Which Coming?

oopos

 

Sometimes one needs to repeat stuff.



What i want to hear
is how Darby in the 1830s got into his
time machine and went back to just before 1611
and got those Anglican translators of the
King James Version (KJV) to put
"falling away" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. They
knew perfectly well that the word "apostasy"
(Yes, it was an English word used in 1611)
would fit yet they picked "falling away".

I want to know how the Might Darby pulled
that one off

Then after that Darby had to get in his
time machine and convince the authors
of 6 English Language translations to
put in a form of "departing" instead of
"apostasy" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
Those folks had "apostasy" in their
English Language also, for "Apostasy" is
just a transliteration of the Greek term
from which "Apostasy" is usually meant
BUT APPARENTLY NOT BY THE EARLY English
translators in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

 

Why should i give you answers again?
I gave them to you once before.

Neverthe less, i'll try to get to them
on the week-end.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------Originally posted by freeatlast:
there is only two comings. One has happened and one is still to come. Sadly many, many people have confused the rapture with a coming. The rapture is not the Lord coming but the church going. He calls from heaven. He never returns to earth for the rapture. There is no third coming.
--------------------------------------------------
Donna wrote:

Donna and Free,

Why would either of you want to accept that I Thessalonians 4's discussion of the rapture is not also discussing 'The Coming of the Lord'?

Paul very clearly tells us that the rapture occurs at 'The Coming of the Lord'.

Why not accept Paul's explicit teaching?

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that
we which are alive and remain unto THE COMING OF THE LORD
shall not prevent them which are asleep. For
the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven...Then
we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord " I Thess 4:15

Also, you attempt to say the rapture is not a coming, but what do we find Jesus doing? Does it show Jesus stationed up in Heaven; or does it show Jesus coming down from Heaven and us meeting Him as He is descending from Heaven?

To say that I Thessalonians 4 is not discussing 'The Coming of the Lord' is simply giving a blind-eye to what the apostle Paul is writing otherwise as he is describing 'The Coming of the Lord'

Why not accept what Paul wrote; that it is the coming of the Lord, and that Christ is coming down from Heaven; instead of making up a theory that it is not really the coming of the Lord and Christ really isn't coming down from Heaven?

Free tells us that we should understand that The rapture is not the Lord coming but the church going; but Paul tells us that it is The Coming of the Lord and Paul mentions nothing about the Church going to Heaven; only that the Church will meet Christ as The Lord Himself descends from Heaven. We, the church, are going to be with Christ forever, and He is descending from Heaven to the Earth...Paul never tells us in this chapter that CHrist is going from the clouds back up into Heaven....kinda diminishes the entire point of Jesus 'descending from Heaven' in the first place; if He is not coming to the Earth....If He were only to come to the Earth to call people to the clouds to then take them back to Heaven (which scripture never ever teaches anywhere) then He would have had no reason to leave Heaven in the first place; and to have descended from Heaven through the clouds to get us.

He gets us and we meet Him on His return trip from Heaven back to the Earth....That is why it is called the 2nd Coming; and why Paul calls it, in verse I Thess 4:15, 'The Coming of the Lord'

Paul gives a completely different picture than you are presenting.

You seem to want to imply that since we meet Christ as He is coming down from Heaven, in the air and the clouds, that we must then assume that He the turns around and ascends back up into Heaven with us at this event. However, I Thessalonians 4 says nothing about Christ changing directions; and it says nothing about Christ taking us anywhere;

I Thess only tells us:
1) This is the Coming of the Lord v15
2) He is descending from Heaven v16
3) We meet Him as He descends v16
4) We will forever be with Him v17

As for the gathering of Matthew 24:31; it is simple to understand.

It is a gathering of 'His Elect'.

His = Christ.

Christ's Elect are only His Chosen, His Children, His redeemed, His faithful followers...Christians.

Noone that rejects Christ and who deny Him and do not belong to Him; can be 'His Elect'.

It is the same 'gathering' (episonugo) that occurs for us that Paul talked about in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 which also is described as occuring at 'The Coming of the Lord'

"the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him"

Likewise, Mark too, shows the same gathering of Christ's Elect, from all parts of the world; to meet Him as He descends from Heaven....just as Paul describes in I Thess 4:17.

Mark 13:26b-27
"the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together *His elect* from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

 

Netpub, your take on MacDonald is full of lies.

I will have to post something about her sayings to clear the air about the issue.

Basically, her sayings include stuff that partial rapturists, midtrib, and posttribber hold to. However, NONE OF IT IS COMPATABLE WITH PRETRIB THEOLOGY.

 

I would appreciate that, like I said, I have been taught the pretrib view my whole life, but have recently started studying the pre-wrath veiwpoint within the past few years. Any information you can provied will be appreciated.

 

The reason that Mary MacDonald's name comes up when discussing the origins of the Pretrib view; is not because she was teaching Pretrib. I would think that anyone who has studied here writings and the early origins of Pretrib and the Plymouth Brethren in the nineteenth century would agree.

What makes Margaret's visions important; is that she shared her visions with Ed Irving, and he met with her many times; and from those visions; Irving and later Darby were exposed to the notion that there would be a rapture before the Great Tribulation (even though Mary's visions involved as you said, partial raptures on both ends of the Great Tribulation)...this was the first time that the idea of any type of rapture would occur 'before' the Great Tribulation.

Therefore, because of the influence the visions had on Irving and Darby, they, through the Plymouth Brethren, for whatever reason decided they liked the idea of a rapture before the tribulation, and that is what Darby later went on to add into the creation of his dispensational system; with the results of this new Pretrib rapture idea being a very integral part of his new system.

So as you say, Darby may not give full credit to MacDonald for 'creating the Pretrib view', since she taught a partial rapture view; however, Darby and the Brethren liked the notion of the pretrib rapture part enough that it was allowed to influence them as they then incorporated it, and used it in their systemitizing and creation of the modern dispensational framework.

 

What you really mean is accept your opinion.
I know what it says, He comes in the clouds, we go up to meet Him, if that isn't rapure what is it?
No, wait, I don't care what your opinion is anyway.

 

That'll settle it. Call in the theologians, they can move on to semthing else.

 

Donna wrote:

You sure didn't have to be so rude Donna.

Why would you choose to do that?

2 Timothy 2:24 "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves"


I was just trying to be helpful and point out that two verses above the one you were referencing, Paul (not any opinion of mine) makes the exact statement that he is talking about the Coming of the Lord.

Sorry to have brought it up and stirred up such a hateful response from you. I will be sure in the future to avoid addressing you directly in and future discussions so as to not be insulted again.

Perhaps you are just having a bad day, and did not really intend on being rude. I hope so, if I offended you by replying to you, showing you the scriptures, then I apologize for anything I may have said that upset you.

The scriptures, however, stand on their own; especially I Thess 4:15.


James 3:17 "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits"

 

Donna, just because the others are wrong, doesn't mean we have to belittle them. They need to grow in knowledge also. We should exhort and encourage them to throw off bad theology. We certainly don't need to insult them though.

 

You've never done that have you?

 

Haven't insulted anyone. So don't falsely accuse me.

 

Just for the record, my response was directed at DD, not you Donna.

 

I will return with Jesus on his second coming to earth riding a white horse out of the clouds in the sky. Of course I will be behind HIM....lol

Hello...Ed Edwards there is no such thing as luck!

 

The "and" at the front of Mark 13:27
is NOT like the "and" in 2 Thessalonians 2:1.

The "and" in Mark 13:27 is a Polysyndeton "and".
The "and " in 2 Tessalonians 2:1 connects two event sets
(some posties say the two events happen the same 48-hour day.
I say they happen the same 7-year day.)

 

Dave Taylor: "The reason that Mary MacDonald's name comes up when discussing the origins of the Pretrib view; ... "

Evidently this reason has a lot more to do
with the history revisionism and fertile
imiganation of our contemporary,
Dave MacPherson than any
reality. BTW, her name is Margaret.