First, overly technical language and a conceptually muddled doctrine is a symptom that it's not the truth, nor should it be expected that fishermen of Galilee would understand such philosophical imaginings.
What are you talking about ?
Fishermen from Galilee not understanding the numbers 3 and 1 ?
The persons Father and Son ?
The Spirit ?
Father, Son, and Spirit aren't philosophies, They're persons, They're God
trinitarian theologians readily admit that the Trinity is not explicitly found in the scriptures.
To the contrary of "trinitarian theologians" then: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are explicitly found in Scripture. And in my heart
the trinity is not monotheism no matter what way you dice it.
To the contrary: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit comprise the one and only God.
As They and Their prophets and apostles teach and wrote
Three divine persons, each being fully God, amounts to three gods, which is entirely unnecessary for a perfect being.
To the contrary: Father, Son, and Spirit aren't separate persons. Distinct. Never separate, separated, or independent. No matter how you dice Them.
Nor are They a barren, sterile, unfamilial one. Instead the Creator of community and individual Himself perfectly contains community and singleness. Despite it being beyond Modalists', Arians', or Christians' ability to conceptualize
If each being is perfect, then what is the use of the other two?
To the contrary of your first clause: Father, Son, and Spirit aren't "beings" but one Being. Namely God. Also to the contrary of your entire question and its presumptions: "fathers" aren't fathers without sons, nor "sons" sons without fathers
Again, it makes a mess of things, which is expected when men involve their secular musing to the word of God.
Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mt 28:19.
I am in the Father and the Father is in Me...I am going to the Father,
Jn 14:11-12.
The Spirit of reality...He wont' speak from Himself...He will receive of Mine and will declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine,
Jn 16:13-15
[Modalism denies that fecundity, relationship, and family exist inside the one unique God Himself]
Not just in the name of simplicity, but according to the scriptures and the monotheism of Palestinian Judaism.
To the contrary:
see Scriptures above, as well as
God...gave His only begotten Son...He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for He gives the Spirit not by measure,
Jn 3:16, 34.
A child's born to us, a Son's given to us...His name will be called...Mighty God, Eternal Father,
Is 9:6.
In the beginning God [plural] created [singular] the heavens and the earth,
Gen 1:1.
God said Let Us make man in Our image,
Gen 1:26.
The Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire...God called to him out of the midst of the thornbush...I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham [1], the God of Isaac [son], and the God of Jacob [3]...And Jehovah said...,
Ex 3:2-7.
The Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters,
Gen 1:2.
The Spirit lifted me up...,
Ezek 3:12.
Serve Jehovah and His Anointed...Serve Jehovah with fear...Kiss the Son,
Psalm 2:2, 11-12.
I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,
Matthew 22:32
The doctrine of the Trinity didn't surface in history until the 2nd and 3rd centuries - well after the churches accepted modalism.
To the contrary, as i wrote in post (reply) 33 here: Matthew 28:19; Genesis 1:1; etc
were written in total beginning from 1,500 BC down to about AD 90.
Which ranges from between 1,600 years down to 10 years before the 2nd century
(the New Testament having been spoken and written 7 decades down thru 1 decade before the 2nd century.) Thank God the church never was, never will be, and isn't today Modalist
(nor Modalism's 'companion': Arian)
the Catholic Encyclopedia readily acknowledges that the common people of the church accepted no distinctions in the Godhead before the famous councils were conducted.
The New Testament, in contrast to your Catholic Encyclopedia, writes of God as Father, Son, and Spirit; and Father, Son, and Spirit as God. Just as the Old Testament writes of Jehovah, Angel of Jehovah, and Spirit of Jehovah, the only God; and the only one God as Jehovah, Angel of Jehovah, and Spirit of Jehovah
There is no need for a divine relationship with the divine, only a divine relationship with the un-divine.
To the contrary: God isn't "Son" without a Father, nor "Father" without a Son
No, it is many books. All inspired by God, I agree. But many books and not taking that into account leads to poor exegesis.
To the contrary: the many books comprise one book, and the one book is composed of many books. Not taking that into account leads to poor exegesis
the only people I see playing around with end-time chronology are cultists. So I associate fascination with the numerology of Daniel and Revelation with cults.
To the contrary: Jesus, John, Peter, and Paul, who spoke and wrote about the end times, naturally including its chronology, were neither playing around nor cultists. Nor invisible
two letters, two teachings on two separate topics.
To the contrary: 1 and 2 Thessalonians touch on some of the same topics. Namely sanctification and the Lord's coming. Among other things. As you yourself realized:
both deal with Christ's return,
but not explicitly tied together either. Not in a way that you can say first this happens, then that happens.
To the contrary: both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, as quoted previously, explicitly refer to "the day of the Lord." And 2 Thess explicitly says that it "will not come unless...the man of lawlessness is revealed." Which is chronological. 1 Thes 4 also explicitly refers to the immediate coming of the Lord (as does 2 Thess) who brings His saints with him and who destroys the Antichrist. It also refers to a rapture "to the air." Not a rapture "to the throne" or to the heavens.
Admittedly, if Gladys does away with the rest of the one book (the Bible), she or her interpreters may have difficulty understanding or chronologizing the end times. Since Thessalonians aren't the only books within the one book which addresses them
the coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan (v. 9) (Is this the same as the mystery of lawlessness or a subsequent event?
To the contrary of the first clause: a more accurate translation reads:
"the coming of whom is according to Satan's operation."
In attempted answer to her question: it's the culmination of the mystery of lawlessness, that is, a subsequent, but not unrelated, event. For example: Satan is sin, and known as sin; and Antichrist has many types and foremodels in history
Is the coming of lawless one the same thing as the revealing of the lawless one, or does the revealing of the lawless one come later?
His coming is a little complicated since his being will be a little complicated.
It's safe to say that his coming precedes his revealing. Although it's not incorrect to say that his full coming = his full revealing. Although he will also have 3 1/2 years to operate and develop his kingdom. It too has a chronology. As seen in Daniel, Matthew, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation
v.4) (Is this the rebellion?
To declare oneself "God" is rebellion against God. No doubt.
But what's your "the rebellion" ?
Is this also the coming of the lawless one?
His coming-out. Sure. Though he will have existed, and even have died and apparently resurrected/resuscitated/"re-incarnated" before. Nor will he change his policy in those 3 1/2 years.
Thus his calling himself "God" and demanding and enforcing worship may be called his "staying."
Not only his "coming"
Is it also the revealing of the lawless one?
Yes. Broadly-speaking. Which, by the way, is how both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, letters to brand-new Christians comprising the brand new church in Thessalonica, speak
Or do we actually have three events here: a) the lawless one comes--perhaps has come already and begun the mystery of lawlessness already at work. b) the lawless one exalts himself in rebellion against God, and c) the lawless one is revealed as the lawless one, the Antichrist.
Since the mystery of lawlessness was at work as Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians (2:7), it doesn't need Antichrist to initiate it. He's the culmination of lawlessness (sin, rebellion) and Satan's work. Not its start. He does come, though in more than one stage. As Revelation goes into in detail and chronology. And at a certain point, he exalts himself above all that's called God and destroys all religions he can. It's accurate, fair, and logical to say that he won't materialize out of thin air to do that
The one thing we do know is that this is the final act.
Paul, at least, knew some prior and subsequent acts.
Both in Thessalonians and in the rest of His Scriptures
is the lawless one revealed at the coming of Christ or beforehand?
Beforehand
Where does the rapture fit into this?
There two main raptures. Which together comprise one rapture. Of two times.
Pretribulation and endtribulation (see my previous posts' Scriptures on this topic).
More specifically: both raptures will have been completed before Jesus Christ destroys Antichrist.
Because Jesus Christ not return alone. And His destruction of Antichrist will be in the same day that He steps back down on the Mount of Olives
Scripture is not geometry. You can't use Euclid's theorems to connect B to C because both are connected to A. Yes, both are connected the coming of Christ. But there is no explicitness in the chronology of how they are connected to each other.
To the contrary: words can be as logical as math. In fact math is just another form of words.
So if two items are connected to a time, then of necessity they're connected to one another
The second letter is not a continuation of the first.
To the contrary: 2 Thessalonians continues 1 Thessalonians
Paul answers some questions in the first letter. Obviously, by the time the second letter was written, the Thessalonians had come up with more questions. So he writes a second letter to answer these questions.
Some of their questions or problems in 2 Thessalonians are related to the apostle's words in 1 Thessalonians. Such as the matter of looking for the Lord, still working diligently in this world, the end times, and sanctification
1 Cor 15:51-53. This refers to the resurrection of the dead, to be sure, and the transformation of the living, but there is no mention of either the dead or the living being caught up to meet Christ in the air--which is the point of the rapture.
To the contrary: both 1 Thes 4 and 1 Cor 15 in relevant part refer to the same time. The last trumpet. Which is also mentioned by John in Revelation. In addition resurrection and those alive are discussed in the context of rapture in 1 Thes 4. And resurrection and "not all sleeping" are in the end of 1 Cor 15. Since the dead in Christ at the end aren't raised without also being raised into the air in rapture, the same is true implicitly in 1 Cor 15. A further connection to this is the matter of transfiguration. Which is coincident with "seeing the Lord as He is" in 1 John and Revelation and 1 Thes 4 and even Hebrews 11 on Enoch's rapture, using the word "translation"
Revelation 14:14-16 Speaks of Christ and the judgment. It does not mention either resurrection or rapture.
To the contrary: Revelation 14:17-20 speaks of judgment. Namely the squashing of the grapes of wrath. 14:14-16 doesn't deal with grapes. It deals with wheat (cf Matthew 13). The two sections are explicitly separated by the separate angels who come out to convey their commands. Just as "firstfruits" (14:1-5) "standing with the Lamb" in the heavens and "purchased from the earth" imply that went from earth to heaven, so does the harvesting of the earth by Christ "on the cloud" imply taking.
Revelation 12:5-17. Of course, this is all in imagery which is difficult to interpret. But if we take the usual interpretation of the woman as symbolic of the church, this is not about the rapture either, since it shows her going into the wilderness, not being caught up to meet her returning Lord in the air.
For only 3 1/2 years. That's the point. Most Christians alive, most of the church alive, will be left behind. Will be raptured endtrib. But the woman's child is symbolic also of the church. Namely the stronger part of the church. Hence "manchild." He's caught up pretrib. 12:5. Before she flees to the wilderness
I get the feeling that you see the scripture as a giant Rorshach (sp?) test where you use mental associations to see whatever image you want to find.
If you find the woman to be the child, is that because you want to ?
If you find what you "want to," then are you afraid i will too ?
If you find what you want to, does that mean you see the Scripture as a giant Rorshach test ?
If you find the Scripture as a giant Rorshach test, are you criticizing yourself when you accuse me of what you do ?
You are not reading the text carefully at all.
Then who is the manchild ?
What happens to the woman after her 1,260 days ?
What does "caught up to God and to his throne" mean to you in Revelation 12:5 ?
Please help me read it carefully
You offer a knee-jerk reaction to the whole gestalt, or to a single word, but do not read the text contextually to see what it is really saying.
To the contrary: i type with my fingers. Not my knees. What's "knee-jerk" s'pose to mean anyway ?
Something you don't like ? You have no intelligent response to other than calling it "knee-jerk" ?
If you write about the rapture, did you expect and hope for me to restrain myself from writing about it too ?
If one of the heretics above denies that God is Father, Son, and Spirit; is it "knee-jerk" of you (or me) to respond that God IS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ?
If Revelation 14:17-20 about Christ's judgment is separated by the text contextually from 14:14-16 by the reference to "another angel came out of the temple..."; then what, other than your knees jerking or your whole gestalt of Revelation, makes you say 14:14-16 is "about judgment" ?
Matthew 24:40-41
This only tells us that the return of the Lord will be unexpected.
To the contrary:
it also tells us to watch and be prepared. And also describes some events of the Lord's coming
People will be going about their ordinary daily (or nightly) activities. The people are not identified as Christians or as non-Christians.
To the contrary:
Christ doesn't tell nonchristians to "watch." Only His disciples. In addition, he continues the section with continued reference to Christians only: "Who THEN is the faithful and prudent slave, whom the master has set over his household to give them food at the proper time?" (24:45).
Unbelievers aren't Christ's "slaves." They aren't over Christ's household. So not only Christians are being discussed; the church, God's house, is. Unbelievers aren't apt to "learn the lesson from the fig tree" (24:32). Believers should. As i mentioned earlier: Lot and his wife were believers. Interceded for by Abraham as "righteous" in Genesis. Neither one went to hell. Though one did suffer worse loss. Some Christians will suffer loss. Others will be rewarded. 1 Cor 3; Mt 24--25:30. Paul's letters are full of warnings to run the race, mature, advance, grow, be built up. Even warnings to himself ! None of these concern eternal damnation (an impossibility for God's children). But they do concern serious discipline and missing of reigning with Christ for 1000 years. Or, as in the case of 24:40-42 and Revelation 12:6-17: going through the great tribulation.
Christ isn't "your Lord" in Mt 24:42 to unbelievers
There is no suggestion that Christians will be separated from other Christians.
To the contrary: Christians are separated from other Christians in fellowship all the time by sin. Including, sadly, division. In Matthew 24:40-41 etc Christians are explicitly separated in location from other Christians. One's taken, one's left. This happened already, typologically, with Enoch. And with Jesus ! He's separated, physically, from us. Unless you're physically in heaven, which you aren't. Nor am i. That's why He's coming back. To meet us !
(There's further Christian separation in Matthew 24:51 and throughout Mt 25:1-30)
Those taken (or those left) could be non-Christians.
Because your knee jerks ? Because.......?
The text doesn't even tell us whether those taken are being taken to Christ or to hell.
To the contrary: it does. Since it's referring to the Lord's parousia. His coming. And He doesn't come back alone. But first meets with His saints. Some in the heavens, then, about 3 1/2 years later, many others in the air.
And who, pray tell, does Christ "take to hell" before they die ?
Luke 17:37 implies that those taken are the accursed.
To the contrary:
Luke 17:37, which derives from Job 39:26-30 and repeats Matthew 24:28 about Christ coming, is positive. Not negative. Not "accursed."
Cf 1 Cor 15:22; Rv 19:17-21; Ex 19:4; Deut 32:11; 28:49; Isa 40:31; Hosea 8:1; Mt 24:27
Revelation 3:10; Only mentions the unexpectedness with which the day of the Lord will come and describes its fierce energy. No mention of any preceding tribulation.
To the contrary:
"Because you've kept the word of My endurance, I also will keep you out of the hour of trial, which is about to come on the whole inhabited earth, to try them who dwell on the earth. I come quickly..."
Philippians 3:11 I don't know what you are reading into this. Just a reference to the resurrection we all look for.
To the contrary: it's perhaps what your translation has "read out" of this. If it even bothered to read it in the original language in the first place. Since all deceased Christians will resurrect, then why would Paul hope to "attain" to resurrection ?
Instead, Philip 3:11 reads "...if perhaps I may attain to the out-resurrection from the dead."
Greek: "Ek-resurrection." The extraordinary resurrection from the dead. As the manchild. For example. In Revelation 12:5
Hebrews 11:5-6 implicitly Very implicit indeed. Again, I don't know what you are getting at.
Then i'll try to quote it with emphasis to show you the conditional nature of the first rapture. Related to Paul's "out-resurrection" in Philippians 3.
If rapture's is unconditionally all at the same one time, then Enoch's example doesn't apply to Christians today.
"By FAITH Enoch was translated so that he shouldn't see death; and he wasn't found, because God had translated him. For before his translation he OBTAINED the testimony that he'd been WELL PLEASING TO GOD. But without faith it's impossible to be well pleasing to Him, for he who COMES FORWARD to God must believe that He is and that He is a REWARDER OF THOSE WHO DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM"
Paul only refers to one rapture. There is no other reference to the rapture of the church in scripture.
To the contrary: it's implied all over the place. As with Enoch's example and the bare fact that Jesus Christ doesn't return to earth alone. Thus His saints have to join Him somehow for that. Which is mentioned "all over" Scripture. Such as in Zechariah and Jude and Matthew and Luke and Revelation and Daniel.
As to explicitness: the manchild "caught up" in Revelation 12:5 means "rapture." Which, for example, was the Latin word Jerome used to translate there in his Vulgate. If the woman is the church, then why cannot the manchild be part of her ? In fact, he was and is. Likewise with the firstfruits of wheat in Revelation 14. And the overcomers in the church in Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10 who are "kept out of the hour of trial about to come on the whole inhabited earth."
They're not kept out of it by being martyred in it. And the church in Philadelphia is part of the church
Luke is not Matthew and there is no indication in Luke that this is what he is talking about.
To the contrary: Luke and Matthew don't have different teachings about the denial of the soul-life.
Nor incompatible/different teachings about watching and praying and overcoming. Nor do they differ from John's teaching in Revelation and in John. Since the Bible, the apostles and prophets and Savior, have one theme, one message, one route, and one salvation. In Luke 21:36 Jesus Christ doesn't tell unbelievers to "beseech to prevail to escape all these things and stand before the Son of Man." Not that they shouldn't. But in doing so, they'll become believers. Luke 17:32-33 and 37 explicitly indicate that Christ is warning His children to overcome, and indicating their reward
I see nothing in Luke 17 to indicate Jesus was speaking only of believers.
As previously mentioned, i see "Lot's wife...preserve his soul-life...lose his soul-life, where the body [Antichrist] is there also will the vultures [Christ and His army] be gathered together" in Luke 17:32-37
Who says? What other oppression is there to get away from?
Jesus says. And John says. It's to kick Satan out of heaven for good.
Revelation 12:7-13
Again, who says?
The Bible says that the Son of Man ascended to the heavens and is there now
The Son of Man is returning to earth to destroy the Antichrist and to judge the nations. Where else would one stand before him?
Before He's returned Christians will stand before Him either in the heavens and/or in the air.
"We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..." 2 Cor 5:10; Revelation 14:1-5, 14-16; 17:14; 19:14; Luke 21:36; 1 Thes 4:17
unorthodox positions also used the New Testament and the apostles' teaching as their source.
That doesn't mean they are their source.
What judges Nicene and Chalcedonian and any and all creeds and statements and writings is the New and Old Testaments. Not vice versa
Why not think that the spirit of Christ descended upon Jesus at Baptism and left him on the cross, before and after which it was simply the human Jesus?
Because Jesus is the Christ both at His conception and birth, and in His visit to Hades.
Matthew 1:18; Luke 2:11; 1 P 3:18-19
