A problem with premillennialism

[Arial]

The problem with your diatribe is that the meaning of those lampstands was clearly defined in the text, so what's your point?

Is diatribe your favorite word? Here is what it means:

1. A bitter, abusive denunciation.
2. A prolonged or exhaustive discussion; especially, an acrimonious or invective harangue; a strain of abusive or railing language; a philippic

There was nothing bitter, nothing abusive, nothing acrimonious or invective, no abusive or railing language in my post. Unless of course you consider the nerve of somebody to disagree with you to be all those things. Stop baiting.

Is everything else in Rev also explained? So what is your point?

When you people gravitate toward the broad brush strokes of all-inclusiveness, that's where you do err.

Is that a joke? You invent that what I said is gravitating toward the broad brush strokes of all-inclusiveness. Am I including your view in this "all-inclusiveness" of mine? Or do you just think it makes you sound intelligent? Not an insult or abusiveness. I would just like to know because your statement made no sense and was based on nothing.

I wonder if you are ever going to get to dealing with the subject of the discussion?

When you people

Who are "you people?"

I for one am willing to explore with those who seek to be honest, and find out where the error lies in one or both systems of thought.

You have shown zero evidence of that. Self deception is even worse than attempting to deceive others. So which is it?

I challenged you to that test, and you laughed it off, which is what I expect from those who lack spiritual depth.

Wow. Shall we explore the shallow pool of your mind? I do not even know what you are referring to but I do know I have made post after post to you on the subject, and yours in response for a long time now have been nothing but personal remarks about me, and nothing ever of actually exploring anything I had said on the subject. So dust off the ole mirror and look in it. It is you, you will see. Not me.

Now, get back on topic. I said long ago that this is the very reason I mostly avoid discussions on this topic with dispensationalists. Since they won't (can't?) actually explain what is being said that is contrary to their own beliefs, and never address it, they run out of OP relevant posts and begin posting nothing but negative innuendo concerning the opponents character or intelligence.

To which you replied, "Well I am not one of those!" Hmmmmm.

 

[Arial]

The revelation of the types and shadows are not always revealed in scripture. Sometimes translations corrupt the text in just a manner so that the parallels brought into the mix actually mislead. The 24 elders are just a case in point. The newer translations that rely more heavily on the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts, simply because they are older than most of the Textus Receptus, the understanding as to who those elders are is made more allegorical so that some interpret them as being the "Divine Counsel" rather than representative of the Church. The newer translations render them speaking in the second person rather than first, as if their praises of Yahshuah do not apply to them.

I don't give a rats behind about what someone has to say about defective translations, corrupt text, mislead. It is not relevant to the conversation and nine times out of ten is being used to support a presupposition. Have you ever studied HOW, the process, the Bible was translated? The number of documents used, the checking and checking, the methods etc.?

And you need to learn the difference between allegory and symbolic. You use allegory wrong when you claim that is how a'mils are interpreting. They aren't.

Anyway, the debates will go on until the end of this age given that most people don't seek the Lord for absolute Truth in all their beliefs so that we may all join together as being in one, unified faith. This all is the devil's playground. Many keep making appeals to the corrupt, early church fathers who are known to have been greatly influenced by Platonian and Aristotelian, rhetorical crap! Not even THEY agreed with one another on some essential things, and yet they are viewed as great doctrinal authorities on the basis of appeals to antiquity, which is...crap! It matters not at all that a couple of them were taught by John himself, what they wrote was STILL not inspired as were the hands of the apostles when they were under that inspiration that so many ascribe to the church fathers as a whole, simply because of their proximity to the living apostles.

Irrelevant and off topic.

Well, as much as you appear to have the skills of a screenwriter for Hollywood movies, creating scenarios out of thin air and such, what you failed to comprehend is that some scriptures offered in defense of other's position are not always valid representations. All who group together under that banner get all manner of laughter, whoops and hollers from their chums, which doesn't prove anything in relation to Truth, Who is a Person, not a collection of right and proper doctrines.

So, you're free to enjoy your manic, juvenile laugh-along with your chums, but that's nothing but the position of ridicule rather than textual and doctrinal conformance to what's actually written. My contention with gravitating toward the allegorical as the sole basis for interpretation is that they always make scripture out to say whatever they want it to say, even when the literal clearly goes against their pet doctrines. There is nothing allegorical about Yahshuah having been nailed to the cross, but there are some out there who will call just about anything into question on the basis of their position and rooting within allegory as their weapon of choice to defend their position.

So, yes, please do whoop it up, and enjoy remaining here on this earth for the tribulation to test your metal and see what you're made of, because within the tribulation, the Gospel of Grace is no longer active. Each one must "endure unto the end" in order to be saved. Go for it with gusto, if you wish. I prefer being saved by grace rather than my own strength for endurance unto the end of the most horrid years of the Lamb's wrath, worse than this world has ever seen. Make that allegorical, if you want, but it will avail you nothing.

Well, what can I say. It is funny the way you have lost your cool.

Still can't tackle post #381 line by line? That would actually be an OP relevant post.

A'is, is not an allegorical interpretation. It is finding what the symbols, figurative language, and representatives, are symbolizing, figuring, and representing. Common sense.

 

[Musicmaster]

Is diatribe your favorite word? Here is what it means:

1. A bitter, abusive denunciation.
2. A prolonged or exhaustive discussion; especially, an acrimonious or invective harangue; a strain of abusive or railing language; a philippic

There are mofe definitions in the more exhaustive dictionaries, but it is what it is.

There was nothing bitter, nothing abusive, nothing acrimonious or invective, no abusive or railing language in my post. Unless of course you consider the nerve of somebody to disagree with you to be all those things. Stop baiting.

Don't flatter yourself...

Is everything else in Rev also explained? So what is your point?

It appears that your one example caved in upon itself. Asking me for the point in relation to your own example going against you isn't an onus upon me to firm up the point you were trying to make, and that collapsed under its own weight.

Is that a joke? You invent that what I said is gravitating toward the broad brush strokes of all-inclusiveness.

(yawn) Please spare me the slight-of-hand crap of yours! You said dispensationals do this and that (it's on another page, so going back will have to wait to get the exact quote), as if all who happen to fall under the label of "dispensationalists" are of the same mind and stripe. Personally, I don't like labels applied to people since we all change our beliefs on things throughout our lives. But, some people are Hell bent on placing everyone else under some label so that they can categorize the enemies contrasted against friends. It's a favorite pass time of many.

Am I including your view in this "all-inclusiveness" of mine? Or do you just think it makes you sound intelligent? Not an insult or abusiveness. I would just like to know because your statement made no sense and was based on nothing.

(yawn) More rhetoric that goes nowhere...

I wonder if you are ever going to get to dealing with the subject of the discussion?

Who are "you people?"

You have shown zero evidence of that. Self deception is even worse than attempting to deceive others. So which is it?

I posted what you still have not refuted in relation to 2 Thessalonians 2, and here you are claiming I stated nothing in support of I have shown that scripture says. You ignored it, so I had no other conclusion left but to assume you have no rebuttal.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Well, what can I say. It is funny the way you have lost your cool.

Running to the "topic" defense is a good means for avoidance, and so I will indeed abide by that rule.

Also, assuming I've lost my cool simply because you can see my facial expressions not hear the inflections of voice, that's just more ASSumption that's a fundamental blunder in forms. I would hope that you would have avoided that, but have fallen headlong into it.

MM

 

[Arial]

I posted what you still have not refuted in relation to 2 Thessalonians 2, and here you are claiming I stated nothing in support of I have shown that scripture says. You ignored it, so I had no other conclusion left but to assume you have no rebuttal.

WHERE?

 

[Musicmaster]

Running to the "topic" defense is a good means for avoidance, and so I will indeed abide by that rule.

Also, assuming I've lost my cool simply because you can see my facial expressions not hear the inflections of voice, that's just more ASSumption that's a fundamental blunder in forms. I would hope that you would have avoided that, but have fallen headlong into it.

MM

I meant to say "can't" rather than "can" in relation to seeing my facial expressions and hear my vocal inflections.

 

[Arial]

I posted what you still have not refuted in relation to 2 Thessalonians 2, and here you are claiming I stated nothing in support of I have shown that scripture says. You ignored it, so I had no other conclusion left but to assume you have no rebuttal.

WHERE?!! If you posted a rebuttal I did not see it or I would have responded. So show me or I have no other conclusion left but to Assume you did not.

 

[Musicmaster]

WHERE?!! If you posted a rebuttal I did not see it or I would have responded. So show me or I have no other conclusion left but to Assume you did not.

Having done your research for you, it's post #386, although not specifically addressed to you since it was tied to an agreement I had with another poster. That was a rebuttal of earlier conversations and claims that you made concerning the rapture.

MM

 

[Arial]

Having done your research for you, it's post #386, although not specifically addressed to you since it was tied to an agreement I had with another poster. That was a rebuttal of earlier conversations and claims that you made concerning the rapture.

MM

Do you expect me to read everything you post to someone else? And then make all sorts of derogatory and untrue accusations when I don't? Why couldn't you respond to me regarding my post, instead of a third party?

I will go deal with it.

 

[Musicmaster]

Do you expect me to read everything you post to someone else? And then make all sorts of derogatory and untrue accusations when I don't? Why couldn't you respond to me regarding my post, instead of a third party?

I will go deal with it.

You are correct. It would not have flagged you to read that post. My apologies.

MM

 

[Tambora]

No, not all of Revelation is symbolic language entirely.

Hi MM,

Would you be interested in a thread on Revelation that compares the imagery John uses that are taken from OT scriptures?
It has been noticed by most scholars that John alludes to OT imagery more than any other book or letter of the NT, but doesn't specifically quote any OT verse verbatim.
It's as if John wants to draw your attention to imagery that is used in multiple places of the OT in order to form one coherent point.

In other words, a thread on Revelation for the purpose of matching John's imagery in Revelation with it's OT uses instead of just trying to lay out a specific doctrinal stance (such as pre-trib, Amil, post wrath, etc.).
I would love to have a thread on Revelation from that standpoint if there is enough interest.

 

[Arial]

These strange doctrines of the Church allegedly going through the tribulation, it makes no sense when we're told that the Church is not "appointed unto wrath."

If there is no seven year tribulation as you portray it, then the statement that idealist a'mil, say the church is appointed unto wrath fall apart. In order to coherently converse with differing opinions a person has to walk in their shoes, in a manner of speaking.They have to pay attention to what is being said from the opposing pov, instead of laying their own pov on top of it.

Idealist a'mil considers the millennium to be time period between Christ's first and second coming. This age. Or the Church age. Or the age of grace. It is called all these things, but Scripture calls it "this age." Jesus and Paul both speak of this age and the age to come, as I have shown in the scriptures in post #381.

They also consider that same time period as the tribulation, because it is a period when the redeemed are in a state of right now/not yet. What that means is that we are saved now, through faith in Christ; Christ rules now, in that the gospel is unstoppable as it goes to all nations, and in the believer through the indwelling Holy Spirit; the kingdom of God came when Christ came, is within, is not a visible kingdom; Satan is partially bound now in regard to stopping the preaching of the gospel to all nations. While all these things are true, they also have not reached their fullness, the consummation----the utter destruction of the devil and his minions and the judgement and destruction of unbelievers, and the restoration of all things, all creation, with God dwelling among us. (Rev 21) (Not all agree on this, but I personally believe that Rev shows things getting much worse for the church, the closer we get to His second coming. But I do not think everything depicted in Rev is dealing with a seven year period.)

This age experiences wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, etc. (Matt 24) which, as Jesus said are not the end but birth pains. Many have been and are being martyred for the sake of Christ. IOW life under the sun. We suffer, we grow weary, we rejoice, we weep, we labor, we suffer loss, we bear witness to unspeakable evils. The age to come is when Christ returns in final Victor, having put evil under His feet.

You know, it's also interesting that the Thessalonians were so disturbed over a letter or message from a false teacher, or a spirit...whatever or whomever it was, that told them that the tribulation was already at hand, was upon them. If Paul had ever taught them that silly doctrine of the Church allegedly having to endure half, most or all of the tribulation, why were they so upset? If Paul had taught them that they would go through any part of the tribulation, why would they have been upset over the idea of it already being upon them? They would have long since been prepared for the onset of it, but they weren't.

Where do you get the information that the Thessalonians were disturbed over or had ever even received a message that told them the tribulation was already at hand, was upon them? A tribulation is not mentioned or inferred or referred to anywhere in 1 Thess. Paul never mentions it. That is read into it as a presupposition. Certain things are interpreted in a certain way in Rev and then brought into a place that is having no discussion of any such thing. What Paul discusses in chapter 4, and he is doing so as a comfort, is what happens to the believing dead (of all ages, including the OT saints). There is a possibility found in the writings of 2 Esdras (a Jewish work of the second century a.d.) that those living when Christ returns are more blessed than those who have died. It is possible that they had heard of a similar teaching, and were grieving over it. What Paul did was to show that all in Christ are on equal footing. In the process he gave a description of what happens when Christ returns. The dead in Christ are resurrected in the glorified state, and those who still remain alive, are changed. (See also 1 Cor 15.) Paul isn't discussing a tribulation, so your refutation is invalid. It simply does not apply.

The nay-sayers out there will argue all manner of argumentation against this, coming up with all kinds of kooky and downright stupid arguments against what is rationally the only avenue of reason as to explaining the worry over this that was bothering the believers in Thessalonica.

A prejudicial argument, that lends no support to itself, other than itself. Show me that the congregants were worrying over the tribulation?

Paul had obviously taught them that the Church "...is not appointed unto wrath...," and will therefore be delivered before the man of sin is even revealed, as stated in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Where does 2 Thess say that? It indicates in the letter itself (whereas 1 Thess does not)that the Thess had heard that THE DAY OF THE LORD had already come. Nothing about the tribulation. Paul says not so and don't worry about it because all these things will happen first. Then he tells them to stand firm. His second coming---after these things---is we are gathered together to Him. Gathered, like a mother hen gathering her flock, not being rocketed into the sky.

I have to continue this later.

 

[Musicmaster]

Hi MM,

Would you be interested in a thread on Revelation that compares the imagery John uses that are taken from OT scriptures?
It has been noticed by most scholars that John alludes to OT imagery more than any other book or letter of the NT, but doesn't specifically quote any OT verse verbatim.
It's as if John wants to draw your attention to imagery that is used in multiple places of the OT in order to form one coherent point.

In other words, a thread on Revelation for the purpose of matching John's imagery in Revelation with it's OT uses instead of just trying to lay out a specific doctrinal stance (such as pre-trib, Amil, post wrath, etc.).
I would love to have a thread on Revelation from that standpoint if there is enough interest.

I wish I had time to delve into that much depth. You're right, though. There are about 800 illusions to the OT writings inside of Revelation. I'm about to embark upon a text and graphic scroll that will cover all of Revelation, showing it in the sequence it's written. It will be about 50 feet long by 24 inches wide. I have a 500 foot roll of paper to play with, so don't have to worry about running out...

Thanks for the offer, though. It does sound intriguing.

MM

 

[Arial]

@Musicmaster

Post #432 cont.

The nay-sayers like to claim that the topic is the Second Coming.

When a set of verses is captioned The Coming of the Lord what followed us about His second coming. Not only that, but it goes on to say 14.For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.15. For this we declare t you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16.For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.17. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Well, those are the members of the First Church of the Masochists who obviously WANT to be here to see how tough they are at withstanding the wrath of the Lamb being poured out upon the whole earth. It's almost as if they're shaking their fists at the Lord, daring Him to pour out upon the earth what they will not be able to endure with laughs and giggles any better than anyone else...

Oh get real! Does your whole argument fall apart if you don't use such incendiary language? It falls apart with or without it. It is appealing to emotion instead of facts. There is not a fact in sight in there. It is also arguing against a view as though that view was the same as yours. IA does not teach that believers will endure God's wrath. It does not purport that there is a seven year tribulation.

They also like to claim "day of the Lord" is the "second coming" rather than to admit the entire period, including the Second coming, is the "day of the Lord.

What entire period? The day of the Lord is used to refer to different events. And when it is called the day of the Lord and mentions His second coming then it refers to that as the day of the Lord. The entire first advent era, could be referred to as the day of the Lord, that began with His birth. It can be the day He exacts judgement and vengeance. It can be the day He restores all things. It can refer to a a day when He exacts judgement for a particular thing as in the OT. It can refer to His second coming. You have to determine what it is referring to by the context. And both 1 Thes 4 and 1 Cor 15 state it is referring to His second coming. And for the sake of equity, try and do it without reading a tribulation into it.

We ALL use language of that type to refer to entire periods of time, sometimes encompassing decades and even centuries. We've ALL used phraseology such as, "Well, back in the day...," and that not literally referring to just one day, but some people out there will pretend that such is not the case, and that people of other languages could not possibly have utilized the same style looseness in language since this was allegedly an invention of English speaking people only

Irrelevant.

Additionally, the Greek word translated "falling away" ALSO means "departure," which is exactly how almost ALL the Bibles translated that term around the time of the KJV first publication in 1611. The 1599 Geneva Bible did so, and long with almost all the others in existence at that time. Departure is the word of choice based upon a common understanding of the pre-trib rapture.

What this means is that Paul was not referring to a departure from the faith, but rather the departure from this earth. It's ONLY those who believe such nonsensical crap that someone allegedly can become "unborn again," because people who have only given lip service to following Christ Jesus, but were never truly born again, who have fallen away, that's been going on for centuries. Because that's been going on for centuries, there's nothing new about that at all, no matter how one plots the graph with peaks and valleys in the plot.

So that crap about Darby allegedly being the one who invented the "pre-trib rapture theory" is nothing more than the lazy cow cud they chew while totally abandoning critical thought and research into historic doctrines and who held that belief LONG before Darby was ever a twinkle in his daddy's eye.

I do not see where this has anything to do with what is being discussed unless you and @CrowCross were discussing it.

 

[Musicmaster]

If there is no seven year tribulation as you portray it, then the statement that idealist a'mil, say the church is appointed unto wrath fall apart.

Huh? (scratching head) Your grammar is problematic here, but I'll try and see if I can address it in the way that you meant it...

Are you referring to Amillennialists? I didn't intend to give credence to their beliefs. Yes, Hank Hanagraaf and his gang believe in that, along with much of Evangelical church organizations.

In order to coherently converse with differing opinions a person has to walk in their shoes, in a manner of speaking.They have to pay attention to what is being said from the opposing pov, instead of laying their own pov on top of it.

Oh, but I have walked in their shoes. At various times in the past, I was Amillennialist, then mid-trib, then pre-wrath, and now pre-trib.

Idealist a'mil considers the millennium to be time period between Christ's first and second coming. This age. Or the Church age. Or the age of grace. It is called all these things, but Scripture calls it "this age." Jesus and Paul both speak of this age and the age to come, as I have shown in the scriptures in post #381.

Are you saying that you're Amillennialistic?

They also consider that same time period as the tribulation, because it is a period when the redeemed are in a state of right now/not yet. What that means is that we are saved now, through faith in Christ; Christ rules now, in that the gospel is unstoppable as it goes to all nations, and in the believer through the indwelling Holy Spirit; the kingdom of God came when Christ came, is within, is not a visible kingdom; Satan is partially bound now in regard to stopping the preaching of the gospel to all nations. While all these things are true, they also have not reached their fullness, the consummation----the utter destruction of the devil and his minions and the judgement and destruction of unbelievers, and the restoration of all things, all creation, with God dwelling among us. (Rev 21) (Not all agree on this, but I personally believe that Rev shows things getting much worse for the church, the closer we get to His second coming. But I do not think everything depicted in Rev is dealing with a seven year period.)

And I have no intention of convincing you otherwise, for there is no power on this earth that can shake us from our various beliefs.

What matter most is that Yahshuah is Lord, and is come in the flesh.

This age experiences wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, etc. (Matt 24) which, as Jesus said are not the end but birth pains. Many have been and are being martyred for the sake of Christ. IOW life under the sun. We suffer, we grow weary, we rejoice, we weep, we labor, we suffer loss, we bear witness to unspeakable evils. The age to come is when Christ returns in final Victor, having put evil under His feet.

Where do you get the information that the Thessalonians were disturbed over or had ever even received a message that told them the tribulation was already at hand, was upon them?

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him, [not His coming down to this earth, but us meeting Him in the sky]
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. [They were indeed troubled.]
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away [DEPARTURE] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Almost all the Bibles around the time of the first King James publication rendered "apostasia" as "departure," with the King James being the only one rendering it "falling away." It makes no sense that a deal would have been made of people leaving the faith, for that has been going on for millennia, and the idea that it will be a vastly ramped up event also makes no sense given the vast number of martyred saints shown in Revelation 7.

So, either Paul was aware of their being troubled over this, or he was taking the time to address what never happened and never would happen. Some say that it was going on in other provinces, etc., which isn't portrayed in this text. The Greek from which this was translated is clearly past tense in relation to an event of their having received something that troubled them, and thus Paul addressing it presently to them for their comfort.

A tribulation is not mentioned or inferred or referred to anywhere in 1 Thess. Paul never mentions it. That is read into it as a presupposition. Certain things are interpreted in a certain way in Rev and then brought into a place that is having no discussion of any such thing. What Paul discusses in chapter 4, and he is doing so as a comfort, is what happens to the believing dead (of all ages, including the OT saints). There is a possibility found in the writings of 2 Esdras (a Jewish work of the second century a.d.) that those living when Christ returns are more blessed than those who have died. It is possible that they had heard of a similar teaching, and were grieving over it. What Paul did was to show that all in Christ are on equal footing. In the process he gave a description of what happens when Christ returns. The dead in Christ are resurrected in the glorified state, and those who still remain alive, are changed. (See also 1 Cor 15.) Paul isn't discussing a tribulation, so your refutation is invalid. It simply does not apply.

We, then, have differing perspectives on the meaning of "day of the Lord."

Where does 2 Thess say that? It indicates in the letter itself (whereas 1 Thess does not)that the Thess had heard that THE DAY OF THE LORD had already come. Nothing about the tribulation.

They are one and the same, with the Second coming being within that same "day."

Paul says not so and don't worry about it because all these things will happen first. Then he tells them to stand firm. His second coming---after these things---is we are gathered together to Him. Gathered, like a mother hen gathering her flock, not being rocketed into the sky.

I have to continue this later.

Again, we simply have differing perspectives on it all.

MM

 

[jeremiah1five]

Off topic of the OP.

Yes, the author of this thread said so a few days ago.

 

[Arial]

Are you referring to Amillennialists? I didn't intend to give credence to their beliefs. Yes, Hank Hanagraaf and his gang believe in that, along with much of Evangelical church organizations.

You are debating with an amill. Therefore, you can't make an argument against that belief without taking it into consideration. If you say that their position has Christians facing the wrath of God ---that would only be the case if they also believed what you do about the seven year tribulation and your overall interpretation of Rev. But they don't. It is a non defense of your position and does not refute theirs. It is just statements being made.

I gave scriptures to support my position in the original post that you did not respond to but rather responded "at", and to someone else, and very little of it. The way to have a discussion would be to give what you consider a proper interpretation of those scriptures, and not with just opinion but exegeted as I did in post #381. And do so matching point by point with your rebuttal. Anything else is just a meaningless argument.

My contention is that if the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead in glorified immortal bodies, and those who remain alive, are glorified, where is there any biblical support of a literal thousand year reign of Christ ---which means He returned---in and over a temporal, even sinful, people, marrying and giving in marriage---when Jesus says they will not? You really need to read the post again so you know my position and how I arrived at it. Unless you just want to argue, but you will have to do it with someone else.

Are you saying that you're Amillennialistic?

Yes.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him, [not His coming down to this earth, but us meeting Him in the sky]
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. [They were indeed troubled.]
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away [DEPARTURE] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

First and Second Thess are two different letters, sent at different times, and for different reasons.

Almost all the Bibles around the time of the first King James publication rendered "apostasia" as "departure," with the King James being the only one rendering it "falling away." It makes no sense that a deal would have been made of people leaving the faith, for that has been going on for millennia, and the idea that it will be a vastly ramped up event also makes no sense given the vast number of martyred saints shown in Revelation 7.

The later translations are likely to be more accurate as more material was available. Many translate it apostasy, or rebellion against God, and it is not referring to falling away from the faith. And the issue was not concerning a tribulation, but that Jesus had already come. That seems to be what they were hearing. It in no way suggests a departure. Such an idea would be alien to the recipients as we do not see it being taught in any of the epistles. To say that rebellion against God has been going on for millennia would be consistent with my view of the millennium as this age.

We, then, have differing perspectives on the meaning of "day of the Lord."

That may be so, but if you look up all the scriptures that use that phrase (a simple internet search will pull it up) you will see that it is used in a number of ways to apply to different historical situations. But when "the day of the Lord", and "His coming" are both used of the same thing in the same oration, it means His second coming. And 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15 both do.

They are one and the same, with the Second coming being within that same "day."

Not according to 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15. The day of the Lord can be a good thing and a bad thing. At His return it is a good thing.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Here's your problem....when you write you write as if there is no salvation for the gentiles. Why?

In order to proceed to understand the role "Gentiles" play in this "so-great salvation" people must first accept the biblical record that God made a covenant with a man God identified as a "Hebrew" from the family of Eber of whom his name is interpreted to mean "Hebrew" and why his father gave him that name and what the name means overall. God is in the process of separating a people to Himself apart from the Adamites who since exiting the Garden the other offspring of Adam and Eve became a people disobedient to God. But not the line of Seth. His family are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 who married into this disobedient people and whose offspring became "tyrants" and "bullies", bullies that would soon sire a man named Nimrod, a hunter/murderer of men.

This is the bottom-line Gentiles need to understand and accept God made covenant with Abram the Hebrew and his seed.
Gentiles do not come from the seed of Abram/Abraham.
While the Abrahamic Covenant was in effect God made covenant through Moses with the children of Israel. This is the Mosaic Covenant. It is a salvation covenant in preparation for God Himself to fulfill the Mosaic requirements to save eternally the people in the Mosaic Covenant through substitution and by extension the people under the Abrahamic Covenant. This people are identified as Hebrew.
The Mosaic Covenant itself lays the groundwork for God to send His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem the people under the Law and by extension the seed of Abraham until the time of Moses and the covenant that bears his name (Rom. 5:14.)
The children of Israel only practiced the salvation covenant. The animal sacrifice served to atone yearly for the sins of the children of Israel, and the eternal salvation performed by God Himself in His Son is to and for the benefit of the children of Israel. The New Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Christ instituted at the Passover meal (Last Supper) and later applied by the Holy Spirit of Promise when He came to earth to dwell in the children of Israel individually and corporately from the day of the Feast of Harvest onward until the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the Hebrew nation in 70 A.D. From that time forward "Gentiles" began their ascendancy in the things of God while the involvement of the children of Israel decreased. But Jews were still being born-again.

God has no covenant with Gentiles. None.
But there are "Gentiles" in the New Covenant writings that are coming to faith and salvation in Christ. I don't deny this.
My position - as you read my quotations around the word "Gentiles" - is this, these Gentiles are a mixed offspring breed of Jew AND Gentile and being that God's covenant is with Abraham and his seed, the only answer to this is that these "Gentiles" in the New Covenant writings are the descendants of Jew-Gentile unions in Israel's past and that they are seen by Jews - like the Samaritans - as not being Jew. Still, the covenant God made with Abraham extends to his seed and if any of these Jew-Gentile offspring descendants of Assyrian and Babylonian conquests and exiles have ANY 'drop' of Abrahamic DNA/seed in them then God as a Promise Keeper will save them at the appointed time. These "Gentiles" are not Hebrew/Jew and most likely do not live as Jews but as "Gentile" and whether or not they know their ancestry of having at least one Hebrew parent they become saved if their names are in the book of life of the Lamb slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world.

Here at this site which is mostly Reformed is taught election and chosen and limited atonement, and the rest of the TULIP but it is not between "Gentile" elect and Gentile non-elect, but Abraham seed elect and non-Hebrew Gentile non-elect.
Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken." God can't break it, Jesus can't break it, the Holy Spirit of Promise can't break it and man can't break it. And the Scripture records the first of three Hebrew covenants God made with Abram the Hebrew and with his seed in their time.
"Gentiles" that are saved are not non-Hebrew "Gentiles" but have in their ancestry at least one Hebrew parent and by having one Hebrew parent in their ancestry they are legally and biologically the seed of Abraham and heirs according to the Promise. These things are true. "Gentiles" that believe themselves "Gentile" (non-Hebrew) and are saved made the mistake whether in ignorance or intentionally 1900 years ago to unmoor true biblical Christianity from its Hebrew roots created a new religion one that God has preserved through the centuries as He calls out His people from "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues" until Daniel's seventieth week begins and the Times of the "Gentiles" ends and God turns His betrothed attention back to the apple of His eye, the seed of Abraham on the earth today.

Some 28 years after Pentecost the Jerusalem Council was chaired and occupied by Jewish Christians. They were obedient to the Law as born-again Christians. But after Rome sacked Israel and scattered its people (the Jews) and destroyed their Temple what were these half-Jew/half-Gentile Christians to do without Hebrew and Jewish leadership? They lived as Gentiles being the seed of Abraham whether they knew or not. They muddled along without the Hebrew Scripture at the beginning and knowing only "Gentile" culture and lifestyle. They had no way to maintain biblical Christianity to its Hebrew roots so the left it altogether and muddled along as "Gentiles" in a now "Gentile" world (Israel was scattered. They had no nation.)

You asked. And this is my answer to your question. You may not agree with this, but it is the only plausible answer to "Gentiles" being saved. God is a God who keeps His Promises and He made Promise to Abraham and His seed. He made no Promises to non-Hebrew Gentiles.

 

[CrowCross]

I do not see where this has anything to do with what is being discussed unless you and @CrowCross were discussing it.

Yes we were discussing it. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[CrowCross]

In order to proceed to understand the role "Gentiles" play in this "so-great salvation" people must first accept the biblical record that God made a covenant with a man God identified as a "Hebrew" from the family of Eber of whom his name is interpreted to mean "Hebrew" and why his father gave him that name and what the name means overall. God is in the process of separating a people to Himself apart from the Adamites who since exiting the Garden the other offspring of Adam and Eve became a people disobedient to God. But not the line of Seth. His family are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 who married into this disobedient people and whose offspring became "tyrants" and "bullies", bullies that would soon sire a man named Nimrod, a hunter/murderer of men.

This is the bottom-line Gentiles need to understand and accept God made covenant with Abram the Hebrew and his seed.
Gentiles do not come from the seed of Abram/Abraham.
While the Abrahamic Covenant was in effect God made covenant through Moses with the children of Israel. This is the Mosaic Covenant. It is a salvation covenant in preparation for God Himself to fulfill the Mosaic requirements to save eternally the people in the Mosaic Covenant through substitution and by extension the people under the Abrahamic Covenant. This people are identified as Hebrew.
The Mosaic Covenant itself lays the groundwork for God to send His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem the people under the Law and by extension the seed of Abraham until the time of Moses and the covenant that bears his name (Rom. 5:14.)
The children of Israel only practiced the salvation covenant. The animal sacrifice served to atone yearly for the sins of the children of Israel, and the eternal salvation performed by God Himself in His Son is to and for the benefit of the children of Israel. The New Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Christ instituted at the Passover meal (Last Supper) and later applied by the Holy Spirit of Promise when He came to earth to dwell in the children of Israel individually and corporately from the day of the Feast of Harvest onward until the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the Hebrew nation in 70 A.D. From that time forward "Gentiles" began their ascendancy in the things of God while the involvement of the children of Israel decreased. But Jews were still being born-again.

God has no covenant with Gentiles. None.
But there are "Gentiles" in the New Covenant writings that are coming to faith and salvation in Christ. I don't deny this.
My position - as you read my quotations around the word "Gentiles" - is this, these Gentiles are a mixed offspring breed of Jew AND Gentile and being that God's covenant is with Abraham and his seed, the only answer to this is that these "Gentiles" in the New Covenant writings are the descendants of Jew-Gentile unions in Israel's past and that they are seen by Jews - like the Samaritans - as not being Jew. Still, the covenant God made with Abraham extends to his seed and if any of these Jew-Gentile offspring descendants of Assyrian and Babylonian conquests and exiles have ANY 'drop' of Abrahamic DNA/seed in them then God as a Promise Keeper will save them at the appointed time. These "Gentiles" are not Hebrew/Jew and most likely do not live as Jews but as "Gentile" and whether or not they know their ancestry of having at least one Hebrew parent they become saved if their names are in the book of life of the Lamb slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world.

Here at this site which is mostly Reformed is taught election and chosen and limited atonement, and the rest of the TULIP but it is not between "Gentile" elect and Gentile non-elect, but Abraham seed elect and non-Hebrew Gentile non-elect.
Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken." God can't break it, Jesus can't break it, the Holy Spirit of Promise can't break it and man can't break it. And the Scripture records the first of three Hebrew covenants God made with Abram the Hebrew and with his seed in their time.
"Gentiles" that are saved are not non-Hebrew "Gentiles" but have in their ancestry at least one Hebrew parent and by having one Hebrew parent in their ancestry they are legally and biologically the seed of Abraham and heirs according to the Promise. These things are true. "Gentiles" that believe themselves "Gentile" (non-Hebrew) and are saved made the mistake whether in ignorance or intentionally 1900 years ago to unmoor true biblical Christianity from its Hebrew roots created a new religion one that God has preserved through the centuries as He calls out His people from "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues" until Daniel's seventieth week begins and the Times of the "Gentiles" ends and God turns His betrothed attention back to the apple of His eye, the seed of Abraham on the earth today.

Some 28 years after Pentecost the Jerusalem Council was chaired and occupied by Jewish Christians. They were obedient to the Law as born-again Christians. But after Rome sacked Israel and scattered its people (the Jews) and destroyed their Temple what were these half-Jew/half-Gentile Christians to do without Hebrew and Jewish leadership? They lived as Gentiles being the seed of Abraham whether they knew or not. They muddled along without the Hebrew Scripture at the beginning and knowing only "Gentile" culture and lifestyle. They had no way to maintain biblical Christianity to its Hebrew roots so the left it altogether and muddled along as "Gentiles" in a now "Gentile" world (Israel was scattered. They had no nation.)

You asked. And this is my answer to your question. You may not agree with this, but it is the only plausible answer to "Gentiles" being saved. God is a God who keeps His Promises and He made Promise to Abraham and His seed. He made no Promises to non-Hebrew Gentiles.

I'm beginning to think you should get to know the real Jesus.

You are stumbling over a stumbling stone.