Jump to content
IGNORED

The Trouble with Tribulation


JoeCanada

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,272
  • Content Per Day:  2.10
  • Reputation:   688
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  06/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, iamlamad.

Nope. "Departing" is NOT a good definition for "apostasia." And, I've GOT the Strong's on "apo" right there above! It means "away from!" Did you read ANYTHING I wrote?!

You are being so "closed-minded" about the truth, that you can't see it any way but your own! It's WRONG! It's not "MOVING away from something"; it's "STANDING away from something!"

NEVER FORCE your view upon the definition! ALWAYS use the definition and the text of Scriptures to guide your view! (That's the difference between exegesis [good] and eisegesis [bad]!) Have you ever studied hermeneutics? I would suggest doing so ... to ANYBODY and EVERYBODY!

Do I have to do your homework for you?

Here is Strong's on APO:

"of separation

of local separation, 

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

of separation of a part from the whole

where of a whole some part is taken

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

of a state of separation, that is of distance

physical, of distance of place

My friend, this is exactly what will happen at the rapture. 

Now, when we add the standing part, one group out of a whole departs - while the whole is left standing. 

This fits perfectly with Paul in his first letter: the rapture comes first, then the Day of the Lord. I am going to believe Paul here.

By the way, can you explain why several of the early translators used "departing?" You know, since it is a bad translation? Perhaps they knew better than you.

Edited by iamlamad
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,600
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 12/3/2019 at 8:53 PM, iamlamad said:

"of separation

of local separation, 

So then 'separation' is now equivalent to 'gathering'?

On 12/3/2019 at 8:53 PM, iamlamad said:

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

of separation of a part from the whole

where of a whole some part is taken

 

So far the preponderance of evidence is not able to equate your personal definition of 'apostasia' with 'harpazo'. 

On 12/3/2019 at 8:53 PM, iamlamad said:

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

You skip over this one? Sounds like a divorce to me and not 'harpazo'.

On 12/3/2019 at 8:53 PM, iamlamad said:

of a state of separation, that is of distance

physical, of distance of place

However, you confuse terms here and in most cases when it comes to the gathering. The gathering is 'anistemi' and 'harpazo' from 1 Thess 4. 

anistémi: to raise up, to rise.

harpazó: to seize, catch up, snatch away.

How do you twist this to equate with 'apostasia' and 'aphistemi'?

aphistémi: to lead away, to depart from

apostasia: defection, revolt

The Pretrib 'rapture' passage is 1 Thess 4:15-18. We see in this passage a rising from the dead (anistemi),  and an abduction (harpazo). But this is left hanging if there is no destination. Thankfully a destination is provided, a clearly defined result, which is to (eis) meet (apantesis) the Lord. 

Now compare that with 'apostasia' in 2 Thess 2:3 where the result is the rebellion and there is no destination defined. In 2 Thess 2:3 no one goes anywhere. This renders the 'rapture' of 1 Thess 4 unrelated to your personal belief of the definition of 'apostasia' in effect on the dead and the living, the destination of the risen dead and abducted living, and the result of the rising and abduction on the same group. 

Your correct assessment of 'apo' is still, and always will be, that of 'separation' where in clear and unmistakable contrast the blessed hope is a gathering to a place to meet someone. 

You can try an insert any word you would like into the text but only and ever will you find 'apostasia'. No doubt frustrating your efforts to prove that which does not exist. 

On 12/3/2019 at 8:53 PM, iamlamad said:

By the way, can you explain why several of the early translators used "departing?" You know, since it is a bad translation? Perhaps they knew better than you.

I did the research on that. Dicessio is a term defined nearly the same as 'aphistemi', and that as far back as I can find. Dicessio was used in a political context when a legislator deviated from a previous thought pattern; voting with the opposition when previously he supported his own side, or changing sides, for two examples. The idea was changing ones philosophy or ideology, and that from the inception of the term

It's a departing alright, a departing from one's public and private beliefs, a change in ideology, and shares no context with physical travel.

They knew, iamlamad. It's an ideological rebellion, defection, revolt. In the context of scripture it's a spiritual disintegration, defection from the Light of Truth and the one True God. 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

image.png.9f2a0333535eeb2a64d3b6c292ac129a.png

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  194
  • Topics Per Day:  0.12
  • Content Count:  11,053
  • Content Per Day:  6.66
  • Reputation:   9,009
  • Days Won:  36
  • Joined:  09/12/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/09/1956

After reading this thread the other day, the following occurred to me as I was reading relevant passages.

As I have said, I have never spent much time on end time events--only what comes as a matter of course through the years.

2Th. 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

 

Before we are taken two things must happen here:

1. a falling away

2. the man of sin revealed

 

2Th. 2:5   Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

 

Here someone is restraining the man of sin. When he is taken out of the way, then the man of sin can be revealed. And then we are taken.

 

Dan. 10:21 But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.

Dan. 12:1 “At that time Michael shall stand up,

The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;

And there shall be a time of trouble,

Such as never was since there was a nation,

Even to that time.

And at that time your people shall be delivered,

Every one who is found written in the book.

 

Michael is the Prince that watches over Israel. The man of sin’s principal object of hate is the Jews and the struggle is centered in Jerusalem.

Might Michael be the one that is holding back the ‘man of sin’ from being revealed?

 

Isn't it clear that Paul said that the Lord can't come to get us until the man of sin is revealed and then He comes for us?

So the so called departing (falling away) can't be us as a prelude to the revealing of the son of perdition because he has to be revealed before we get taken by the Lord.

I don't understand the confusion--what the pre-trib guys are saying using these scriptures makes no sense.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,272
  • Content Per Day:  2.10
  • Reputation:   688
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  06/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

So then 'separation' is now equivalent to 'gathering'?

So far the preponderance of evidence is not able to equate your personal definition of 'apostasia' with 'harpazo'. 

You skip over this one? Sounds like a divorce to me and not 'harpazo'.

However, you confuse terms here and in most cases when it comes to the gathering. The gathering is 'anistemi' and 'harpazo' from 1 Thess 4. 

anistémi: to raise up, to rise.

harpazó: to seize, catch up, snatch away.

How do you twist this to equate with 'apostasia' and 'aphistemi'?

aphistémi: to lead away, to depart from

apostasia: defection, revolt

The Pretrib 'rapture' passage is 1 Thess 4:15-18. We see in this passage a rising from the dead (anistemi),  and an abduction (harpazo). But this is left hanging if there is no destination. Thankfully a destination is provided, a clearly defined result, which is to (eis) meet (apantesis) the Lord. 

Now compare that with 'apostasia' in 2 Thess 2:3 where the result is the rebellion and there is no destination defined. In 2 Thess 2:3 no one goes anywhere. This renders the 'rapture' of 1 Thess 4 unrelated to your personal belief of the definition of 'apostasia' in effect on the dead and the living, the destination of the risen dead and abducted living, and the result of the rising and abduction on the same group. 

Your correct assessment of 'apo' is still, and always will be, that of 'separation' where in clear and unmistakable contrast the blessed hope is a gathering to a place to meet someone. 

You can try an insert any word you would like into the text but only and ever will you find 'apostasia'. No doubt frustrating your efforts to prove that which does not exist. 

I did the research on that. Dicessio is a term defined nearly the same as 'aphistemi', and that as far back as I can find. Dicessio was used in a political context when a legislator deviated from a previous thought pattern; voting with the opposition when previously he supported his own side, or changing sides, for two examples. The idea was changing ones philosophy or ideology, and that from the inception of the term

It's a departing alright, a departing from one's public and private beliefs, a change in ideology, and shares no context with physical travel.

They knew, iamlamad. It's an ideological rebellion, defection, revolt. In the context of scripture it's a spiritual disintegration, defection from the Light of Truth and the one True God. 

At the rapture, a PART of the whole [population] will be SEPARATED from that whole by physical distance. 

It may not be the most common use of that word, but it can certainly fit the rapture.  It also fits the context of the passage.

Strong's wrote, "of separation." In a divorce, one SEPARATES from the other.

AT the rapture, and part of the whole SEPARATES from the rest.

Edited by iamlamad
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  74
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  1,238
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   669
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/26/2018
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Alive said:

After reading this thread the other day, the following occurred to me as I was reading relevant passages.

As I have said, I have never spent much time on end time events--only what comes as a matter of course through the years.

2Th. 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

 

Before we are taken two things must happen here:

1. a falling away

2. the man of sin revealed

 

2Th. 2:5   Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

 

Here someone is restraining the man of sin. When he is taken out of the way, then the man of sin can be revealed. And then we are taken.

 

Dan. 10:21 But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.

Dan. 12:1 “At that time Michael shall stand up,

The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;

And there shall be a time of trouble,

Such as never was since there was a nation,

Even to that time.

And at that time your people shall be delivered,

Every one who is found written in the book.

 

Michael is the Prince that watches over Israel. The man of sin’s principal object of hate is the Jews and the struggle is centered in Jerusalem.

Might Michael be the one that is holding back the ‘man of sin’ from being revealed?

 

Isn't it clear that Paul said that the Lord can't come to get us until the man of sin is revealed and then He comes for us?

So the so called departing (falling away) can't be us as a prelude to the revealing of the son of perdition because he has to be revealed before we get taken by the Lord.

I don't understand the confusion--what the pre-trib guys are saying using these scriptures makes no sense.

Hi Alive,

Although we aren't told anywhere in Scripture 'who' the one is that is restraining......I agree that Michael is the best fit for the restrainer.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,600
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

16 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

At the rapture, a PART of the whole [population] will be SEPARATED from that whole by physical distance. 

It may not be the most common use of that word, but it can certainly fit the rapture.  It also fits the context of the passage.

Strong's wrote, "of separation." In a divorce, one SEPARATES from the other.

AT the rapture, and part of the whole SEPARATES from the rest.

But it's a divorce!!

We aren't married to the general population. We are spirituality married to Christ. We don't have to separate from the world, we already better be!!

Everything is incorrect about this idea of yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,272
  • Content Per Day:  2.10
  • Reputation:   688
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  06/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Alive said:

After reading this thread the other day, the following occurred to me as I was reading relevant passages.

As I have said, I have never spent much time on end time events--only what comes as a matter of course through the years.

2Th. 2:1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

 

Before we are taken two things must happen here:

1. a falling away

2. the man of sin revealed

 

2Th. 2:5   Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

 

Here someone is restraining the man of sin. When he is taken out of the way, then the man of sin can be revealed. And then we are taken.

 

Dan. 10:21 But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.

Dan. 12:1 “At that time Michael shall stand up,

The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;

And there shall be a time of trouble,

Such as never was since there was a nation,

Even to that time.

And at that time your people shall be delivered,

Every one who is found written in the book.

 

Michael is the Prince that watches over Israel. The man of sin’s principal object of hate is the Jews and the struggle is centered in Jerusalem.

Might Michael be the one that is holding back the ‘man of sin’ from being revealed?

 

Isn't it clear that Paul said that the Lord can't come to get us until the man of sin is revealed and then He comes for us?

So the so called departing (falling away) can't be us as a prelude to the revealing of the son of perdition because he has to be revealed before we get taken by the Lord.

I don't understand the confusion--what the pre-trib guys are saying using these scriptures makes no sense.

Isn't it clear that Paul said that the Lord can't come to get us until the man of sin is revealed and then He comes for us?

What was it that was upsetting them?  They were beginning to believe that the Day of the Lord - you know, that DARK day of destruction where God will destroy the world and the sinners in the world - had already come and they were IN IT.  But what was so upsetting, they had Paul's first letter where Paul hinted very strongly that the rapture of the church would come before the Day of the Lord. (I challenge you to study 1 thes. 5.)  

Question: does Jesus COME for the Day of the Lord? NO! Study the 5th and 6th seal - the change from church age to judgment. Do you see any coming there? Well, there IS a coming, but John was not shown it, so it does not show up. In 1 Thes. 5, Paul tells us the rapture will be the trigger for the start of the DAY. So there IS a coming for the rapture, but Jesus comes only to the clouds, not to the earth. It is NOT his Rev. 19 coming. So just before the 6th seal events, jesus comes, the church is taken out of the way, and the next moment it is DAY OF THE LORD.  Notice what Paul tells us: SUDDENLY - a sudden happened when people are saying peace and safety - suddenly the dead in Christ fly up from their graves! The raising of the dead in Christ is going to start a world wide earthquake. (Mat 27:  "the earth did quake...and the graves were opened.)  This earthquake will be Paul's "sudden destruction." 

So a moment after the dead in Christ are raised, Paul tells us about two different groups of people and what happens in this next moment: those who are IN CHRIST will be caught up, and so forever be with the Lord. But those NOT in christ will be left behind in this worldwide earthquake - Paul's sudden destruction.  It is ONE MOMENT in time for the righteous and the sinner; the church is caught up while the sinner faces sudden destruction.  

Then Paul tells us that this sudden destruction is the very WRATH of God! Remember, God is not going to set any appointments for us with His wrath: the appointments are to be set for the sinners.  So Paul is telling us that WRATH follows the rapture. I like to say it this way: the rapture will TRIGGER the Day of wrath or the Day of the Lord. 

Therefore, by Paul I KNOW the rapture must come a moment before the 6th seal. 

Now, you quoted 2 Thes 2:5-8. Therefore you KNOW that the man of sin CANNOT be revealed until the one restraining him is taken out of the way.  (Would God use such terminology for Michael? I don't think so!) 

So this is an absolute fact: the man of sin CANNOT be revealed unto the one restraining that revealing is gone: taken out of the way. Agree so far? 

Now,  here is the problem with so many theories: notice carefully that at the end of verse 3, the man of sin IS REVEALED. (not in reality - but in Paul's argument.)  Now, please tell us if you can, HOW IN THE WORLD did he get revealed? He CAN'T until the one restraining is departed or moved or gone or taken out of the way. 

It has been my argument therefore that SOMEWHERE in the verse 3a - the first part of the verse - we can find the restrainer  "taken out of the way."   Another proof that this was Paul's intent is in verse 6 where Paul wrote, "and now you know what is restraining..."  HOW, Paul? HOW can we know? Why would Paul write those words? I believe because for some reason - perhaps if Romans got ahold of his letter they would not understand - Paul DISGUISED the rapture so only those who got his first letter would understand. But we can know because HE TOLD US - but in a way that would take some study. He wrote, "and now you know" so readers would go back and find out HOW they could know. 

So is it POSSIBLE that "apostasia" could be used for the rapture? Strongs has proven it could. Next, it is possible that a falling away could be the restrainer "taken out of the way?" This would be VERY WEAK.  So you wrote, "Isn't it clear that Paul said that the Lord can't come to get us until the man of sin is revealed and then He comes for us:.  No, it is not clear at all! It is not at all what Paul is saying.  It does not fit Paul's first letter either. Next, what is it that must come FIRST? It is the apostasia. Once the one restraining is taken out of the way, THEN the man of sin can be revealed. And here is Paul's argument in a nutshell: when someone sees the revealing - the man of sin declaring he is God  - then they have conclusive proof THE DAY has come and they are no IN the day of the Lord.

Therefore:

Before we are taken two things must happen here:

1. a falling away

2. the man of sin revealed

This theory is just not what Paul is saying. You should have said"

 

Before the day of the Lord two things must happen here:

1. a falling away

2. the man of sin revealed

Edited by iamlamad
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,272
  • Content Per Day:  2.10
  • Reputation:   688
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  06/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

But it's a divorce!!

We aren't married to the general population. We are spirituality married to Christ. We don't have to separate from the world, we already better be!!

Everything is incorrect about this idea of yours.

Then you have a real problem: HOw did the man of sin get revealed in verse 3b? Could it be you are not understanding Paul's intent here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  194
  • Topics Per Day:  0.12
  • Content Count:  11,053
  • Content Per Day:  6.66
  • Reputation:   9,009
  • Days Won:  36
  • Joined:  09/12/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/09/1956

4 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

Hi Alive,

Although we aren't told anywhere in Scripture 'who' the one is that is restraining......I agree that Michael is the best fit for the restrainer.

It seems so to me. I don't believe its the Holy Spirit because He will be convicting individuals of sin later on.

Michael as well as other angels are tasked with nations. Michaels nation is Israel. The man of sin will be focused on Israel. It seems to follow.

I won't be dogmatic about it, but when I looked at this, there was that 'ring of truth' within. Not a loud resounding witness, but a wee one.

:-)

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...