichrists are those who do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh.

II Thess 2 does not mention any antichrist. People keep inserting that into the passage. That is heresy. We are warned regarding changing Scripture. No matter WHO is doing it, they need to stop. Let the Word read as it does.

If by atrocities, you are referring to the abomination which makes desolate, that is the heathen, pagan Roman army which desolated Jerusalem back in AD 70. Remember if you please, Jesus stated that the generation which heard His words in the matter would not pass away until the matter occurred. (Mt 23:36; Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30 and Lk 21:32) You want to argue with God? Have at it. The Scripture however stands firm.

If by atrocities, you refer to exalting one's self ABOVE GOD and any other so-called god, that is the man of sin who does this, not some mythical antichrist dictator figure. The man of sin is plural. A category of people at the end of time who believe The Lie (that they can be as God knowing good and evil). John calls them Magog and says that Gog (Satan) is their leader. Paul tells us in the II Thess 2 passage that the man of sin comes with the energy of Satan, but he also uses the plural in vs 10 and 11.

Since you (Archmichael) admittedly do not believe in the Trinity, I'd like to know why anyone should believe a word you say anyway? If you're dead wrong on such a basic established Christian doctrine, what else are you wrong about?

[archmichael]

Bold'...may I be so bold...

Ah yes. You subscribe to the great "U-Turn" theory. Exactly when do the assembled saints have time to attend the wedding supper of The Lamb in Heaven if they are raptured ( sorry for the terminology, but most people know what I'm talking about who discuss these things ) on the last day? According to you, the Elect are gathered, rise in the air, change their bodies, change their clothes into white linens, mount horses, and turn and go back to earth....alll in the twinkling of an eye.

That said, the 'rapture' IS most definitely a last day event. Look at I Cor 15. Look at John 6 in various places. Both refer to the last day and the resurrection as occurring on the Last Day and not before.

Unfortunately it is not. Rev 14 clearly shows that The Harvest precedes the wrath of God. John also positioned the chapters of His wrath ( 15 & 16 ) immediately after chapter 14 - which discusses the GT followed by The Rapture, followed by His Wrath. And I could cite numerous other references of this same orientation, but won't. Incidentally, terms like "rapture"," The AC", etc., are not truely included in The Bible, I agree, and are merely short forms of longer scriptural references to make conversing or debating these issues easier to discuss. To make a federal case of their illegitimate use in any discussion of prophecy is picayune at best, and deflects from the central core issues being discussed. Everyone who studies prophecy knows what these terms mean.

Let me also remind you of this: It is written in 2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. You don't interpret anything.

I agree with Peter's statement here, and always have. He is basically saying that any prophetic scripture, reserved for inclusion in the bible canon as written by any disciple of Christ, in the form it is presented to us, is not subject to question, and was not conceived by the authors. I agree with this. However, Peter is NOT REFERRING TO Christians trying to understand the symbolism of the written prophecy. If he were, then he would violate the reason for it's inclusion in the Bible in the first place. Of course we can study it, and try and surmise it's intent and definitions. To say we can't, is utterly absurd. To say we are condemned if we interpret it wrong, and through discussion, present our interpretive beliefs as to their meanings, is also absurd.

Furthermore, you (Archmichael) espouse the heresy of modalism. God is three Persons of One essence. The early Church settled that issue a long time ago.

Sorry about that. The early church fathers were wrong on other issues too, especially the interpretation of The Revelation. ....which seems odd to me considering they had access to John before his death in Ephesus. Hey, maybe John the Beloved didn't write The Rev?! Maybe it was a different John...that's what I think.

If by atrocities, you are referring to the abomination which makes desolate, that is the heathen, pagan Roman army which desolated Jerusalem back in AD 70. Remember if you please, Jesus stated that the generation which heard His words in the matter would not pass away until the matter occurred. (Mt 23:36; Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30 and Lk 21:32) You want to argue with God? Have at it. The Scripture however stands firm.

Well then, you're espousing a Preterist's and/or Historist's POV. I may be a modalist, but you never addressed how Christ could stand before The Father in Rev 5:6 & 7, and literally take the scroll from his Father. Is God playing solitaire in this scene?

If by atrocities, you refer to exalting one's self ABOVE GOD and any other so-called god, that is the man of sin who does this, not some mythical antichrist dictator figure. The man of sin is plural. A category of people at the end of time who believe The Lie (that they can be as God knowing good and evil). John calls them Magog and says that Gog (Satan) is their leader. Paul tells us in the II Thess 2 passage that the man of sin comes with the energy of Satan, but he also uses the plural in vs 10 and 11.

Whoa! If you think Gog is Satan, and the man of sin is Gog, then you have a postulate here that I have never heard of before in my 35 years of studying end time prophecy....that's a new one on me.

Since you (Archmichael) admittedly do not believe in the Trinity, I'd like to know why anyone should believe a word you say anyway? If you're dead wrong on such a basic established Christian doctrine, what else are you wrong about?

Not all Christian denominations - mainstream denominations that is - believe in the trinity doctrine. Sorry that I agree with them. I see the three as separate, but of one mind....set....otherwise Rev 5:6 & 7 should confuse us..... Edited September 2, 2011 by archmichael