Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
J
JustifiedByFaith
Guest
Re: Subject of thread
Dear lecoop,
In 2 Thes 2:1 Paul is addressing a 2 part question. It is important to note here that his answer is also addressing the 2 aspects of verse 1.:
The issue is:
Concerning:
>The coming of Jesus AND our being gathered to Him.
Paul says that the day He comes and we are gathered to Him can't happen unless the apostacy takes place and the man of sin is revealed.
I don't see your use of "catching away" in this context? It is not shown here, but the point is that we won't be "caught up" until these two things happen first.
Where is "rapture" used between verse 2 and 4?
This is my only example I could thing of just to show the dual aspect of what Paul is answering here in verse 1... It's like a child and dad waiting for a taxi and the child says,
"Daddy, when will the taxi be here to pick us up?" and the dad answers and says, " When it gets some gas and we see it coming around the next corner."
Paul also assures them that they didn't miss out on the taxi in verse 2.
This whole thing is about: "What needs to happen before Jesus get's here to pick us up?" The sequence is not: "We are removed, then the man if sin is revealed, then He comes?"
:-?
lecoop said:
Dear lecoop,
In 2 Thes 2:1 Paul is addressing a 2 part question. It is important to note here that his answer is also addressing the 2 aspects of verse 1.:
The issue is:
Concerning:
>The coming of Jesus AND our being gathered to Him.
Paul says that the day He comes and we are gathered to Him can't happen unless the apostacy takes place and the man of sin is revealed.
I don't see your use of "catching away" in this context? It is not shown here, but the point is that we won't be "caught up" until these two things happen first.
Where is "rapture" used between verse 2 and 4?
This is my only example I could thing of just to show the dual aspect of what Paul is answering here in verse 1... It's like a child and dad waiting for a taxi and the child says,
"Daddy, when will the taxi be here to pick us up?" and the dad answers and says, " When it gets some gas and we see it coming around the next corner."
Paul also assures them that they didn't miss out on the taxi in verse 2.
This whole thing is about: "What needs to happen before Jesus get's here to pick us up?" The sequence is not: "We are removed, then the man if sin is revealed, then He comes?"
:-?Re: Subject of thread
I disagree. Most of these verses are about, "no, you are not in the "day of the Lord" and you did not miss the gathering. You could not be in the day of the Lord, and the day of the Lord could not have started, because two things must happen first, before the day of the Lord is here. From the first verse on, Paul switched the emphasis from the gathering to the day of the Lord. In the end, it is very diffecult to prove anything by this verse because of the differences of the Greek texts, and because Paul seemed to write it in code! :-?
Coop
JustifiedByFaith said:lecoop said:
Dear lecoop,
In 2 Thes 2:1 Paul is addressing a 2 part question. It is important to note here that his answer is also addressing the 2 aspects of verse 1.:
The issue is:
Concerning:
>The coming of Jesus AND our being gathered to Him.
Paul says that the day He comes and we are gathered to Him can't happen unless the apostacy takes place and the man of sin is revealed.
I think this is an assumption on your part. Actually, Paul is speaking of three things: the coming, the gathering, and the day of the Lord (or Christ). What we do know for sure is that there was a letter or a sermon or a prophecy or something that led these folks to beleive that the day of Christ, or the day of the Lord, has already started. We could further say that these folks were somewhat upset by this. It seems quite likely that they assumed that they had missed the "gathering!" They evidently wrote to Paul about it.
We don't know for sure if it is "day of Christ" or Day of the Lord," for different Greek texts use each term. Neither do we know for sure what Paul meant by "day of Christ," if that was what he wrote. Is this just a different term for the day of the Lord, or does it have another meaning? It seems that Paul's introduction includes two events: the coming and the gathering. This goes without saying, for we know that we will not gather in the air without His coming! Therefore, these two events are really one event! We call it the rapture of the church. Therefore, what Paul was saying is this:
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, concerning the rapture of the church,...
So Paul seems to be relieving their fears that the day of the Lord had arrived, but they were still around and had missed the rapture. (Everybody makes assumptions on these verses, because they are not easy to understand.)
So is Paul saying that the rapture cannot come until until certain things happen? Or is he saying that the "day of the Lord" will not come until certain things happen? Here is what it reads:
Darby's
2 that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as if it were by us, as that the day of the Lord is present.
So Paul is writing about the "Day of the Lord" rather than about the rapture in this verse. Now comes the place where men's imagination runs wild:
Strongs
3. 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,
To us it seems that Paul left out some critical words! What is he saying? Everyone has an idea, and they all seem to be different! Let's try Darby first:
Darby's English Translation
2:3 Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because it [the day of the Lord] will not be unless the apostasy have first come, and the man of sin have been revealed, the son of perdition; (Day of the Lord added from previous verse.)
So Darby's idea is that one cannot be in the "Day of the Lord" unless the "apostasy" has come first, and antichrist is revealed next. If by apostasy he meant rapture, then the rapture must come before the Day of the Lord. If he meant a departure from the faith, then that must come before the day of the Lord. If Paul did not mean rapture by his word apostasy, then this verse says nothing about the rapture, but only speaks of the day of the Lord.
Webster's
Noah Webster Bible
2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [the day of Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (Day of the Lord added from previous verse.)
Webster translates that one could not be in the day of Christ unless the "falling away" came first, and the man of sin be revealed. Therefore, the chronology of this verse is as follows:
1. Apostasy or departure
2. Man of sin revealed
3. now in the day of the Lord of the day of Christ.
So what can anyone prove by this verse? Absolutely nothing, because there are too many "if's."
I don't see your use of "catching away" in this context? It is not shown here, but the point is that we won't be "caught up" until these two things happen first.
I don't think that is what Paul was writing. It seems a better idea is that the "day of the Lord" cannot happen until these two things happen.
Where is "rapture" used between verse 2 and 4?
It isn't. Paul's discussion is now about the day of the Lord, not the rapture. Why? Undoubtedly because they had believed that they were in the day of the Lord, and Paul is coming against that belief.
This is my only example I could thing of just to show the dual aspect of what Paul is answering here in verse 1... It's like a child and dad waiting for a taxi and the child says,
"Daddy, when will the taxi be here to pick us up?" and the dad answers and says, " When it gets some gas and we see it coming around the next corner."
Paul also assures them that they didn't miss out on the taxi in verse 2.
This whole thing is about: "What needs to happen before Jesus get's here to pick us up?" The sequence is not: "We are removed, then the man if sin is revealed, then He comes?"
I disagree. Most of these verses are about, "no, you are not in the "day of the Lord" and you did not miss the gathering. You could not be in the day of the Lord, and the day of the Lord could not have started, because two things must happen first, before the day of the Lord is here. From the first verse on, Paul switched the emphasis from the gathering to the day of the Lord. In the end, it is very diffecult to prove anything by this verse because of the differences of the Greek texts, and because Paul seemed to write it in code! :-?
Coop
J
JustifiedByFaith
Guest
Re: Subject of thread
Dear lecoop,
I agree that we both have two different takes on this. It would be an effort in futility to hammer each other too hard here I think. Most likely it would not "edifying" for each other. God Bless...
lecoop said:JustifiedByFaith said:...This whole thing is about: "What needs to happen before Jesus get's here to pick us up?" The sequence is not: "We are removed, then the man if sin is revealed, then He comes?"
I disagree. Most of these verses are about, "no, you are not in the "day of the Lord" and you did not miss the gathering. You could not be in the day of the Lord, and the day of the Lord could not have started, because two things must happen first, before the day of the Lord is here. From the first verse on, Paul switched the emphasis from the gathering to the day of the Lord. In the end, it is very diffecult to prove anything by this verse because of the differences of the Greek texts, and because Paul seemed to write it in code! :-?
Coop
Dear lecoop,
I agree that we both have two different takes on this. It would be an effort in futility to hammer each other too hard here I think. Most likely it would not "edifying" for each other. God Bless...
Re: Subject of thread
I agree, and I firmly belive this is one of the most ambiguous verses used in prophecy. I will never try to prove anything by this verse, as each group of end time teachers use this same verse for their side of the argument! I was taught in bible college that one should gather every verse on a subject, then establish which is the fullest, latest revelation, and use that first to establish doctrine, then fill in the holes with the other verses. There is no question that Revelation is the most complete and the latest revelation. We should then, obtain our main beliefs here, and fill in with the Olivet discourse, and minor prophets. We probably should remember that Paul was not a prophet, but an apostle, although he did write some things about the end times. However, it seems to me that Paul wrote in code, perhaps to extend his life further! He did not want the Romans to understand anything he wrote!
Therefore, I still insist that the best way to establish any kind of time line, is to find the midpoint first, then go backwards to see what is in the first 3 1/2 years, and go forwards to see what is in the last 3 1/2 years. Thank God, Daniel was very clear in what he wrote about the abomination being at the midpoint, and Jesus agreed with him. Therefore, we have two great witnesses about that event at the midpoint, and what would happen after that event. However, many people think that what Jesus mentioned just before the abomination was events of the first half of the week. I believe that is in error. I don't think Jesus even covered the first 3 1/2 years. He was still describing the time of "the end is not yet." And He jumped from there to the midpoint!
Coop
JustifiedByFaith said:lecoop said:JustifiedByFaith said:...This whole thing is about: "What needs to happen before Jesus get's here to pick us up?" The sequence is not: "We are removed, then the man if sin is revealed, then He comes?"
I disagree. Most of these verses are about, "no, you are not in the "day of the Lord" and you did not miss the gathering. You could not be in the day of the Lord, and the day of the Lord could not have started, because two things must happen first, before the day of the Lord is here. From the first verse on, Paul switched the emphasis from the gathering to the day of the Lord. In the end, it is very difficult to prove anything by this verse because of the differences of the Greek texts, and because Paul seemed to write it in code! :-?
Coop
Dear lecoop,
I agree that we both have two different takes on this. It would be an effort in futility to hammer each other too hard here I think. Most likely it would not "edifying" for each other. God Bless...
I agree, and I firmly belive this is one of the most ambiguous verses used in prophecy. I will never try to prove anything by this verse, as each group of end time teachers use this same verse for their side of the argument! I was taught in bible college that one should gather every verse on a subject, then establish which is the fullest, latest revelation, and use that first to establish doctrine, then fill in the holes with the other verses. There is no question that Revelation is the most complete and the latest revelation. We should then, obtain our main beliefs here, and fill in with the Olivet discourse, and minor prophets. We probably should remember that Paul was not a prophet, but an apostle, although he did write some things about the end times. However, it seems to me that Paul wrote in code, perhaps to extend his life further! He did not want the Romans to understand anything he wrote!
Therefore, I still insist that the best way to establish any kind of time line, is to find the midpoint first, then go backwards to see what is in the first 3 1/2 years, and go forwards to see what is in the last 3 1/2 years. Thank God, Daniel was very clear in what he wrote about the abomination being at the midpoint, and Jesus agreed with him. Therefore, we have two great witnesses about that event at the midpoint, and what would happen after that event. However, many people think that what Jesus mentioned just before the abomination was events of the first half of the week. I believe that is in error. I don't think Jesus even covered the first 3 1/2 years. He was still describing the time of "the end is not yet." And He jumped from there to the midpoint!
Coop
Here is what I posted above, with the questions:
I challenge the readers to follow me closely. Read chapters 4 & 5, and start asking questions. First the throne room. Notice in 95 AD that there was someone missing from the throne room! Stephen saw Jesus standing by the Fathers right hand, yet when John looked, Jesus was nowhere to be seen. So ask yourself, "what period of time could John (or anyone) see (or have seen) into the throne room, and NOT see Jesus there?" Where was Jesus at this moment in time?
It was about 95 AD. This would have been long after Stephen was martyred. Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God. Yet John is shown the throne room, and guess who is missing? He sees the throne, the four beasts, and the 24 elders, but he does not see Jesus! We must ask why.
Next John sees:
5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
So John has seen the Father, or part of the Father on the throne, and he spots the scroll.
2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
Notice that a search was currently going on. Perhaps it had been ongoing from the days of Adam! Notice who was doing this search: angels. It is clear that it was a thorough search, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, yet no man was found. Of course we know why. Only Jesus would be found worthy.
Hey! Wait just a minute! Why was Jesus not found? Why was HE not in the throne room? There can be only one answer. What [extended] period of time in all of earth's history, could Jesus, or the second person of the trinity, NOT be found in heaven? The answer is, only that time that Jesus was as a man on planet earth! As a man on earth, he could not be at the Father's right hand. So John weeps much. How much is much? Definitely more than a little! Perhaps hours; perhaps days. Why is this important?
I don't know why, but I bugged God for days, as to why He thought we needed to know that John wept much. Finally, God answered me, and said, "it shows timing!" Then I really studied this. It still took me weeks to see timing here.
So follow me: John was seeing a vision, and John was seeing into the past, to a time while Jesus was still on the earth! Follow me now. Don't get lost now! Just stick with it! :-? What happens next?
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain,
Suddenly someone is found! How was he found? He "prevailed." Then suddenly John sees Jesus in the throne room! How does he look? "As a lamb as it had been slain." So John saw the very moment that Jesus arrived in the throne room! This was probably right after Jesus told Mary that He had not yet ascended.
So first Jesus was not seen in the throne room, and a search was made and no one found (showing that Jesus had not yet died and rose from the dead) and then suddenly, Jesus was back in the throne room, having conquered death and having redeemed mankind. So, again I ask, "what time is it?" I mean, what time was John seeing into? There can be no doubt that John saw the very moment that Jesus rose from the dead, or a short while later, after He spoke to Mary.
What is the very next thing that John sees, before any worship: before anything else happens?
7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
So the very first thing that Jesus does when He arrives in heaven, having just risen from the dead, is take the scroll! This is monumental!
Now John sees some worship of Jesus. But what happens after the worship? what is the next thing that John sees?
1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals,
What is God showing us here? That the foremost thing on Jesus mind as soon as He arrived in heaven, was to start breaking the seals! Again, this is momumental! Why was the scroll so important? Or rather, why was the breaking of the seals so important? It seems that the scroll is the lease document for the planet earth, and in it are the directions of how the earth will come back into the possession of the Father. This lease was undoubted drawn up before Adam was created. Certain things must have been written on the outside, such as who would be worthy. It seems that only a man that had redeemed mankind could be found worthy. It seems that only a man could be found worthy - not any angel, and not God!
So what have we seen? John saw into the past. About 60 years into his past! He now learns what happened in heaven, while he was behind the closed doors of the upper room. Jesus ascended and John saw (in the vision0 the moment that He arrived in the throne room. Then John saw that the very first thing Jesus did was go and take the scroll out of the hand of the Father! And after the worship, the very next thing that John saw was Jesus breaking the first seal!
When, then, was the first seal broken? Approximately 33 AD! I have always said that God has used white from Genesis to maps, to represent righteousness. Now, in 33 AD, what or who on earth was righteous? Only the 120 locked away behind the closed doors of the upper room. It was the infant church of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were rightous because they were wearing the righteousness of Jesus Christ, even as we do.
2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
Horses represent warfare or battle. White represents righteousness. This first seal is none other than the infant church of the Lord Jesus Christ. going forth to make disciples of all nations. Will they conquer? Absolutely! From 120 to perhaps 1/4 of the planet earth today! I would say they have conquered!
The timing is right. The description is right. This first seal is none other than the church of our Lord Jesus Christ: His body on earth.
Once we examine the other horsemen, we will see who rides alone, and who rides together.
Coop
I challenge the readers to follow me closely. Read chapters 4 & 5, and start asking questions. First the throne room. Notice in 95 AD that there was someone missing from the throne room! Stephen saw Jesus standing by the Fathers right hand, yet when John looked, Jesus was nowhere to be seen. So ask yourself, "what period of time could John (or anyone) see (or have seen) into the throne room, and NOT see Jesus there?" Where was Jesus at this moment in time?
It was about 95 AD. This would have been long after Stephen was martyred. Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God. Yet John is shown the throne room, and guess who is missing? He sees the throne, the four beasts, and the 24 elders, but he does not see Jesus! We must ask why.
Next John sees:
5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
So John has seen the Father, or part of the Father on the throne, and he spots the scroll.
2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
Notice that a search was currently going on. Perhaps it had been ongoing from the days of Adam! Notice who was doing this search: angels. It is clear that it was a thorough search, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, yet no man was found. Of course we know why. Only Jesus would be found worthy.
Hey! Wait just a minute! Why was Jesus not found? Why was HE not in the throne room? There can be only one answer. What [extended] period of time in all of earth's history, could Jesus, or the second person of the trinity, NOT be found in heaven? The answer is, only that time that Jesus was as a man on planet earth! As a man on earth, he could not be at the Father's right hand. So John weeps much. How much is much? Definitely more than a little! Perhaps hours; perhaps days. Why is this important?
I don't know why, but I bugged God for days, as to why He thought we needed to know that John wept much. Finally, God answered me, and said, "it shows timing!" Then I really studied this. It still took me weeks to see timing here.
So follow me: John was seeing a vision, and John was seeing into the past, to a time while Jesus was still on the earth! Follow me now. Don't get lost now! Just stick with it! :-? What happens next?
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain,
Suddenly someone is found! How was he found? He "prevailed." Then suddenly John sees Jesus in the throne room! How does he look? "As a lamb as it had been slain." So John saw the very moment that Jesus arrived in the throne room! This was probably right after Jesus told Mary that He had not yet ascended.
So first Jesus was not seen in the throne room, and a search was made and no one found (showing that Jesus had not yet died and rose from the dead) and then suddenly, Jesus was back in the throne room, having conquered death and having redeemed mankind. So, again I ask, "what time is it?" I mean, what time was John seeing into? There can be no doubt that John saw the very moment that Jesus rose from the dead, or a short while later, after He spoke to Mary.
What is the very next thing that John sees, before any worship: before anything else happens?
7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
So the very first thing that Jesus does when He arrives in heaven, having just risen from the dead, is take the scroll! This is monumental!
Now John sees some worship of Jesus. But what happens after the worship? what is the next thing that John sees?
1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals,
What is God showing us here? That the foremost thing on Jesus mind as soon as He arrived in heaven, was to start breaking the seals! Again, this is momumental! Why was the scroll so important? Or rather, why was the breaking of the seals so important? It seems that the scroll is the lease document for the planet earth, and in it are the directions of how the earth will come back into the possession of the Father. This lease was undoubted drawn up before Adam was created. Certain things must have been written on the outside, such as who would be worthy. It seems that only a man that had redeemed mankind could be found worthy. It seems that only a man could be found worthy - not any angel, and not God!
So what have we seen? John saw into the past. About 60 years into his past! He now learns what happened in heaven, while he was behind the closed doors of the upper room. Jesus ascended and John saw (in the vision0 the moment that He arrived in the throne room. Then John saw that the very first thing Jesus did was go and take the scroll out of the hand of the Father! And after the worship, the very next thing that John saw was Jesus breaking the first seal!
When, then, was the first seal broken? Approximately 33 AD! I have always said that God has used white from Genesis to maps, to represent righteousness. Now, in 33 AD, what or who on earth was righteous? Only the 120 locked away behind the closed doors of the upper room. It was the infant church of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were rightous because they were wearing the righteousness of Jesus Christ, even as we do.
2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
Horses represent warfare or battle. White represents righteousness. This first seal is none other than the infant church of the Lord Jesus Christ. going forth to make disciples of all nations. Will they conquer? Absolutely! From 120 to perhaps 1/4 of the planet earth today! I would say they have conquered!
The timing is right. The description is right. This first seal is none other than the church of our Lord Jesus Christ: His body on earth.
Once we examine the other horsemen, we will see who rides alone, and who rides together.
Coop
Vic C.
Member
Or... it could be that "white" is representative of "victory". The ones conquered and being conquered are the "souls" who submit theirselves to antichrist. Jesus never conquered with a bow or any other weapon other than the Word of God... and His shed blood and defeat over death.
Notice the word for crown in Rev 6:2
stephanos - Strong's Ref. # 4735
2. |2532| And |1492| I saw. |2532| And |2400| look, |2462| a horse |3022| white, |2532| and |3588| the |9999| {one} |2521| sitting |1909| on |0846| it |2192| having |5115| a bow, |2532| and |1325| was given |0846| to him |4735| a crown, |2532| and |1831| he went out |3528| conquering, |2532| and |2443| so that |3528| he could conquer.
This is a crown given and worn in honor of a battle won, a victory in public games, etc.
Now notice the word for crown(s) in Rev 19:12 is:
diadema (pl. diadems) - Strong's Ref. # 2532
12. |3588| the |1161| And |3788| eyes |0846| of him |5613| as a |5395| flame |4442| of fire, |2532| and |1909| on |3588| the |2776| head |0846| of him |1238| diadems |4183| many, |2192| having |3686| a name having |1125| been written |3739| which |3761| no one |1492| knows |3364| except |0846| him.
This is the Greek word for the crown of a King; Royalty.
Two different crowns worn for completely seperate occasions.
All I ask is that you do not just "dismiss" this and forget it. It is not my wisdom at all, but came from the HS. He is the author. If you can't believe it at first reading, put it on the back burner, and think about it for a while. Try to imagine that it is truth, and search to see why it could not be. Since it came from the HS, I don't think you will find it.
Why do you suppose that the church of Jesus Christ would wear the same crown that Jesus will wear? Of course ours will be different!
Did you do any research on the bow?
How does the bow relate to the horse and rider? The white is to represent righteousness. The Horse to represent battle or warfare. The rider is to represent the church of our Lord Jesus Christ: at this point in time, 120 people locked in the upper room, wondering what will happen. They are the righteous on planet earth. Jesus had breathed on them and said, received the HS. They were then commanded to go forth and make disciples in every nation of the world. There was just one small problem: all the kingdoms of the world belong to Satan! in other words, there would be warfare and the church would have to conquer. The bow then, will represent how this battle will be fought. It will be a spiritual battle, fought with spiritual weapons: with the Name of Jesus and the authority behind that name.
That was then only 120 souls. Now, 2000 years later, perhaps 25% of the world is born again! Did the church do its job? Yes. Now, how does the bow fit? Bow comes from the Greek word, "toxon." Unfortunately, it is used only this once and means only "bow!" However, it comes from the root word, : "tikto."
"Tikto" means: to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literally or figuratively:--bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.
Jesus the Christ was the seed that was planted. He was the living word, transfered onto the lives of 120 believers. They were to bring forth disciples! They were to bring forth the fruit of the spirit. To do what they were commanded would require battle. They must conquer, for all the kingdoms of the world were possessed by Satan, as the god of this world.
To say that the first horse is the antichrist, is to be ignorant of what John was teaching us. It is only imagination, gone wrong. There is simple no biblical evidence that he is antichrist, and a lot of evidence that he is not. Let's let the Word of God decide who he is.
Coop
Why do you suppose that the church of Jesus Christ would wear the same crown that Jesus will wear? Of course ours will be different!
Did you do any research on the bow?
How does the bow relate to the horse and rider? The white is to represent righteousness. The Horse to represent battle or warfare. The rider is to represent the church of our Lord Jesus Christ: at this point in time, 120 people locked in the upper room, wondering what will happen. They are the righteous on planet earth. Jesus had breathed on them and said, received the HS. They were then commanded to go forth and make disciples in every nation of the world. There was just one small problem: all the kingdoms of the world belong to Satan! in other words, there would be warfare and the church would have to conquer. The bow then, will represent how this battle will be fought. It will be a spiritual battle, fought with spiritual weapons: with the Name of Jesus and the authority behind that name.
That was then only 120 souls. Now, 2000 years later, perhaps 25% of the world is born again! Did the church do its job? Yes. Now, how does the bow fit? Bow comes from the Greek word, "toxon." Unfortunately, it is used only this once and means only "bow!" However, it comes from the root word, : "tikto."
"Tikto" means: to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literally or figuratively:--bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.
Jesus the Christ was the seed that was planted. He was the living word, transfered onto the lives of 120 believers. They were to bring forth disciples! They were to bring forth the fruit of the spirit. To do what they were commanded would require battle. They must conquer, for all the kingdoms of the world were possessed by Satan, as the god of this world.
To say that the first horse is the antichrist, is to be ignorant of what John was teaching us. It is only imagination, gone wrong. There is simple no biblical evidence that he is antichrist, and a lot of evidence that he is not. Let's let the Word of God decide who he is.
Coop
I have mentioned that one of the riders rides alone, while three ride together. It is one more proof of who the white horse and rider is to represent. But give me a moment to go back and refresh your mind.
Why had not someone been found while John was watching this search for a man worthy, go on? Why had this "man" not been found earlier? Was the search faulty? No, I suspect that only a VERY specific man could be worthy to open these seals, and Jesus was the only one; but only after He had come to earth and took on flesh; died on the cross, was buried and then ressurected: only then was He found worthy. No man was found earlier, because Jesus had not yet ascended. But now He has. John has been told to stop weeping. John looks and what does He see? A lamb as it had been slain. We know that Jesus was to be the Passover Lamb. Now that He is arisen, and is back in heaven, He is worthy to break the seals. Now notice verse seven. Jesus goes immediately to take the scroll out of the hand of the Father. We know that a lamb cannot take a scrool with its hooves. It is only a picture representing something else. It is, in reality, Jesus with His ressurected body, scarred to prove it.
Now let me ask a question. Can anyone find 2000 years here, between these verses we have read? I cannot. There seems to be no time at all. Just time enough for John to watch and see Jesus take the scroll. Now, what does Jesus do as soon as the scroll is in His hands? First there has to be worship, for Jesus is worth of all worship, and this was, indeed a time to worship. This scroll had undoubtedly been sealed since the time of Adam. Finally, the process can begin for God to take control of this earth once again. Yes, it was a time to worship. For if Jesus had not preveiled, the scroll would remain sealed, and Satan would remain in control.
Again, I asked myself if I could find 2000 years between theses verses. Again, I cannot. It seems that as soon as Jesus gets the scroll in His hands, He starts breaking the seals.
Therefore, I find the timing of this first seal given away by the text. It seems that God meant to show us that the first seal was broken very near the time of the resurrection. This is one reason why this white horse and rider cannot be the antichrist. This horse and rider was sent out almost 2000 years ago. Just about the time of the newborn church.
But wait. God has left us yet more evidence.
At first we might say, yes, power was given to all four of these horsemen. But wait! Let's read it all. John goes on to say: "to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death..." Now put this sentence with these:
4 And there went out another horse that was red: ...and there was given unto him a great sword.
5 ...And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. [think hunger]
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death,
Can you see that these three horses and riders are working together, but not with the white horse? Why? Because the white horse is rightousness, while these three are evil.
Now lets look at who gets killed - or where they get killed.
I see a huge difference here between these two verses. First, power was given over a specific area, that is, 1/4 of the earth. In the second example, John is clear that 1/3 of the people die. You see, John just does not explicitly tell us how many people these three riders kill; he just says that they are limited to one fourth of the earth. Now if I said "millions die from starvation," what continent do you think about? If I said, "never ending wars between tribes, that has gone on for centuries," what continent would you think about? If I said, more people dying of aids than in any other continent, what continent would you think about?
You see, these three riders have been doing their work over the centuries. But they have been limited in where they can go. On the other hand, over the centuries, the church spread from Jerusalem to Samaria, to Asia, to Greece to Italy to Europe to the New World, and then to the whole world. If you insist on making the white horse the antichrist, then you are saying that he will be limited to one fourth of the earth. This is in disagreement with several verses in chapter 13 that say the whole world worships the beast. But this first rider is not the antichrist! He is to represent the church or Jesus Christ. Has the white horse been successful? Has He conquered? Almost 1/3 of the world's population call themselves Christian. Yes, I would say that the white horse, which is none other than the Church of Jesus Christ, has been very successful.
You can see that it is only imagination to say the first horse is antichrist. There is, as I said before, not one word that even hints of it. On the other hand, there is biblical evidence in these verses that this white horse is the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, when there is a move of God, where is Satan? He is always behind, trying to stop what God is doing. When the church was started, there was no exception. Satan was right there, trying to stop the church from advancing. What Paul went through was a good example. Remember the "messenger of Satan" sent to buffet him? That word in the Greek means to strike blow after blow. That is exactly what happened to Paul. Everywhere he took the gospel, Satan was there to stop him. However, Paul's weapons was stronger than Satan's, and the church advanced onward!
Coop
Why had not someone been found while John was watching this search for a man worthy, go on? Why had this "man" not been found earlier? Was the search faulty? No, I suspect that only a VERY specific man could be worthy to open these seals, and Jesus was the only one; but only after He had come to earth and took on flesh; died on the cross, was buried and then ressurected: only then was He found worthy. No man was found earlier, because Jesus had not yet ascended. But now He has. John has been told to stop weeping. John looks and what does He see? A lamb as it had been slain. We know that Jesus was to be the Passover Lamb. Now that He is arisen, and is back in heaven, He is worthy to break the seals. Now notice verse seven. Jesus goes immediately to take the scroll out of the hand of the Father. We know that a lamb cannot take a scrool with its hooves. It is only a picture representing something else. It is, in reality, Jesus with His ressurected body, scarred to prove it.
Now let me ask a question. Can anyone find 2000 years here, between these verses we have read? I cannot. There seems to be no time at all. Just time enough for John to watch and see Jesus take the scroll. Now, what does Jesus do as soon as the scroll is in His hands? First there has to be worship, for Jesus is worth of all worship, and this was, indeed a time to worship. This scroll had undoubtedly been sealed since the time of Adam. Finally, the process can begin for God to take control of this earth once again. Yes, it was a time to worship. For if Jesus had not preveiled, the scroll would remain sealed, and Satan would remain in control.
Again, I asked myself if I could find 2000 years between theses verses. Again, I cannot. It seems that as soon as Jesus gets the scroll in His hands, He starts breaking the seals.
Therefore, I find the timing of this first seal given away by the text. It seems that God meant to show us that the first seal was broken very near the time of the resurrection. This is one reason why this white horse and rider cannot be the antichrist. This horse and rider was sent out almost 2000 years ago. Just about the time of the newborn church.
But wait. God has left us yet more evidence.
At first we might say, yes, power was given to all four of these horsemen. But wait! Let's read it all. John goes on to say: "to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death..." Now put this sentence with these:
4 And there went out another horse that was red: ...and there was given unto him a great sword.
5 ...And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. [think hunger]
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death,
Can you see that these three horses and riders are working together, but not with the white horse? Why? Because the white horse is rightousness, while these three are evil.
Now lets look at who gets killed - or where they get killed.
I see a huge difference here between these two verses. First, power was given over a specific area, that is, 1/4 of the earth. In the second example, John is clear that 1/3 of the people die. You see, John just does not explicitly tell us how many people these three riders kill; he just says that they are limited to one fourth of the earth. Now if I said "millions die from starvation," what continent do you think about? If I said, "never ending wars between tribes, that has gone on for centuries," what continent would you think about? If I said, more people dying of aids than in any other continent, what continent would you think about?
You see, these three riders have been doing their work over the centuries. But they have been limited in where they can go. On the other hand, over the centuries, the church spread from Jerusalem to Samaria, to Asia, to Greece to Italy to Europe to the New World, and then to the whole world. If you insist on making the white horse the antichrist, then you are saying that he will be limited to one fourth of the earth. This is in disagreement with several verses in chapter 13 that say the whole world worships the beast. But this first rider is not the antichrist! He is to represent the church or Jesus Christ. Has the white horse been successful? Has He conquered? Almost 1/3 of the world's population call themselves Christian. Yes, I would say that the white horse, which is none other than the Church of Jesus Christ, has been very successful.
You can see that it is only imagination to say the first horse is antichrist. There is, as I said before, not one word that even hints of it. On the other hand, there is biblical evidence in these verses that this white horse is the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, when there is a move of God, where is Satan? He is always behind, trying to stop what God is doing. When the church was started, there was no exception. Satan was right there, trying to stop the church from advancing. What Paul went through was a good example. Remember the "messenger of Satan" sent to buffet him? That word in the Greek means to strike blow after blow. That is exactly what happened to Paul. Everywhere he took the gospel, Satan was there to stop him. However, Paul's weapons was stronger than Satan's, and the church advanced onward!
Coop
Re: Subject of thread
Please excuse my 'butting in,' but I would like to answer the question you asked, "Where is "rapture" used between verse 2 and 4?
In 2 Thes.2:3, the Greek term APOSTASIA is used, which does have several interpretations, including 'apostasy,' 'falling away' as well as 'to depart,' or 'departure.' Which term is used, depends upon the text it is used in, and in this case, the text of Paul's letter is about a rapture. There is nothing at all about the Church falling away in 2 Thes.2. Therefore, the proper term for vs 3 should read, DEPARTURE, and not 'falling away,' or 'apostasy.'
The first seven English Bible translations of 'apostasia' all rendered the noun as either 'departure' or 'departing.' They are as follows: Wycliff in AD 1384; Tyndale in AD 1526; Coverdale in AD 1535; Cranmer in AD 1539; Breeches in AD 1576; Beza in AD 1583; and the Geneva in AD 1608.
This supports the notion that the word truly means 'departure.' In fact, Jerome's Latin translation known as the Vulgate in the 4th century renders 'apostasia' with the word 'discessio,' meaning 'departure.' So why did the King James Version depart from the established translation of 'departure?' KJV in AD 1611.
In addition to that, vs 7 is a repeat of vs 3, but Paul puts it another way when he wrote, "...he who restrains will continue to do so until he is taken out of the way." The "he," is the ONE BODY of Christ, His Church, which is in complete harmony with the 'departure,' of vs 3.
You allude to Mt.24:31, which is Jesus ministry to Israel, as He made clear in Mt.10:5-6 and again in 15:24. His Church did not exist at that time, and until Pentecost in Acts 2:1-3. Reference to His ELECT, refer to Israel, as in Isa.42:1 and 45:4. The Church is referred to as the ELECT in Rom.8:33, Col.3:12 and 1 Pet.1:2. The two ELECTS, are the ELECT OF GOD, whether of Israel or of the Church.
Israel must go through the tribulation as seen in Dan.9:27 and the Church does not, as seen in Jn.14:2-3 and 28, 1 Thes.4:14-18 and 2 Thes.2:3-4 and 7-8.
Blessings,
Quasar
JustifiedByFaith said:lecoop said:
Dear lecoop,
In 2 Thes 2:1 Paul is addressing a 2 part question. It is important to note here that his answer is also addressing the 2 aspects of verse 1.:
The issue is:
Concerning:
>The coming of Jesus AND our being gathered to Him.
Paul says that the day He comes and we are gathered to Him can't happen unless the apostacy takes place and the man of sin is revealed.
I don't see your use of "catching away" in this context? It is not shown here, but the point is that we won't be "caught up" until these two things happen first.
Where is "rapture" used between verse 2 and 4?
This is my only example I could thing of just to show the dual aspect of what Paul is answering here in verse 1... It's like a child and dad waiting for a taxi and the child says,
"Daddy, when will the taxi be here to pick us up?" and the dad answers and says, " When it gets some gas and we see it coming around the next corner."
Paul also assures them that they didn't miss out on the taxi in verse 2.
This whole thing is about: "What needs to happen before Jesus get's here to pick us up?" The sequence is not: "We are removed, then the man if sin is revealed, then He comes?"
Please excuse my 'butting in,' but I would like to answer the question you asked, "Where is "rapture" used between verse 2 and 4?
In 2 Thes.2:3, the Greek term APOSTASIA is used, which does have several interpretations, including 'apostasy,' 'falling away' as well as 'to depart,' or 'departure.' Which term is used, depends upon the text it is used in, and in this case, the text of Paul's letter is about a rapture. There is nothing at all about the Church falling away in 2 Thes.2. Therefore, the proper term for vs 3 should read, DEPARTURE, and not 'falling away,' or 'apostasy.'
The first seven English Bible translations of 'apostasia' all rendered the noun as either 'departure' or 'departing.' They are as follows: Wycliff in AD 1384; Tyndale in AD 1526; Coverdale in AD 1535; Cranmer in AD 1539; Breeches in AD 1576; Beza in AD 1583; and the Geneva in AD 1608.
This supports the notion that the word truly means 'departure.' In fact, Jerome's Latin translation known as the Vulgate in the 4th century renders 'apostasia' with the word 'discessio,' meaning 'departure.' So why did the King James Version depart from the established translation of 'departure?' KJV in AD 1611.
In addition to that, vs 7 is a repeat of vs 3, but Paul puts it another way when he wrote, "...he who restrains will continue to do so until he is taken out of the way." The "he," is the ONE BODY of Christ, His Church, which is in complete harmony with the 'departure,' of vs 3.
You allude to Mt.24:31, which is Jesus ministry to Israel, as He made clear in Mt.10:5-6 and again in 15:24. His Church did not exist at that time, and until Pentecost in Acts 2:1-3. Reference to His ELECT, refer to Israel, as in Isa.42:1 and 45:4. The Church is referred to as the ELECT in Rom.8:33, Col.3:12 and 1 Pet.1:2. The two ELECTS, are the ELECT OF GOD, whether of Israel or of the Church.
Israel must go through the tribulation as seen in Dan.9:27 and the Church does not, as seen in Jn.14:2-3 and 28, 1 Thes.4:14-18 and 2 Thes.2:3-4 and 7-8.
Blessings,
Quasar
Thread subject
Quote by Coop:
>>>It should not be much of a struggle for most people to believe that the time of these seven churches was "real-time" to John, as he received this part of His vision. He of course knew all about these churches, as history records that he was the overseer over them. This part of the vision was "past tense" or present tense for him. If we just go to chapter 19, of course no one would argue that these events would take place far into John's future. In between these two extremes, would be events in Johns life, at the time of Domitian's rule, in about 95 AD. It was then, somewhere around that time, that John was called to heaven. Did John immediately start seeing events of the far away future? Oh no!
I challenge the readers to follow me closely. Read chapters 4 & 5, and start asking questions. First the throne room. Notice in 95 AD that there was someone missing from the throne room! Stephen saw Jesus standing by the Fathers right hand, yet when John looked, Jesus was nowhere to be seen. So ask yourself, "what period of time could John (or anyone) see (or have seen) into the throne room, and NOT see Jesus there?" Where was Jesus at this moment in time?<<<
Q: The 'seven' churches Jesus alluded to represent only ONE CHURCH from the time of John's writing about it through the entire church age. It represents all the various characteristics of the church over that same time frame.
It is no certainty Revelation was written in 95 A.D., either, as there are some of us who prefer an earlier time frame, such as about 65/66 A.D., before the second temple was destroyed, as it is not mentioned by Jesus in His entire narrative to John
If you read very little further than that which John saw in Rev 4, in heaven, he will see the Lamb [Jesus] in Rev.5:5-7, when He takes the scroll from the hand of God. He is the only one qualified to open the seven seals.
Blessings,
Quasar
Quote by Coop:
>>>It should not be much of a struggle for most people to believe that the time of these seven churches was "real-time" to John, as he received this part of His vision. He of course knew all about these churches, as history records that he was the overseer over them. This part of the vision was "past tense" or present tense for him. If we just go to chapter 19, of course no one would argue that these events would take place far into John's future. In between these two extremes, would be events in Johns life, at the time of Domitian's rule, in about 95 AD. It was then, somewhere around that time, that John was called to heaven. Did John immediately start seeing events of the far away future? Oh no!
I challenge the readers to follow me closely. Read chapters 4 & 5, and start asking questions. First the throne room. Notice in 95 AD that there was someone missing from the throne room! Stephen saw Jesus standing by the Fathers right hand, yet when John looked, Jesus was nowhere to be seen. So ask yourself, "what period of time could John (or anyone) see (or have seen) into the throne room, and NOT see Jesus there?" Where was Jesus at this moment in time?<<<
Q: The 'seven' churches Jesus alluded to represent only ONE CHURCH from the time of John's writing about it through the entire church age. It represents all the various characteristics of the church over that same time frame.
It is no certainty Revelation was written in 95 A.D., either, as there are some of us who prefer an earlier time frame, such as about 65/66 A.D., before the second temple was destroyed, as it is not mentioned by Jesus in His entire narrative to John
If you read very little further than that which John saw in Rev 4, in heaven, he will see the Lamb [Jesus] in Rev.5:5-7, when He takes the scroll from the hand of God. He is the only one qualified to open the seven seals.
Blessings,
Quasar
Re: Subject of thread
GREAT answers, Quasar! You did an awesome job, and I agree. :smt038
Quasar said:JustifiedByFaith said:lecoop said:
Dear lecoop,
In 2 Thes 2:1 Paul is addressing a 2 part question. It is important to note here that his answer is also addressing the 2 aspects of verse 1.:
The issue is:
Concerning:
>The coming of Jesus AND our being gathered to Him.
Paul says that the day He comes and we are gathered to Him can't happen unless the apostacy takes place and the man of sin is revealed.
I don't see your use of "catching away" in this context? It is not shown here, but the point is that we won't be "caught up" until these two things happen first.
Where is "rapture" used between verse 2 and 4?
This is my only example I could thing of just to show the dual aspect of what Paul is answering here in verse 1... It's like a child and dad waiting for a taxi and the child says,
"Daddy, when will the taxi be here to pick us up?" and the dad answers and says, " When it gets some gas and we see it coming around the next corner."
Paul also assures them that they didn't miss out on the taxi in verse 2.
This whole thing is about: "What needs to happen before Jesus get's here to pick us up?" The sequence is not: "We are removed, then the man if sin is revealed, then He comes?"
Please excuse my 'butting in,' but I would like to answer the question you asked, "Where is "rapture" used between verse 2 and 4?
In 2 Thes.2:3, the Greek term APOSTASIA is used, which does have several interpretations, including 'apostasy,' 'falling away' as well as 'to depart,' or 'departure.' Which term is used, depends upon the text it is used in, and in this case, the text of Paul's letter is about a rapture. There is nothing at all about the Church falling away in 2 Thes.2. Therefore, the proper term for vs 3 should read, DEPARTURE, and not 'falling away,' or 'apostasy.'
The first seven English Bible translations of 'apostasia' all rendered the noun as either 'departure' or 'departing.' They are as follows: Wycliff in AD 1384; Tyndale in AD 1526; Coverdale in AD 1535; Cranmer in AD 1539; Breeches in AD 1576; Beza in AD 1583; and the Geneva in AD 1608.
This supports the notion that the word truly means 'departure.' In fact, Jerome's Latin translation known as the Vulgate in the 4th century renders 'apostasia' with the word 'discessio,' meaning 'departure.' So why did the King James Version depart from the established translation of 'departure?' KJV in AD 1611.
In addition to that, vs 7 is a repeat of vs 3, but Paul puts it another way when he wrote, "...he who restrains will continue to do so until he is taken out of the way." The "he," is the ONE BODY of Christ, His Church, which is in complete harmony with the 'departure,' of vs 3.
You allude to Mt.24:31, which is Jesus ministry to Israel, as He made clear in Mt.10:5-6 and again in 15:24. His Church did not exist at that time, and until Pentecost in Acts 2:1-3. Reference to His ELECT, refer to Israel, as in Isa.42:1 and 45:4. The Church is referred to as the ELECT in Rom.8:33, Col.3:12 and 1 Pet.1:2. The two ELECTS, are the ELECT OF GOD, whether of Israel or of the Church.
Israel must go through the tribulation as seen in Dan.9:27 and the Church does not, as seen in Jn.14:2-3 and 28, 1 Thes.4:14-18 and 2 Thes.2:3-4 and 7-8.
Blessings,
Quasar
GREAT answers, Quasar! You did an awesome job, and I agree. :smt038
J
JustifiedByFaith
Guest
Re: Subject of thread
I will ponder this. Thank you Quasar...
Quasar said:
I will ponder this. Thank you Quasar...
Re: Subject of thread
Hi J by F,
Another good source for support of the Greek term 'apostasia' being rendered DEPARTURE,' in the 2 Thes.2:3 text, comes from Dr. Thomas, Ice, PhD. in an article he wrote in the Midnight Call Magazine, in the June 2004 issue. It might be possible to pick up a back copy from them at:
Midnight Call
Box 280008
Columbia, SC 29228
Arno Froese, Editor.
Or there is a later version at the following link:
http://www.midnightcall.com/articles/em0406_tice.htm
In the second article down, named, "Is the Rapture in 2 Thes.2:3."
Blessings,
Quasar
JustifiedByFaith said:
Hi J by F,
Another good source for support of the Greek term 'apostasia' being rendered DEPARTURE,' in the 2 Thes.2:3 text, comes from Dr. Thomas, Ice, PhD. in an article he wrote in the Midnight Call Magazine, in the June 2004 issue. It might be possible to pick up a back copy from them at:
Midnight Call
Box 280008
Columbia, SC 29228
Arno Froese, Editor.
Or there is a later version at the following link:
http://www.midnightcall.com/articles/em0406_tice.htm
In the second article down, named, "Is the Rapture in 2 Thes.2:3."
Blessings,
Quasar