So, the two things that happen are (1) the taking away, and (2) the revealing of the Antichrist. When you see those happen, then you know you're in the Tribulation period of time, that last 7 years.
My problem with the use of the word "taking", is that it implies that the "takEN" are not in control of being takEN. They are being TakEN (by someone else).
The Greek doesn't seem to say that, Star Traveler.
The "falling away" is the act of those who "fall away" (apostasy)...it is those who "fall away" who are initiating the very act, NOT that they are "taken" by someone else.
There is a difference between something/someone being "taken" and something/someone "falling away".
Now, you quoted 2 Thess 2:1-3 (and more) but let us concentrate on those 3 verses? (Emphasis mine)
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him (I consider THIS phrase to be the rapture), we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day (the day of Christ in the above verse) will not come unless the falling away (this is NOT the rapture, but a FALLING away...not a gathering!) comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
Why would Paul talk about the man of sin being revealed AFTER the Rapture as a REASON to not be shaken? If we are gone, why would Paul describe the second item to come? This seems quite pointless.
What is the point of verse 4 then, if we are gone?
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Who is Paul addressing in verse 4? Again, WHO is he addressing?
Paul is clearly trying to tell the believers in 2 Thess 2 that two things must happen BEFORE the rapture.
He is not saying that we should note 2 things:
"First, there will be a rapture and the man of sin is revealed."
That is like saying, "How do you know you are raptured? Well, first you get raptured, then the Antichrist appears (is revealed)."
It makes no sense whatsoever.
Put another way:
"How do you know that the rapture hasn't taken place? Well, first you must be raptured and then the son of perdition is revealed."
Put still another way:
"Star Traveler? There is a rapture coming. Now, don't be worried that you've missed it, for two things must happen: First, the rapture must take place and the man of sin is revealed"
Paul is clearly saying in 1 Thess 2 that two things must PRECEDE the rapture: APOSTASY and the revealing of the Antichrist.
Paul is NOT saying: 2 things PRECEDE the Rapture: The rapture and the revealing of the Antichrist.
The Greek doesn't seem to say that, Star Traveler.
Well, when I post these articles, I'm posting what other Greek scholars say, and of course, not from me. All I can do is simply give you what Greek scholars have said -- like this one for instance (you've already seen it, but it's not Ice or LaHaye), and it's several other scholars...
When I see the following, from other acknowledged scholars, quoted from their own works, then I know it's a good and viable explanation.
Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar from Moody Bible Institute ...
But then hee apostasia of which Paul is speaking, precedes the revelation of Antichrist in his true identity, and is to katechon that which holds back his revelation (2:6). The hee apostasia, therefore, cannot be either a general apostasy in Christendom which does precede the coming of Antichrist, nor can it be the particular apostasy which is the result of his activities in making himself the alone object of worship. Furthermore, that which holds back his revelation (vs. 3) is vitally connected with hookatechoon (vs. 7), He who holds back the same event. The latter is, in my opinion, the Holy Spirit and His activities in the Church. All of which means that I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that the hee apostasia (vs. 3) refers to the Rapture of the Church which precedes the Day of the Lord, and holds back the revelation of the Man of Sin who ushers in the world-aspect of that period.12
Allan MacRae, president of Faith Theological Seminary in a letter to Schuyler English has said the following concerning this matter:
I wonder if you have noticed the striking parallel between this verse and verses 7-8, a little further down. According to your suggestion verse 3 mentions the departure of the church as coming first, and then tells of the revealing of the man of sin. In verses 7 and 8 we find the identical sequence. Verse 7 tells of the removal of the Church; verse 8 says: "And then shall that Wicked be revealed." Thus close examination of the passage shows an inner unity and coherence, if we take the word apostasia in its general sense of "departure," while a superficial examination would easily lead to an erroneous interpretation as "falling away" because of the proximity of the mention of the man of sin.11
Davey notes the following:
Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article reference is being made to something in particular. In II Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.7
E. Schuyler English explains as follows:
Again, how would the Thessalonians, or Christians in any century since, be qualified to recognize the apostasy when it should come, assuming, simply for the sake of this inquiry, that the Church might be on earth when it does come? There has been apostasy from God, rebellion against Him, since time began.9
Dr. House tells us:
Remember, the Thessalonians had been led astray by the false teaching (2:2-3) that the Day of the Lord had already come. This was confusing because Paul offered great hope, in the first letter, of a departure to be with Christ and a rescue from god's wrath. Now a letter purporting to be from Paul seems to say that they would first have to go through the Day of the Lord. Paul then clarified his prior teachingby emphasizing that they had no need to worry. They could again be comforted because the departure he had discussed in his first letter, and in his teaching while with them, was still the truth. The departure of Christians to be with Christ, and the subsequent revelation of the lawless one, Paul argues, is proof that the Day of the Lord had not begun as they had thought. This understanding of apostasia makes much more sense than the view that they are to be comforted (v. 2) because a defection from the faith must precede the Day of the Lord. The entire second chapter (as well as 1 Thessalonians 4:18; 5:11) serves to comfort (see vv. 2, 3, 17), supplied by a reassurance of Christ's coming as taught in his first letter.10
So, when I take that passage and have the understanding that these Greek scholars have just said (up above), then it makes perfect sense to me. They do a pretty good job of convincing me... doncha know... :-)
Why would Paul talk about the man of sin being revealed AFTER the Rapture as a REASON to not be shaken? If we are gone, why would Paul describe the second item to come? This seems quite pointless.
I use that all the time here on Free Republic, for the very same reason that Paul wrote it there... :-)
Someone says to me, "We're in the Tribulation period right now!"
I say to them, "Do you see the Antichrist?"
LOL ...
Or another way I put it, is..., "If you see the Antichrist, you're in the Tribulation period." And then, I'll go on to describe the Antichrist so they'll know what to look for, if they are looking for the Antichrist right now [but, of course, they won't find the Antichrist... :-) ...]