Matthew 24: Rapture, Second Coming or Both?

[iamlamad]

20 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

Rev. 14 is the Harvest, go read it. You can't harvest until you come back. Jesus comes back in Rev. 16 on the Mt of Olives. 

Rev. 16 is about the Seven Vials of Gods Wrath. 

Rev. 18 is a longer chapter has per the happenings, but 16 ends it all. This is a Vision about a Longer Event than Rev. 14 or 16. This is about Babylon being Destroyed by the Plagues of God. The Seals, the Trumpets and the Seven Vials. 

Why did God give us Genesis one and two? One was Creation with MAN and one was about Man being Created. One Event took 13.7 Billion years. The Second event happened in a moment of time. 

All three of the Chapters are about Babylon falling. Until you understand Revelation is not in Sequence, it will be hard to see.

Rev. 14 is PROPHECY of the soon coming harvest. You can certainly have a prophecy without His coming.

Rev. 16: finally something we agree on! Hallelujah!

I will never understand Revelation not in sequence, because it IS. john's chronology is perfect.  if anyone thinks it is not, it is only their understanding that is off.

Edited July 1, 2017 by iamlamad

[iamlamad]

23 hours ago, wingnut- said:

Unbelievable, accuse me of what you are doing.  

I am only understanding the word Paul used. You suggested Paul should have used another word. Yet, I showed you how this very word has a meaning of a part of a whole moved spatially to somewhere else, leaving the rest of the group. My friend, this is EXACTLY what will happen at the rapture.  Paul did not choose another word.

 

23 hours ago, wingnut- said:

What part of this don't you grasp, TWO DIFFERENT WORDS WITH TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS.  It is not harpazo, apostia means exactly what those who understand the language said it did, and you by your own admission are not one of those individuals.  You want it to say harpazo, but it does not, so you are in denial to try and make it fit.  This entire discussion is unreal, this is why I can't have a serious discussion with you.

It is not my fault you cannot understand Paul! That is on you. The first translators used the English word Departing. But it comes from Apostasia which I have shown you means a part of a whole removed and taken somewhere else.  A very similar word is translated as divorce. In a divorce, one of the two parties LEAVE or DEPART and go somewhere else.  Don't put words in my mouth just because you don't understand Paul! I have no want whatsoever here. I understand what Paul was saying. You still don't.  Let me show you again:

Strong's APO

of separation

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

2. of separation of a part from the whole

   1. where of a whole some part is taken

It fits - it is exactly what will happen at the gathering. you seem to think they had only ONE WORD to use for the rapture. I am not denying anything but your theory here

23 hours ago, wingnut- said:

The problem is that while you admit to not knowing Greek, you still choose to think you know it better than those who do know Greek.  I'm not sure what to even call that line of reasoning.  I guess since you cannot address the seed sown on the rocky soil being contradictory to everything you have to say on the matter you will just ignore it, as though the scripture I posted were invisible to you.

You're more interested in pretending you are more qualified than people who actually know Greek in regards to the meaning of the words, and worse yet, the foundation of your argument is predicated on calling the reliability of scripture into question to support your theory.  Very sad, so I'm just going to leave it at that and wish you well.

. Again you are dreaming - and all this because you don't understand Paul's meaning, but THINK you do.  So you have to knock me as a person and knock my abilities to understand scripture. This probably has never entered your thought process, but it just might be that you are wrong and I am right.  After all, Paul's theme is the gathering.  You imagine that a falling away  - a very significant falling away - will be what removes the restrainer and allows the man of sin to be revealed. Paul said "and now you know," but clearly you don't know. Next, you GUESS that the falling away is a falling away from TRUTH, but that is not said. So you must ad lib.

23 hours ago, wingnut- said:

You must be confused as to whom is the actual author of scripture, that would be the Holy Spirit.  God is not confused about what word He wanted to be used there, you are just in denial about the word used not being the one you want it to be.

You are dreaming! I am not in denial except for your theory of what Paul is saying. You are missing it by a country mile. Paul is taking about the Gathering, and how one can know when they are IN the Day of the Lord - which will come AFTER the departing [of the church].

Look, we cannot change what is written: our job is the UNDERSTAND it.  I doubt we will ever agree on this passage.

[wingnut-]

10 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

I am not in denial except for your theory of what Paul is saying. You are missing it by a country mile. Paul is taking about the Gathering, and how one can know when they are IN the Day of the Lord - which will come AFTER the departing [of the church].

Look, we cannot change what is written: our job is the UNDERSTAND it.  I doubt we will ever agree on this passage.

 

Maybe that's because you aren't addressing the passage at all.  You keep talking about Paul, and I never posted any scripture written by Paul.  But as far as Paul, he was certainly not talking about the gathering, or he would have used the word harpazo.  Maybe you should go back and look at what scripture I did post so you know what the topic was.  

[rollinTHUNDER]

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 4:55 AM, Broken2007 said:

Oh... I absolutely LOVED this! Rolling I will be reading your blogs. I have feasted. I now also know what is being required of me . This was a confirmation for me. I also love looking at each persons view of the scriptures as well thats why we must allow ourselves to be lead of the spirit. My only thing is instead of there being arguments about the events,  as "ONE" we should all agree on whats most important here, PREACHING CHRIST! Lets not look for excuses to procrastinate here (my perception) as far as im concerned Rolling you are on your job! The average person only lives about 75-80 years anyways and if you get longer your beyond blessed so there's no gaurantee anyone on here is going to be here for any of it anyways. I say start saving for your retirement now. LOL

Again Thanks

My pleasure, Broken.  Thank you for your encouraging words.  And welcome to worthy! 

[iamlamad]

4 hours ago, inchrist said:

Again, greek rules

For Paul to designate the Holy Spirit would require him to have already referred to the Holy Spirit.

But since the Holy Spirit is neither stated nor alluded to in the previous discussion of Paul (CONTEXT), the restrainer can not be the Holy Spirit. 

Secondly Paul's readers did know what the restrainer was. Paul had carefully instructed them about what Christ said must happen before his parousia....no mention of the Holy spirit restraining anything

Thirdly the lawlessness and the restrainer are active in the same period. So the holy spirit hasnt restrained the lawless one, its simply an identity that needs to be revealed.

Fourthly the restrainer and  the lawless one is the same identity. Go back to what Paul taught them previously.

Then come back to 2 th 2:6

First, the lawsless one restrains, then he comes out, and finally, he is revealed.

 

It would seem, according to you, that anyone reading in English would be lost trying to understand the New Testament. I disagree.  Your first two sentences are nothing but human reasoning. There is no other place in Paul's letters where he wrote of this restraining or holding back. Therefore, we must find the answer in this passage. 

Paul may have told them in person, but if not, he is giving the secret away here. My guess is, he wrote "and now you know" so that they would back up and read carefully so as not to miss the fact that he used "apostasia" as the departing or gathering, and then they would know who was restraining the man of sin, so that he would not be revealed until the proper time. But at that proper time, the one doing the restraining will be "taken out of the way." that would be a part of the whole [population] removed and taken elsewhere, while the rest are left standing. 

I suggest you read this passage again.

2 Thessalonians 2:6Amplified Bible (AMP)  6 And you know what restrains him now [from being revealed]; it is so that he will be revealed at his own [appointed] time.

There is a proper time for him to be revealed. God will not allow it to happen until the right time.  But when the departing comes, the one restraining "taken out of the way" then the man of sin will be revealed.

It is absolute myth that the man of sin (the lawless one) and the one restraining him are the same entity! He is no restraining himself! 

You have a lot more studying to do on this passage.

[iamlamad]

10 hours ago, wingnut- said:

 

Maybe that's because you aren't addressing the passage at all.  You keep talking about Paul, and I never posted any scripture written by Paul.  But as far as Paul, he was certainly not talking about the gathering, or he would have used the word harpazo.  Maybe you should go back and look at what scripture I did post so you know what the topic was.  

You missed it yet again. In 2 Thes. 2:1 Paul talks about the "gathering" or the rapture and uses the Greek word "episynagōgē" which is translated as the gathering.

[wingnut-]

1 hour ago, iamlamad said:

You missed it yet again. In 2 Thes. 2:1 Paul talks about the "gathering" or the rapture and uses the Greek word "episynagōgē" which is translated as the gathering.

 

Ok, well since you refuse to address what I actually posted, WHICH WAS NOTHING FROM PAUL, just go on and talk to yourself.

[iamlamad]

On 6/28/2017 at 10:46 PM, wingnut- said:

 

You can talk in circles around this all day long if you so desire, but your entire argument is flawed.  If it was the catching away, Paul would have used the word harpazo, the fact that he does not disproves your claim.  There is a huge difference between departing or fleeing versus catching away.  You basically call my understanding into question of a language I do understand, and worse than that, you call into question individuals whose understanding of Greek surpasses my own.  My understanding is that I can trust the Word of God, whilst you call it a bad translation to support a theory.  Hence, why I am more than happy to have the understanding I do.

The man of sin is revealed after the falling away as the verse states, and the falling away has absolutely nothing to do with the catching away.  The parable from Mark makes that perfectly clear, and anyone capable of reading can see that clearly.

 

Mark 4:13 And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. 17 And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. 18 And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 20 But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”

 

Now if you want to sit here and argue that the ones sown on the rocky ground that depart from His word when troubles arise are going to be raptured away, then you really need to go back to the beginning of Revelation and read what is said to the 7 CHURCHES.

 

Revelation 2:4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. 5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. 6 Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’

 

Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. 11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. 12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.

 

Here are just two of them as samples, and I included the only one you seem to acknowledge as existing because I think it addresses this fairly well as to your contradiction.  Notice how this church kept His word about patient endurance?  What was it the seed on the rocky soil failed to do?  Hint:  they failed to endure, when tribulation or persecution arose they FELL AWAY.  Now please, explain this in regards to your position.

God bless

Again I say, you cannot put words in Paul's mouth. You have only human reasoning to say Paul should have used a different Greek word.  It is what is given us. We either understand it or we don't. It is that simple. You think I don't understand it and you do, and I think I understand it and you don't.  All I can add is that when you get to heaven and ask Paul, you will find out he was talking about the gathering, just as he wrote.  As I said, we are just going to end up disagreeing.

If we checked on Google, we would find we are not the only people to disagree on this passage. Say what you will, when the church will have been "taken out of the way," it will have departed. That is a fact.  Since you don't like this definition of "Apostasia" perhaps you can explain how a bad thing, a falling away, could be also called a "taking out of the way." That phrase seems to denote another force that does the taking. People fall away of their OWN choice.

I could use the same kind of argument and say that Paul should have said what this falling away was actually falling away FROM. How amazing, Paul did not include that information. Perhaps it was because he was not using this word as a falling away, but rather as a significant departing of a part of the whole from the whole to another location: a spacial departing.

You see, the problem is, all people approach difficult scriptures with preconceptions. It is very hard NOT to - even Greek experts. If they believe in a posttrib rapture, of course they will interpret or translate in a way that fits their theories. Sorry, but in most cases, that is just the way it is done.

You, and many others before you, think this "falling away" is absolute truth. I suspect you are going to be shocked to find there will be no significant "falling away," because that is not what Paul meant at all.

OF COURSE you can trust the Word of God - we ALL can. But let's face it: there are certain scriptures that the church has been divided on for a very long time, and will continue to be until we are all in heaven.

I would add, anyone that imagines it is the man of sin that is restraining himself really does not understand this passage.  We will not get much help from the Commentators for they two are divided. In fact, the differnt Greek texts are different in this passage.

The man of sin is revealed after the falling away as the verse states  OR The man of sin is revealed after the departing as the verse states. And this departing of the church as in the rapture is the very THEME of this passage.

Since you like to get into the Greek, please explain how "he might be gone out of the midst" in any way fits or compares with a falling away.....(from what we can only guess).

You might further explain how or why these people were so upset thinking they were IN the Day of the Lord. (It had previously started and they were now in it.) If Paul had taught them of a posttrib rapture, they should know they have only 7 years to survive or 6, depending on how long they had been in it, so no reason to be upset.

On the other had, if Paul had taught them of a pretrib rapture just before the DAY as I believe, we can easily see WHY they were upset: they thought they had MISSED the rapture.  Paul's remedy for their misunderstanding is to show them how they can know, beyond any doubt, that they would be IN the Day of the Lord - that it had previously started and they were IN IT.

First the rapture (the departing) would have to take place as in the one restraining taken out of the way (the church is definitely in the way of Satan) And then the man of sin would be revealed. When or if they see the man of sin revealed, then they can know without any doubt, the DAY has started and they are IN IT.
 

There will always be some that hear the word with gladness, but allow the devil to steal the word before they become born again. There will always be some who receive the word but allow the cares of life to choke it out. But the truth is, the church as been growing for centuries and will continue to grow right up to the time of the rapture. Sure, some fall away, but more come. Sorry, but there will not be a SIGNIFICANT "falling away." There will be a significant departing of the Bride of Christ though. It will be SO significant that the whole world will know. And about 3 1/2 years later the man of sin will be revealed.

You have simply not talked about the real meaning in the Greek: this must be a SIGNIFICANT falling away - in fact, one so significant that the church would then know to watch for the revealing of the man of sin. I don't see how any falling away would qualify. How would anyone know that ENOUGH had fallen away to be significant?

I am convinced that a departing of the church fits this entire passage far better that a departure from the faith that some think this is talking about.

[iamlamad]

Just now, inchrist said:

2. Paul's readers already knew what the katechon is. 

Then why would Paul write, and NOW you know. Taken at face value, that tells us they would not know until they read and understand this passage. So I disagree with your number 2.

 

Just now, inchrist said:

7. The restrainer stands in relationship to the lawless one. 

Agreed: a relationship that is restraining or holding down the lawless one.

 

Just now, inchrist said:

Rule 2: the  context  of 2 Thessalonians 2.

Along with this, we must keep in mind the THEME: which is the gathering or rapture. Any theory that cannot easily find the rapture will not be the correct theory.

 

1 minute ago, inchrist said:

And we know exactly what Christ taught while he was in Thessalonica as its recorded in scripture, and that teaching is about Christs parousia

Exactly, His coming and the gathering. And the gathering is the THEME.

 

2 minutes ago, inchrist said:

 

Quote

Paul may have told them in person, but if not, he is giving the secret away here

Its undeniable that Paul taught this to the Thessalonians.

Sorry, but Paul did not talk about the restraining force or the one restraining in his first letter. So we really don't know if he had talked about it in person. Presumably he did. But since they are very shaken up, perhaps they forgot most of what Paul taught them.

 

6 minutes ago, inchrist said:

And what Paul taught to the Thessalonians was the Olivet Discourse, as can be seen in 2Th 2:1-4, as Paul highlights this fact.

This is a theory that cannot be proven and that untold millions disagree with.

 

7 minutes ago, inchrist said:

After Paul had just reminded them about the Olvet Discourse

This is a HUGE stretch. He is reminding them of what he had previously taught them. No one knows if Paul even knew about the Olivet discourse at this time: it was not written down yet.

 

9 minutes ago, inchrist said:

So the question now is, what is restraining Christ from coming? since Christ is the object and his coming.

Now you have gone off the deep end! This is not at all the intent of this passage.

And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time...

Rules of language is that a pronoun must be of the last person or thing mentioned, which in this case is the man of sin revealed. I doubt very much if you could find even one commentator that would agree with your theory here.  To even imagine that anything can restrain or hold down Christ I think is silly. the ONLY THING He is waiting for is for His father to say "it is time" or whatever He will say.

14 minutes ago, inchrist said:

As christ is will not come  until after  the apostasy

Now preconceptions creep in, as I knew they would. You cannot prove that His coming in 1 thes. will be after the "apostasy." In fact, if the apostasy is indeed the rapture as many believe, His coming will be BEFORE the gathering, but just before.

 

16 minutes ago, inchrist said:

The whole point of Pauls epistle in chapter 2 is that the day of Christ's parousia is being hindered.

You are a mile off: this epistle was to show that church that the Day of the Lord has NOT come, and how to recognize it when it does come. In other words, this letter was to give them peace that they had not missed the rapture.

 

17 minutes ago, inchrist said:

The restrainer is holding onto," "holding down," "holding back," "hindering" or "delaying" Christ's parousia.

WRONG! No, the church, through the Holy Spirit, is preventing Satan from bringing forth the man of sin (who will turn Beast) until the proper time. At that time, the church will be "taken out of the way." It all flows so easily if we come with no preconceptions.

 

19 minutes ago, inchrist said:

It is the apostasy and the lawless one that is standing in the way of Christ's parousia

This is complete myth, not following good exegesis. The man of sin is in hiding now. Satan would love to hurry things up and get him revealed, but He cannot. The Holy Spirit, working through the church is PREVENTING Satan from exposing the man of sin to the world.

 

21 minutes ago, inchrist said:

taken out of the way

Is a mistranslation its not in the greek text.

Ha ha! Now who is it that wants to change a text?

The truth is, it really says the same thing in the Greek:

"to become out of the midst."  Remember Strong's definition of "apo?" It is when a part of the whole is removed from the whole and taken elsewhere. When this happens, the Bride will indeed "become out of the midst." In this case, the "midst" would be those left stationary or standing (the other half of Apostasia) when the rapture takes place.

Again I must say, you amaze me.

[rollinTHUNDER]

Muddy waters...It appears this thread got hijacked before the first page was finished.  Let me know when the dog quits chasing its tail.........