RAPTURE IN 2 THESSALONIANS

[Gentle-Warrior]

21 minutes ago, Last Daze said:

True. 

Why didn't Jesus establish the kingdom of God on earth at the time that He was given all authority in heaven and on earth?  Because it wasn't time.  The gospel had to be preached to all the nations first in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham.  Then the end will come.

 

Just let me say that Jesus is too big to have a kingdom on earth. He is God Almighty who dwells in heaven as both Lord and God. God, in His wholly triune self will always reign in heaven, 

Isaiah 66:1 (NASB95)

1 "Thus says the Lord, “Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?"

1 Kings 8:27 (NASB95)

27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!"

John 18:36 (NASB95)

³⁶ “ Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

Exodus 33:20 (NASB95)

^{20 "}But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”

1 Timothy 6:16 (NASB95)

"Who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."

Something to meditate on... 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Gentle-Warrior

[Diaste]

28 minutes ago, Gentle-Warrior said:

Just let me say that Jesus is too big to have a kingdom on earth. 

And yet we have Rev 21 and Zech 14

[iamlamad]

On 10/12/2019 at 8:13 PM, calledoutones said:

Here is something to think about, the word apostasia is a noun, and as I mentioned before it was translated as "departure" in the first 7 english translations. The verb for the word "apostasia" is strongs number g868 "aphistemi", aphistemi is used in acts 12 verse 10, and the Angel "departed" from him. my point is this that strongs defines aphistemi to remove, or actively instigate to revolt, to desist or desert, draw or fall away, the angel "departed" from him, he didnt instigate a revolt or fall away! departed is a verb in the english language, and departure is a noun in the english language, and if you look at the context and literary structure of of 2 thessalonians chapter 2 you find that paul in 2:6-8 repeats the same two events mentioned in 2:3, quoting thomas ice in his study of "The rapture in 2 thessalonians 2:3, He says; Both events are stated twice in the passage: first, "the departure" (rapture) and "the revelation of the man of sin" (verse 3), and second, the restrainer (holy spirit) "is taken out of the way" (rapture) and "the lawless one will  be revealed" (verses 7-8). If "the departure" is some form of revolt (my word) then the parallelism is broken. Also I want to point out that if we read 2 thess 2 in context we find that the thessalonians were going through tribulations as mentioned in 2 thess 1:4, so paul writes to the not to be soon shaken in mind, or troubled in spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us that the day of christ had come! 2 thess 2:2, they thought that they had missed the rapture because of tribulation, and paul comforts them by telling them not to worry about it because the departure will come "first". makes perfect sense to me. comment please! shalom

Wow, Calledout! See what happens when you hit the nail squarely on the head on these threads? 

For all you in opposition to this theory:

Look carefully verse three and answer this question: at the end of verse there, is the "man of sin" revealed, or is he NOT revealed. 

There are only two answers:

Yes, revealed

No, not revealed.

I await your answers. Then we will proceed from there.

Edited October 24, 2019 by iamlamad

[Uriah]

2 hours ago, Last Daze said:

True. 

Why didn't Jesus establish the kingdom of God on earth at the time that He was given all authority in heaven and on earth?  Because it wasn't time.  The gospel had to be preached to all the nations first in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham.  Then the end will come.

 

Amen to that!

[Gentle-Warrior]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

And yet we have Rev 21 and Zech 14

What about Revelation 21 and why do you bring Zech 14 up? Do you have NT support that upholds Zech. 14? Second, do you have any proof that the book of Revelation was written for a star trek generation of 2,000 years plus later?

Imagine God lying to the first century church by inspiring a book that was completely irrelevant to them as well as for the past 2,000 years? 

That sounds odd to me.

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, iamlamad said:

Look carefully verse three and answer this question: at the end of verse there, is the "man of sin" revealed, or is he NOT revealed. 

 

Objections:

Leading. Argumentative. Cherry picking.

The concept here is order of events. Beast first, then the Return of Jesus, as a whole. 

 

 

 

[Diaste]

3 minutes ago, Gentle-Warrior said:

What about Revelation 21 and why do you bring Zech 14 up? Do you have NT support that upholds Zech. 14?

Yes, Rev 21

 

3 minutes ago, Gentle-Warrior said:

 

 

Second, do you have any proof that the book of Revelation was written for a star trek generation of 2,000 years plus later?

 

Yes. Have we seen the beast rise? Have we seen the whole world worship the beast and most of the people take the mark? Jesus return yet? Matt 24 is proof. The end has not yet come.

 

3 minutes ago, Gentle-Warrior said:

Imagine God lying to the first century church by inspiring a book that was completely irrelevant to them as well as for the past 2,000 years? 

That sounds odd to me.

So then prophecy should come to pass within a certain amount of days or years to be valid?  I do believe Genesis speaks to the time Christ would come, around 1400 years prior.

 

[iamlamad]

41 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Objections:

Leading. Argumentative. Cherry picking.

The concept here is order of events. Beast first, then the Return of Jesus, as a whole. 

None of the above: just a simple question. Why didn't you just answer it? It is VERY MUCH a part of Paul's "order of events."

Edited October 24, 2019 by iamlamad

[wingnut-]

5 hours ago, Gentle-Warrior said:

The day of the Lord does not necessarily mean the end of time. The modern, western church has failed to understand the language of the first century writers and the context of proper covenant thinking. 

 

Tell that to Peter, or any number of the OT prophets.

 

II Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

 

God bless

[OneLight]

2 hours ago, Gentle-Warrior said:

What about Revelation 21 and why do you bring Zech 14 up? Do you have NT support that upholds Zech. 14? Second, do you have any proof that the book of Revelation was written for a star trek generation of 2,000 years plus later?

Imagine God lying to the first century church by inspiring a book that was completely irrelevant to them as well as for the past 2,000 years? 

That sounds odd to me.

May I inquire if you are partial preterist or full preterist?