The Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

[Bold Believer]

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.....

You may be as bold as you like.

Time is not required to do all of the things you mention. This all occurs in the twinkling of an eye. A change of clothes? ROFL. It is written: The white linen is the righteousness of the saints. It's not LITERAL clothing. Nor are the horses literal. The portion of Scripture which you refer to is written in a form which the readers of the day would understand: A Roman victory parade. Christ, the victorious general on a white horse. The armies of heaven also on white horses. These are indications of the victory Christ has won, over the Roman Beast and the apostate Jewish beast (the faithless Jews who rejected him). According to Paul the church is gathered and their bodies changed. John merely completes the imagery in Revelation.

My understanding of eschatology is partial preterist historic post-millennial for lack of another term. Christ comes after the Reign of Pre-eminence, when the teachings of the LORD are pre-eminent over all others.

To add in something where it isn't supposed to be falls under the curse upon those who add to or take away from the Scriptures. To put the word 'antichrist' where is it not used by the writer is incorrect.

Being a modalist would get you excommunicated in the Early Church. In today's unwalled village of a church, anything goes. Exactly how you can so casually espouse what has been considered heresy for about 1700-1800 years is beyond me.

If you don't believe Christ stands before the Father in Rev 5/6, then I take it you also don't believe Daniel's account of the SAME EVENT in Daniel 7:13, where the Son of Man comes before the Ancient of Days?

Gog is not the Man of Sin. Magog is collectively the Man of Sin; Gog leads Magog against the people of God in Revelation 20, at the end of the Thousand Years, for a short time. Gog is apparently Satan in Revelation 20. John is likening the events of the Little Season (Rev 20) to Ezekiel's prophecy of Gog and Magog thousands of years earlier. (There are marked differences in the two events which I've discussed in other posts.)

Any so-called Christian denomination which rejects the Trinity is apostate and should be steered clear of.

Rejecting that John wrote Revelation further establishes your espousal of heresy.

[archmichael]

The white linen is the righteousness of the saints. It's not LITERAL clothing.

Are you serious?! Hey, don't take my word for it. The Rev mentions white linens for the Elect many times. But also, Christ himself mentions in Rev 3:5 ( as one of many examples ) : "He that overcometh, the same shall BE CLOTHED IN WHITE RAIMENT;...".

To add in something where it isn't supposed to be falls under the curse upon those who add to or take away from the Scriptures. To put the word 'antichrist' where is it not used by the writer is incorrect.

Make up your mind...am I merely "incorrect", or am I accursed?

If you don't believe Christ stands before the Father in Rev 5/6, then I take it you also don't believe Daniel's account of the SAME EVENT in Daniel 7:13, where the Son of Man comes before the Ancient of Days?

Oh, but I do believe Christ stands before God. That's my point! If Christ was God, why are both standing side x side in The Rev, or better yet, how can Christ sit at the right hand of God if they are but one entity? These images support my contention that there are 3 entities of the same mindset, and not one in 3.

Rejecting that John wrote Revelation further establishes your espousal of heresy.

I'm not rejecting that John wrote The Rev. I'm seriously questioning if the John that wrote The Rev was John the Beloved. If he did write The Rev, why wasn't he questioned at length concerning the interpretation of the book he wrote? The early church fathers had ample time to question him when he supposively returned from Patmos, to Ephesus. And furthermore, one the 7 letters he supposively sent, was to that very same Ephesus church that he supposively returned to. Yet, none of those church members were even the slightest bit curious as to the meanings of what he wrote in the book he sent them. The church fathers were as clueless about the symbolism in the book as we are today. Even all the scholars, throughout history to this day, including the early church fathers, aren't really sure which "John" wrote the book of Rev. They're not even sure in agreement WHEN it was written. Some say it was written in the 60's AD, while others claim the 90's AD. Doesn't this all seem somewhat odd? It sure does to me. John the Beloved Apostle was considered the author of Rev because of one statement Christ made concerning him. Ad-libbing, Christ said, "If I were to have John tarry until I come, what is that to you?".

So no one knows for sure who wrote the book, or when. John the Beloved was dogmatically assigned the author of the book from the earliest days. And that has been the dogma ever since.

Frankly, a pre-millennial futurist trying to discuss future prophecies with a preterists / historist / post-millennialist, who interprets everything figuratively and / or metophorically ( which is a great way to interpret anything prophetic because you can assign almost any interpretation to scripture, in any way you see fit ), is like a Buddist discussing religion with a Jew....apples and oranges. Frankly, Preterism is a doctrine of the past that is widely considered in error and outdated, especially since the return of The Jews to Palestine in '48. But, I'm sure you know that....

Edited September 2, 2011 by archmichael

[Bold Believer]

The white linen is the righteousness of the saints. It's not LITERAL clothing.

Are you serious?! Hey, don't take my word for it. The Rev mentions white linens for the Elect many times. But also, Christ himself mentions in Rev 3:5 ( as one of many examples ) : "He that overcometh, the same shall BE CLOTHED IN WHITE RAIMENT;...".

To add in something where it isn't supposed to be falls under the curse upon those who add to or take away from the Scriptures. To put the word 'antichrist' where is it not used by the writer is incorrect.

Make up your mind...am I merely "incorrect", or am I accursed?

If you don't believe Christ stands before the Father in Rev 5/6, then I take it you also don't believe Daniel's account of the SAME EVENT in Daniel 7:13, where the Son of Man comes before the Ancient of Days?

Oh, but I do believe Christ stands before God. That's my point! If Christ was God, why are both standing side x side in The Rev, or better yet, how can Christ sit at the right hand of God if they are but one entity? These images support my contention that there are 3 entities of the same mindset, and not one in 3.

Rejecting that John wrote Revelation further establishes your espousal of heresy.

I'm not rejecting that John wrote The Rev. I'm seriously questioning if the John that wrote The Rev was John the Beloved. If he did write The Rev, why wasn't he questioned at length concerning the interpretation of the book he wrote? The early church fathers had ample time to question him when he supposively returned from Patmos, to Ephesus. And furthermore, one the 7 letters he sent, was to that very same Ephesus church. Yet, the church fathers were as clueless about the symbolism in the book as we are today.

Frankly, a pre-millennial futurist trying to discuss future prophecies with a preterists / historist / post-millennialist, who interprets everything figuratively and / or metophorically ( which is a great way to interpret anything prophetic because you can assign almost any interpretation to scripture, in any way you see fit ), is like a Buddist discussing religion with a Jew....apples and oranges. Frankly, Preterism is a doctrine of the past that is widely considered in error and outdated, especially since the return of The Jews to Palestine in '48. But, I'm sure you know that....

It is written: Rev 19:8 It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. In other words...not literal clothing.

Are you accursed? That depends on whether you're changing the words of the Scripture. If you are adding something, anything, into a passage that doesn't belong there...

It is written: Pro 30:4-6 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know! Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

The ECF and the early church in general were NOT clueless. Those who were closest to the events understood them best.

As for whether Christ was God, the Scripture is pretty plain on the subject. John 1 says it best.

While preterism is indeed in error, partial preterism is not. Preterism says the Second Coming was in 70 AD, and obviously that's wrong. The Revelation is primarily to the Believers who were under the Neronian persecution. It promises that God will defeat the Roman beast, the apostate portion of Judaism that aligned itself with the Roman beast, and that the prophecy of Isaiah 2 will in fact come to fruition. It speaks in the final chapter of the Second Coming, but nothing of a removal of the Church before that.

[archmichael]

Bold' -

Can't debate or discuss end time matters with a partial preterist / historist. We are too far apart on foundational ET doctrine.

Thanks for "sparring" with me though....

[Bold Believer]

Well, answer me this Archmichael: Is Jesus Christ God in the flesh or no?

[JohnD]

I'd love to debate preterism versus futurism in the debate forum. The Bible teaches futurism therefore I would debate peterism in any form.

Edited September 9, 2011 by JohnDB

[Guest]

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.

Amen Beloved, I See No Argument With God

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew 16:28

For Six Days Later It Happened

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. Matthew 17:1-7

Yet

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24:27

No Man

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Revelation 6:14-17

Will Question Jesus

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. Jude 1:14-16

On That Terrible Terrible Day Of The LORD

Maranatha~!

[Yman48]

Apostasy Greek: ἀποστασία (apostasia), a defection or revolt, from ἀπό, apo, "away, apart", στάσις, stasis, "stand", "standing") is the formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. The Apostle Paul was referring to those whose love for Christ had grown coild and allowed their "itching ears" to lead them in rejecting Christ for a lie. Pre-tribulationists like to support their dogma by using this verse, however it is not good hermaneutics. The only certain fact of the Rapture is that it will take place. We can deduce certain elements of the Rapture yet not know because the Word does not give us specifics on this. Some believe in a pretribulation rapture; some believe in a post-tribulation rapture and some believe in a mid-tribulation rapture. There are verses that, taken out of context, can be used to prove any of three theories. I personally believe in a mid-tribulation rapture and believe that Daniel and Revelation supports that stance.

The above definiton of apostasy comes from Kenneth S Wuest "Word Studeis in the New Testament". Dr. Wuest led the committee that wrote the transaltion New American Standard Bible. He was a long time Professor of Religion at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Yman48

[Dutch42]

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.

Find the full article here: http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/rapture-in-2-thessalonians-23

My ESV states..

2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

My KJV states..

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: forG3754 that day shall not come, except there come a falling awayG646 first, and that manof sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

G646

ἀποστασία

apostasia

Thayer Definition:

1) a falling away, defection, apostasy

That's just it Fez. The article is saying from the KJV forward have all changed the original word.

Translation History The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either "departure" or "departing." They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608).[5] This supports the notion that the word truly means "departure." In fact, Jerome's Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of a.d. 400 renders apostasia with the "word discessio, meaning 'departure.'"[6] Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of "departure"?

Theodore Beza, the Swiss reformer was the first to transliterate apostasia and create a new word, rather than translate it as others had done. The translators of the King James Version were the first to introduce the new rendering of apostasia as "falling away." Most English translators have followed the KJV and Beza in departing from translating apostasia as "departure." No good reason was ever given.

the interesting part is.. actually is this an English discussion.. Here in Holland we don't have this one. Because all the ancient Bibles translate it at the same. With the word afval.. Even when I look into the ancient German translation it is the same.

Otherside when you look in the Vulgate at 2tes 2-> and you look at the same translation Act 21:21 21 And they are informed about thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses,

Forsake translated with Apostasia.. But in the Jerome Vulgate is written: audierunt autem de te quia discessionem doceas a Mose

Discession in this meaning is in the way or religious apostasia. An interesting document about this is:

read from page 12-25

But for them the document is to long the conclusion is:

CONCLUSION

The case for understanding ajpostasiva as the Rapture in 2 Thessalonians

2:3 has not been proven. The appeal to the translation of the

word in versions prior to the King James has no merit whatsoever. While

the English translation “departure” can refer to spatial departure, there is

no evidence that this is the intended meaning of the word in these early

versions in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. The lexical argument that ajpostasiva

itself could have that meaning in this verse seems unlikely. The strongest

argument for the Rapture view is the contextual considerations. These

_

certainly have merit, but in my opinion do not rise to the level of probability.

’Apostasiva most likely refers to a religious apostasy, and

therefore its occurrence in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 should not be used as

evidence for the pretribulational Rapture.

[Yman48]

The person who started this topic, Dr. Thomas Ice, is Executive Director of The Pre-Trib Research Center and on faculty at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He founded The Center in 1994 with Dr. Tim LaHaye to research, teach, and defend the pretribulational rapture and related Bible prophecy doctrines. The Center is currently located on the campus of Liberty University. Dr. Ice has co-authored about 30 books, written hundreds of articles, and is a frequent conference speaker. He has served as a pastor for 15 years. Dr. Ice has a B.A. from Howard Payne University, a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, a Ph.D. from Tyndale Theological Seminary, and is a Doctoral Candidate at The University of Wales in Church History.

I post this information only to allow those who respond to understand that he began this discussion with a slanted and prejudicial view point. That is not bad, but I believe when someone with his credentials makes a post that could lead to a heated discussion, he/she should pur their prejudices up front and public.