Will the Day of the Lord come as a thief, or will there be signs first?

[Diaste]

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

No, the departing before the departing is nonsense.

I agree. It's Pre Trib nonsense. It's not me. That's the logical repercussion of demanding apostasia is equivalent to harpazo. It's off the wall. 

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Paul was talking about the Day of the Lord or the start of God's wrath. The departing must come before wrath. That makes a lot of sense.

Of course. The failure of the doctrine is it's definition of wrath and the timing of said wrath. I was steeped in the doctrine of Pre Trib. Pre Trib does not have an adequate grasp of what wrath is nor when wrath begins.

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Do you see what you just did? You highlighted a myth! You highlighted words that Paul never wrote. These words were added by translators! Many people form their theories from this passage on added words. King James did us no favors on this passage.

Incorrect.

 

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

 

First in verse 2 they missed the timing of the Day. They did not think it was "at hand" or about to come—they thought it HAD come and they were IN IT.

Then all translators add words as if in verse 2 the Day was about to come, not had come.

They do not add words unless noted. There are no notes for additions in this particular case. The order is intact, rebellion and revealing 1st, then the Lord returns and the gathering occurs [see attachments]

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Some words have more than one meaning, and the meaning can change over time. Take our English word, paradigm. Para means close together like two lines parallel, or paratroopers marching in lines. Digm means  to show or reveal. Together this word should mean, bringing two things up close and next to earth other to show their similarities or differences: to compare the two. Today the meaning has drifted far from that.

You should know, Apostasia is a compound word, with apo and stasia. From stasia we get our English word, "stationary" or not moving.

You can twist this anyway you like but it's still a failure. Paul tells us the gathering is harpazo. Harpazo is an abduction. If 2 Thess 2:3 was supposed to be harpazo, then why did not Paul say harpazo in 2 Thess 2:3 when he clearly said harpazo in 1 Thess 4:17

It's because apostasia is not harpazo and Paul meant exactly what he said. I bet you rely on Paul's exact words in 1 Thess 4, 1 Thess 5 and 1 Cor 15, among many other passages. But when it comes to 2 Thess 2 Paul now means something completely different than what he said. 

Desperate move. 

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Do you know what Strong tells us about Apo?

1. of separation…
1a. of local separation, 
1b. of separation of a part from the whole

1bi. where of a whole some part is taken
1c. of any kind of separation of one thing from another…
1d. of a state of separation, that is of distance
1di.  physical, of distance of place

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES. 

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

In other words, apostasia COULD mean, from its separate words, a group of people taken out of a larger group and moved somewhere else, a distance away, and it happen so fast, those left behind were stationary.

A very similar Greek word is used for divorce, where one of the two separates - goes away.

Yeah, it's a DIVORCE! Not a gathering to or a coming together. 

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Did you notice that in verse 3b, the man of sin IS revealed?
Did you notice that in verses 6, 7, and 8, the man of sin CANNOT be revealed until the power restraining that revealed is "taken out of the way?"

Another misinterpretation of the scripture. This contradicts the order Paul established. There is no 'restrainer'. What restrains is not a person nor a group, but events. 

" 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed."

'It will not come' is the Day of the Lord. 

"And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time."

What is restraining is the rebellion and the revealing. What is being held back is the Day of the Lord. 

Pre Trib must always rearrange the order to fit doctrine.

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Therefore, logic tells us that in verse 3a, the restraining power has been "taken out of the way." That does not seem to fit people just leaving, or falling away. Anyway, could evil (people falling away) restrain evil (the man of sin being revealed)?

On the other hand, just who are what IS that restraining power? Did you notice in verse 6 that Paul said, "now you know?" Why would Paul write, "now you know," unless he had just giving that information away in what he had just written: previous words or sentences? In fact, Paul DID tell us what that restraining power is, but did it in a veiled way. I think He wrote, "now you know," so the readers would back up and read it again and again until they found the answer.

The answer is, 'the rebellion and revealing is what restrains the coming and the gathering'. 

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

We can only guess why Paul wrote this passage the way he did. My guess is, he was concerned if his letter was intercepted and read by Romans. He wrote it so they would not have a clue. But he wrote it so those that had read his first letter could understand. This is only my guess.

It's a wild guess and has no logic or sound reasoning behind it. 

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

If people back up and read it again, and understand that the departing fulfills the theme of the passage, His coming and the gathering, then they understand the power holding back the revealing until the proper time is the Holy Spirit working through the church that is suddenly "taken out of the way." 

Apostasia and harpazo are not equivalent terms in any way.

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Then Paul wrote with parallelism. 

Verse 3: the restrainer gone, so the man of sin is revealed.
Verse 6:  something is restraining so the revealing is at the proper time.
Verses 7 & 8: The powers of darkness are working, but the restrainer will keep holding back the revealing until the proper time, THEN the man of sin will be revealed.

"alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come. 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed."

'It will not come' refers to the Day of the Lord. The rebellion and revealing precede that Day. You shouldn't go on to twist the order. Alas, Pre Trib must do so.

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Paul could have just written: no, the Day of the Lord has not come and you are not in it. It is still future.

What he did write: when people see first the significant departing (Paul assumes all will recognize it when it happens)—THE departing—that must come FIRST, then they see the revealing, all will then know that the Day has come and they are IN IT.

Harpazo is not a departing. It's an abduction. The rapture is an abduction, not a departing. Paul didn't say abduction in 2 Thess 2:3. He said revolt, defection, rebellion. Paul could have used 18 different terms for departing yet he did not. 

This is so wrong.

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

 

This agrees with John in Revelation: by the time people see the man of sin enter the temple and commit the abomination, they can know THE DAY has already started and they are IN IT. (The Day of the Lord begins at the 6th seal in chapter 6, while the abomination will happen in chapter 11.)

I suspect this is the passage Peter had in mind when he talked about Paul's writing.

Not sure how since all the Apostles except John were dead by the time Revelation was given. But ya know, you go.

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

It seems many people equate "the Day of the Lord" with the rapture, as if they are two ways of saying the same thing. Always remember, the Day of the Lord comes with wrath and fierce anger. (Isaiah 13). That does not FIT Paul's rapture.

This is another desperate attempt. Proving a thing wrong does not make another thing correct. And as far as I know, no one says the terms are interchangeable; that is a Pre Trib tactic used to support a weak proposition and is used incessantly to equate apostasia and harpazo and rebellion with departing. 

 

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Paul wrote that the rapture would come FIRST, then the start of the DAY would follow immediately after.

Huh...how did you get there? I mean, you're right; I'm just surprised you see it.

You probably still have the definition and timing of wrath incorrect but you're getting closer.

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

We could ask, WHY would Paul include the Day of the Lord in His rapture passage? Then after the day, talk about God's wrath? It is because the rapture will trigger God's wrath. Both Rosenthal and Van Kampen, the two men that began the pre-wrath theory, wrote that the rapture and the Day will be "back-to-back events." I believe they WILL be back-to-back events, or be very close to it.

I very much doubt the rapture triggers wrath. The rapture is saving people out of wrath before it falls; before it falls for a host of reasons. The rapture isn't one of them.

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

 

I know someone who says the 6th and 7th seals will be opened on the same day.

That someone is probably me. I started topics on it and argue that point in several other topics. A few others do as well.

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Finally, I don't believe there is going to be a significant "falling away." I believe Paul meant a significant DEPARTING as in the rapture. I think the church will continue to grow right up to the rapture. When someone does "fall away," two get born again.

All contemporary evidence of the state of modern Christianity aside...

[iamlamad]

3 hours ago, Diaste said:

I agree. It's Pre Trib nonsense. It's not me. That's the logical repercussion of demanding apostasia is equivalent to harpazo. It's off the wall. 

Of course. The failure of the doctrine is it's definition of wrath and the timing of said wrath. I was steeped in the doctrine of Pre Trib. Pre Trib does not have an adequate grasp of what wrath is nor when wrath begins.

Incorrect.

 

They do not add words unless noted. There are no notes for additions in this particular case. The order is intact, rebellion and revealing 1st, then the Lord returns and the gathering occurs [see attachments]

You can twist this anyway you like but it's still a failure. Paul tells us the gathering is harpazo. Harpazo is an abduction. If 2 Thess 2:3 was supposed to be harpazo, then why did not Paul say harpazo in 2 Thess 2:3 when he clearly said harpazo in 1 Thess 4:17

It's because apostasia is not harpazo and Paul meant exactly what he said. I bet you rely on Paul's exact words in 1 Thess 4, 1 Thess 5 and 1 Cor 15, among many other passages. But when it comes to 2 Thess 2 Paul now means something completely different than what he said. 

Desperate move. 

Yeah, it's a DIVORCE! Not a gathering to or a coming together. 

Another misinterpretation of the scripture. This contradicts the order Paul established. There is no 'restrainer'. What restrains is not a person nor a group, but events. 

" 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed."

'It will not come' is the Day of the Lord. 

"And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time."

What is restraining is the rebellion and the revealing. What is being held back is the Day of the Lord. 

Pre Trib must always rearrange the order to fit doctrine.

The answer is, 'the rebellion and revealing is what restrains the coming and the gathering'. 

It's a wild guess and has no logic or sound reasoning behind it. 

Apostasia and harpazo are not equivalent terms in any way.

"alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come. 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed."

'It will not come' refers to the Day of the Lord. The rebellion and revealing precede that Day. You shouldn't go on to twist the order. Alas, Pre Trib must do so.

Harpazo is not a departing. It's an abduction. The rapture is an abduction, not a departing. Paul didn't say abduction in 2 Thess 2:3. He said revolt, defection, rebellion. Paul could have used 18 different terms for departing yet he did not. 

This is so wrong.

Not sure how since all the Apostles except John were dead by the time Revelation was given. But ya know, you go.

This is another desperate attempt. Proving a thing wrong does not make another thing correct. And as far as I know, no one says the terms are interchangeable; that is a Pre Trib tactic used to support a weak proposition and is used incessantly to equate apostasia and harpazo and rebellion with departing. 

 

Huh...how did you get there? I mean, you're right; I'm just surprised you see it.

You probably still have the definition and timing of wrath incorrect but you're getting closer.

I very much doubt the rapture triggers wrath. The rapture is saving people out of wrath before it falls; before it falls for a host of reasons. The rapture isn't one of them.

That someone is probably me. I started topics on it and argue that point in several other topics. A few others do as well.

All contemporary evidence of the state of modern Christianity aside...

 

Quote

 

"And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time."

What is restraining is the rebellion and the revealing. What is being held back is the Day of the Lord. 

 

I am assuming you have a good grasp of the English language. You should understand "so that" is explaining in what respect the restraining is restraining. It is so that the man of sin can be revealed at the proper time.

What it does NOT say:

so that the Day of the Lord can begin at the proper time.

Care to try again?

 

Here is 2 Thes. 2:3 is an OLD KJV text:

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

Care Notice the words in Italic font? They were ADDED by the translators.

Young's Literal - so nothing added or removed:
let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,

 

[iamlamad]

3 hours ago, Diaste said:

All contemporary evidence of the state of modern Christianity aside...

quote from a website:

"The number of Christians around the world has nearly quadrupled in the last 100 years, from about 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion in 2010. But the world’s overall population also has risen rapidly, from an estimated 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010. As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the world’s population today (32%) as they did a century ago (35%).

This apparent stability, however, masks a momentous shift. Although Europe and the Americas still are home to a majority of the world’s Christians (63%), that share is much lower than it was in 1910 (93%). And the proportion of Europeans and Americans who are Christian has dropped from 95% in 1910 to 76% in 2010 in Europe as a whole, and from 96% to 86% in the Americas as a whole.

At the same time, Christianity has grown enormously in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, where there were relatively few Christians at the beginning of the 20th century. The share of the population that is Christian in sub-Saharan Africa climbed from 9% in 1910 to 63% in 2010, while in the Asia-Pacific region it rose from 3% to 7%. Christianity today – unlike a century ago – is truly a global faith. "

As I said, or if not, should have said: when one "falls away" here in the US, two or three become Christians in another part of the world.

I believe there is going to be another HUGE "awakening" (revival) in the world just before the rapture.

[iamlamad]

3 hours ago, Diaste said:

Pre Trib does not have an adequate grasp of what wrath is nor when wrath begins.

"Classic pre-trib" has at least two very glaring errors: the rapture in Rev. 4:1 and the 70th week or "tribulation" beginning at the first seal.

I believe the rapture will come after the 5th seal (Martyrs of the church age) and before the 6th seal (start of the Day of the Lord and God's wrath.)

I am still VERY MUCH pre-trib, for I also believe that the "trib" begins at the 7th seal and with the first trumpet judgment. 

[Neighbor]

On 1/28/2023 at 9:11 PM, iamlamad said:

Thanks all, but I did not see a specific answer to Joel 2: the signs in the sun and moon before the Day of the Lord.

I know there are many people who believe that the Rapture and the start of the Day of the Lord are back to back events: one moment it is church age, the next moment the rapture, and the next moment, the Day of the Lord.

Perhaps an understanding of how this can be an dis not an inconsistency is to be found in Matthew at what is referenced today as Matthew 24 within verses 27 and 28 a reference to the days of Noah and the coming of the Son Of Man.

For there were signs and events for over a hundred years at the time of Noah yet they were not "seen as truth to be heeded"; not till the day God suddenly/quickly turned what was known to be into absolute chaos like never known in history recorded  by man. Might it be just that way again? -God so blinding all that reject Him into their own strong delusion to the point of their never "seeing" what God is doing, though it will be done just as he has done it in the past history of His creation, fulfilling his word exactly.

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Neighbor said:

Perhaps an understanding of how this can be an dis not an inconsistency is to be found in Matthew at what is referenced today as Matthew 24 within verses 27 and 28 a reference to the days of Noah and the coming of the Son Of Man.

For there were signs and events for over a hundred years at the time of Noah yet they were not "seen as truth to be heeded"; not till the day God suddenly/quickly turned what was known to be into absolute chaos like never known in history recorded  by man. Might it be just that way again? -God so blinding all that reject Him into their own strong delusion to the point of their never "seeing" what God is doing, though it will be done just as he has done it in the past history of His creation, fulfilling his word exactly.

Perhaps then, the sign of the sun turning black (a total eclipse?) and the moon turning blood red (a total eclipse?) are so common these days, with the mathematics all worked out so we know a hundred years in advance, when one is coming, that people won't recognize them as a SIGN? This is VERY possible.

[iamlamad]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

...

I very much doubt the rapture triggers wrath. The rapture is saving people out of wrath before it falls; before it falls for a host of reasons. The rapture isn't one of them.

...

Perhaps "trigger" is not the right word.  That would seem to say that the rapture pulled the trigger.  What is Revelation chapter 7 about? Why did God have John take a break between the 6th and 7th seals? Why would God NOT ALLOW the "hurt" to begin on this planet until....

God MUST see two events accomplished before He will allow His wrath to begin the trumpet judgments.
1. The sealing of the 144,000
2. The church seen safely in heaven.

After God sees these two events, then Jesus can open the 7th seal to begin the DAY of the Lord and the 70th week of Daniel.

OR: perhaps after these two events God will then allow the 7th seal to be opened to begin the 70th week. (The Day of the Lord and God's wrath begin before chapter 7. God got angry at the 6th seal, but restrained His wrath until these two events were completed.)

It's one or the other.

Quote

before it falls for a host of reasons.

The reason is, to destroy the world and the sinners IN the world: Isaiah 13.

The point of Rev. 7 is, God WILL NOT allow His wrath to begin the destruction until after the sealing and the rapture.

[iamlamad]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

 

Quote

 

  On 2/8/2023 at 6:51 AM, iamlamad said:

Paul wrote that the rapture would come FIRST, then the start of the DAY would follow immediately after.

 

Huh...how did you get there? I mean, you're right; I'm just surprised you see it.

You probably still have the definition and timing of wrath incorrect but you're getting closer.

How did I get there? Very simple, in Paul's classic rapture passage, 1 Thes. 4 & 5, he tells of the rapture, and then just three verses later mentions the Day of the Lord. And shortly after that, he mentions God's wrath. Rapture first—then wrath.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Definition of God's wrath:  God's fierce anger.
Definition of the Day of God's wrath: an extended period of time that will cover at a minimum, the entire 70th week of Daniel, and probably Christ's coming to Armageddon.

TIMING?  I am still working on that: the Day of His wrath will begin either just before the 7th seal is opened or WHEN the 7th seal is opened. For years I have thought it began with the opening of the 6th seal. It seems that cannot be because the SIGNS must come first.

[Neighbor]

Perhaps, and perhaps it all occurred already as  Preteists seem to- and I suppose an amillennialist might also contend.

All fun stuff.

 

Keeping in mind the idea of rapture is perhaps not all that old if the understanding of it indeed originated on with visions a farm girl had and Darby picked up on and ran with it.

 A nice piece on the subject is at https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=pretrib_arch

All I know for sure is God up and turned me personally about from my own self deception  and denial of his existence, to seeing through the reveal by the Holy Spirit that Jesus (Yeshua) is God, is my Lord, is my savior; and that I have,  by being humbled and broken by God, been turned about, fulfilling what is declared within Romans 8:29-31  very personally.

[iamlamad]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

Apostasia and harpazo are not equivalent terms in any way.

At the harpazo, will there be a gathering? Of course there will be. There will also be a departing as those who are suddenly caught up fly up into the air: they are departing earth. A departing therefore relates to apostasia. All these great men translated apostasia as a departing.

1384 Wycliffe N.T.
That no man deceyue you in any maner / for no but departynge aweye (or dissencon) schal come firste & the man of synne schall be schewid [shewed] the sone of perdicioune.

1534 Tyndale N.T.
Let no ma deceave you by eny meanes for the lorde commeth not excepte ther come a departynge fyrst and that that synfnll man be opened ye sonne of perdicion

1535 Coverdale Bible
Let no man disceaue you by eny meanes. For the LORDE commeth not, excepte the departynge come first, and that Man of Synne be opened, even the sonne of perdicion.

1539 Cranmer Great Bible
Let no man deceaue you by any meanes, for the Lorde shall not come excepte there come a departinge fyrst, & that that synfull man be opened, the sonne of perdicion.

1549 Matthew's Bible
Let no man deceyue you by any meanes, for the Lord commeth not, except there come a departyng first, and that, that sinful man be opened, the sonne of perdicyon

1565 Beza Bible
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for [that day shall not come,] except there come a departing first, and that man of sinne be disclosed, [euen] the son of perdition.

1575 Geneva Bible
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes for that day shal not come, except there come a departing first, and that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition.

Notice what follows the departing in EVERY case: it is the man of sin being revealed.

Verses 6 to 8 tell us that the revealing CANNOT take place until the power restraining has been taken out or the day. Therefore, "taking out of the way" and "revealing" are connected.

6 And now you know what is restraining him [from being revealed at this time]; it is so that he may be manifested (revealed) in his own [appointed] time.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness (that hidden principle of rebellion against constituted authority) is already at work in the world, [but it is] restrained only until he who restrains is taken out of the way.

8 And then the lawless one (the antichrist) will be revealed and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring him to an end by His appearing at His coming.

Almost all English translations show "He" so it is a BEING that is restraining, not anything else.

WHAT exactly is being restrained? It is the revealing. The revealing will initiate the days of great tribulation and God knows exactly when He wants those days to happen. It just makes good sense that it is GOD restraining or holding back the revealing until the proper time.

Look at verse 7: "until He would restrains is taken out of the way, or "gone from the midst." What will happen then? The start of the Day? NO!

Look at verse 8: then the man of sin gets revealed.

Why would Paul write, "and now you know who is restraining" (or holding back the revealing).... I believe Paul wrote that because he had just told us. In fact, he did just tell us, but not in so many words.

The restrainer being taken out is hidden in the word apostasia. So either a significant falling away (from what is not written) or a significant departing (from what is not written) then allows the man of sin to be revealed.

There is no way around, over or under this truth: the man of sin IS revealed in the same verse. How could he get revealed? Only one way: the one restraining or holding back the revealing has been removed.

So Paul wrote that he is revealed, then later wrote HOW he was revealed.