Dutch42

So what about the part of the verse that you have not addressed. "and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction". Pre-trib folks also believe that they will be raptured before the antichrist appears. But this verse also says the "day of Christ will not come until the antichrist is revealed,(for who and what he is) the son of destruction. One can not simply focus on only one part of a verse and come to a true and qualified conclusion or belief that is based on only half of a whole. We must take ALL of the verse into account not just half. Which means that if we take into account all of the verse then it should be pretty clear that to believe that we will be resurrected both before the great falling away and before the antichrist is revealed it is a controdictory scriptural belief given the fact that this verse clearly says that we will not be going anywhere until both the falling away happens and the antichrist is revealed No insult intended here but according to this verse it should be a no brainer. I agree with you.. Interesting is this: From the Peshitta (Murdock Translation and Lamsa Translation) (copied from another forum where I post this) It said this:Let no one deceive you in any way; because that day will not come, unless there previously come a defection, {or: rebellion} and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; And the Lamsa Translation said Let no one deceive you by any way; for that day will not come, unless it is preceded by a rebellion and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Another ancient translation the Coptic Boharic: And it said unless should come first the apostacy.. All those are ancient translations, translated from the Greek text into Aramaic or Coptic. I ask the legal question: If apostasia mean depart.. why can't we see this back in those translations.? Good question and I hope I am understanding your question correctly. Maybe the reason we didn't see it back then is because they were expecting the falling away to take place during thier time. Most of the Christian world thought that the world was gonig to end and Christ was coming back in 1000 AD Thank you for your answer.. The problem is the translation.. because the Greek word for apostasia (like we translate it) is actually the same as how it is translated in Aramaic. That the most of the Christian world thought that the world was going to an end, is no problem.. I think this is from all ages.. even today. And actually I think we have to live in an understanding that Jesus is coming soon. I think, that apostasia means 'apostacy' falling of faith.. Even this day we can see it. In the western churches.. people are leaving the church and say goodbye to Jesus.. And in that case, we know that 2Tess 2:3 is fulfilling.

So what about the part of the verse that you have not addressed. "and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction". Pre-trib folks also believe that they will be raptured before the antichrist appears. But this verse also says the "day of Christ will not come until the antichrist is revealed,(for who and what he is) the son of destruction. One can not simply focus on only one part of a verse and come to a true and qualified conclusion or belief that is based on only half of a whole. We must take ALL of the verse into account not just half. Which means that if we take into account all of the verse then it should be pretty clear that to believe that we will be resurrected both before the great falling away and before the antichrist is revealed it is a controdictory scriptural belief given the fact that this verse clearly says that we will not be going anywhere until both the falling away happens and the antichrist is revealed No insult intended here but according to this verse it should be a no brainer. I agree with you.. Interesting is this: From the Peshitta (Murdock Translation and Lamsa Translation) (copied from another forum where I post this) It said this:Let no one deceive you in any way; because that day will not come, unless there previously come a defection, {or: rebellion} and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; And the Lamsa Translation said Let no one deceive you by any way; for that day will not come, unless it is preceded by a rebellion and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Another ancient translation the Coptic Boharic: And it said unless should come first the apostacy.. All those are ancient translations, translated from the Greek text into Aramaic or Coptic. I ask the legal question: If apostasia mean depart.. why can't we see this back in those translations.?

I think it is a really good question.. because some time ago, I had the same question.... the interesting part is that it looks like that the offering is coming back.. So, I am looking forward to the answers...

Yes I agree this.. fully...

So we know that Christ can take any form that is required at any given time. That being the case I would submit to you that this man was/is Christ Jesus the one we know as our savior. Yes I agree all what you said.. it could be Christ. That is true.. How do you see Dan 10;13 that is actually a strange verse if it is Christ.. because.. is it possible that the Persian prince can stop Christ to come? Thank for your point of view

Thank you for your reaction Mizzdy. Do I understand you correct that you think it is the Messiah? And how do you think that it fit with 10:13 13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia. Do you think that God needs help? That it is possible that the prince of Persian could withstood God? No God doesn't need help. If this is Gabriel would it make more sense in our minds? perhaps so lets look to see if there might be any clues to see if this might be Gabriel. Aside from the idea that the description given in Rev. and this looking so much like the Messiah we read this in verse 12 , Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that you did set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before your God, your words were heard, and I am come for your words. It does seem to read that an angel was sent out to give meaning to Daniels vision but that the person was delayed by the prince of persia. Daniel was told to stand up, something we read also told to others who have had angels sent to them. Gabriel is the one whom Gods sends out to give message and give the meanings of visions. Theres debate on both sides, personally I have always thought this was Gabriel, the description of the man correlates in many ways with the vision of Rev. but unless someone can show something else I haven't heard or read I still think it is Gabriel being spoken of here. Well Mizzdy this posting is not mentioned to discus if I think what is right or wrong.. So I it is good that you gave your point of view. Like I wrote in the OP, there are several opinions.. And yes, Gabriel is one of them too. But interesting is that Daniel met Gabriel in Dan 8:16-9:21. Daniel recognize Gabriel.. and he doesn't look at the description in Dan 10.. It seems when Gabriel appear, he appear only in a earthly (human 'body') But I have to say... when I look at lc 1:11 it is possible. So Mizzdy thank you for your input again...

Thank you for your reaction Mizzdy. Do I understand you correct that you think it is the Messiah? And how do you think that it fit with 10:13 13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia. Do you think that God needs help? That it is possible that the prince of Persian could withstood God?

Hello Joi Well it is an interesting question because a lot of commentary point Dan 10 at Jesus. The ESV-Studybible don't... because vs 13,14. So you think it is one of the other 'princes'.. Do I understand you correct? Why do you think that? Thank you for your imput!

anybody?

source click here The interesting part is.. we can see that it is actually impossible that there can be peace between the Palestine and Israel. Because the Palestine world is very divided. And it proof that what Israel said that Palestine is a difficult partner to negotiate..

Hello... all, Maybe this is not the right place for this question.. So the mod. got of course permission to put it in the right forum.. if it doesn't fit here. (But I didn't know where I have to put this question) I was studying Dan 10 And this is the Bible Scripture: 4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel, 5 I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with pure gold of Uphaz: 6 his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as flaming torches, and his arms and his feet like unto burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude. When we read Rev 1:13-15 we can read this: 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And having turned I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 and in the midst of the candlesticks one like unto a son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about at the breasts with a golden girdle. 14 And his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 and his feet like unto burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and his voice as the voice of many waters. So we could think this is the same person: But now we have to think about Dan 10:13,21 and 11:1 13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia 21 But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me against these, but Michael your prince. 1 And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him. What we know is: * This person isn't Michael. * This person is a kind of warrior.. (with respect) And fight against the prince of Greece and Persian.. * He doesn't like at Gabriel -> because in Dan 8 we can see that Gabriel met Daniel. * Michael was helping this person in his fight against the prince of Persia. * This person was helping Michael in his battle too.. The strange part is.. the prince of Persia withstood him for 21 days. So,.. can it be Christ? Or is this a non-(biblical) named heavenly person... My question: Who do you think that this person is. And why do you think that.

My personal belief is that Jesus is coming back.. and I don't care if it is in a rapture before or after the tribulation. All is the same.. we have to point at Jesus.. ...and this is the problem, Believers are not willing to find the truth, or when they DO find it or some semblance of it, they refuse to insist on it. There is ONLY ONE ANSWER. There are not 'many ways it could happen'. There is one way it WILL happen and that is they way the Scriptures tell us it will happen. There is not 'what I believe' or 'what you believe' but what God's Scripture SAYS about the matter. Well maybe you can say better.. 'I think the problem is'. Jesus is coming back.. and that is what I am looking at. Not the way He is coming back. This is nothing to do with finding the Truth.. The only Truth is Jesus... And I find the Truth.. Of course there is only answer.. You are telling what you believe.. What I see is, a lot of Christians wanted to sit at the seat of Christ.. to say in modern language.. they are like pharisee who are coming to Christ.. but they teach the Law.. and not the mercy.

My personal believe is that Jesus is coming back.. and I don't care if it is in a rapture before or after the tribulation. All is the same.. we have to point at Jesus..

My ESV states.. 2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. My KJV states.. 2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: forG3754 that day shall not come, except there come a falling awayG646 first, and that manof sin be revealed, the son of perdition; G646 ἀποστασία apostasia Thayer Definition: 1) a falling away, defection, apostasy That's just it Fez. The article is saying from the KJV forward have all changed the original word. the interesting part is.. actually is this an English discussion.. Here in Holland we don't have this one. Because all the ancient Bibles translate it at the same. With the word afval.. Even when I look into the ancient German translation it is the same. Otherside when you look in the Vulgate at 2tes 2-> and you look at the same translation Act 21:21 21 And they are informed about thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, Forsake translated with Apostasia.. But in the Jerome Vulgate is written: audierunt autem de te quia discessionem doceas a Mose Discession in this meaning is in the way or religious apostasia. An interesting document about this is: read from page 12-25 But for them the document is to long the conclusion is: CONCLUSION The case for understanding ajpostasiva as the Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 has not been proven. The appeal to the translation of the word in versions prior to the King James has no merit whatsoever. While the English translation “departure” can refer to spatial departure, there is no evidence that this is the intended meaning of the word in these early versions in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. The lexical argument that ajpostasiva itself could have that meaning in this verse seems unlikely. The strongest argument for the Rapture view is the contextual considerations. These _ certainly have merit, but in my opinion do not rise to the level of probability. ’Apostasiva most likely refers to a religious apostasy, and therefore its occurrence in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 should not be used as evidence for the pretribulational Rapture.

Yes I saw it.. my text was gone :s ... But I want to reply that I agree with Old Shep.. thank you!