Marcus O'Reillius

Correct. The word ‘rapture’ comes from the Latin word rapio. It is just the Latin translation of the Greek verb harpázō which Paul uses in 2CO 12:2, 4 and 1TH 4:17. Idiosyncrasies of translation confuse a search of the term Rapture in the English and from the underlying Greek. It is only when an intervening step of translating the Greek into Latin and then into English can it be understood from where this word came into the English lexicon. harpázō. a. “To steal,” b. “to capture,” c. “to snatch,” d, “to seize,” e. “to take by force,” f. “to catch away” (in visions). – Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p.80. apostasía. [apostasy] Based on apostátēs (politically a “rebel,” religiously an “apostate”), this term signifies the state (not an act) of apostasy. Paul is accused of apostasy against the law in Acts 21:21. Eschatological apostasy is the issue in 2Th 2:3, either with or prior to the man of lawlessness. Resting on Jewish tradition, this will be the decline of Christians into error and sin in the last days (cf. Mt. 24:11-12.) – Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 88 and 89

It is an error to read apostasia as "departing first". Not only is it in violation of the actual definition of apostasia, which is directly imported into English as apostasy and carries its definition with it, It makes the whole point of 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 completely nonsensical, setting the Rapture as a necessary prerequisite event for the coming of Jesus and our Rapture. And people squeal just as loud as a pig when you "point" this out.

Well you're still in error because our being gathered up doesn't happen until the Son of Perdition is revealed, and that doesn't happen until the rebellion happens, which you want to say is the Rapture. So the Day of Christ AND our Rapture cannot happen until our Rapture and the Son of Perdition is revealed ~ is how you want to read 2nd Thessalonians 2. And that is not logical. I don't care if Ice and LaHaye would like to read apostasia as they do. They do because they have a conclusion before they approach the text. So they make the text agree with their position by changing the language.

That means NOTHING.

I care when someone maligns the language. I care when someone tries to change the Scripture with their contortion of the language. I care when people purport to represent their thinking as being by the authority of God so as to support their changing Scripture through maligning the language. And I don't care if you don't care if I care. It helps to understand a word by studying its family and its root: its etymology. However, etymology matters not a whit in determining -accurately- its unique definition. The definition of a word differentiates it from its family of like-minded words. Its definition differentiates it from them - period. GOOD SCHOLARLY WORK does NOT attempt to muddy the water of word definition by inference. AND NO SCHOLAR AT ALL claims Holy inspiration for shoddy work. Geoffrey W. Bromiley in the Theological Word Dictionary of the New Testament has this to say on p. 89: apostasia. Based on apostátēs (politically a “rebel,” religiously an “apostate”), this term signifies the state (not an act) of apostasy. Paul is accused of apostasy against the law in Acts 21:21. Eschatological apostasy is the issue in 2Th 2:3, either with or prior to the man of lawlessness. Resting on Jewish tradition, this will be the decline of Christians into error and sin in the last days (cf. Mt. 24:11-12.)

You're right. The Holy Spirit you listen too [sic] must have changed the definition of apostasia and I'm laughing.

That's right: you cannot change the facts. And you have changed the facts. So what you think are facts are no longer facts except in your mind. No one else in their right mind is going to accept the not-facts that you put out. And the truth spoken by a liar is still the truth, think what you will of Patrick Moynihan, but he was actually an intelligent man.

"You can have your own opinion, but you don't get to have your own facts." ~ Patrick Moynihan. apostasia does not, and cannot, nor does it ever denote a physical removal.

Thank-you. apostasia - where we get the word: apostasy.

The "falling away" apostesia, the departure from the rule, or the law, i.e., rebellion: is not a false teaching. It is taught in the Bible. One place it can be found is in one of Paul's earliest Epistle, the second one he ever wrote: 2nd Thessalonians. Yes, Paul was on fire for eschatology when he began to teach. That didn't work out so well for him because as he found, his pupils were easily confused. If you read his letters in their chronological order, as he wrote them, he gradually shifts away from the complex "meat" of the end-times prophecies to the simple "milk" of the Gospel message. One of his last letters skips eschatology altogether: to him to live is Christ and die gain. No more "resurrection of the dead", "those who remain and are still alive"'; just this life - and then Heaven. I'm going to use the NIV because they translate the Greek in the simplest manner for the easiest reading. 2nd Th 2:1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter —asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. ~ NIV 2010 Paul starts off with two events: The Coming of our Lord AND our being gathered to Him. These are not only linked by the conjunction 'and' in the Greek, they follow logically as 1-2 in sequence. First Jesus comes, and then we are gathered to Him. The day this happens is the Day of Christ, literally in the Greek, but since Jesus is not only Christ but Lord, it is synonymous with the Day of the Lord, which the NIV uses here. I have no problem with their decision to translate the Greek in this manner because in a meaning-for-meaning translation: it gets the point across. UNTIL. This is not the best word-for-word translation, but it is the best meaning-for-meaning translation. The Day of the Lord will not happen UNTIL two other things happen: The rebellion occurs AND the man of sin is revealed. Because Paul does not go in a strict order, some people will miss the "except / until" conjunction which reverses the sequence. Ignoring, or missing it altogether, folk will then take the 'removal from the midst' which up to that point impedes the Son of Perdition from being revealed - as the "departure" of the Church. Let's be real: we has no real power over this demonic power and principality. Our only power lies in God, and He allows this to happen, perhaps to show us, how much we need Him. Jesus is the only one who can defeat the anti-Christ. Still others, like LaHaye and Ice, will misconstrue the Greek word: apostesia spinning it around on other early English versions to mean a physical departure, which the word does not mean in the Greek. Furthermore, such a rendering should be rejected because the physical departure of the Church, the Rapture, cannot happen -according to Paul- until the apostesia happens. To accept LaHaye and Ice at this critical verse, presents an illogical pretzel: the Rapture cannot happen until the Rapture happens. So with a sober reading of what Paul wrote, we can order the basic sequence of the first three verses in this manner: The rebellion occurs The man of sin is revealed The Coming of our Lord Our being gathered to Him. The teaching is true because we find it here and elsewhere. It has been happening before, and it is happening now, and it will increase in the one 'seven' - which has not yet begun. Hold onto your hats, it's going to get bumpy.

<<Twilight TV show theme music playing in the background>> Folk: he "knows it" in his "knower"... Don't believe everything you think. I'm sorry RM: unfortunately, eschatology is the playground for too many kooks and crackpots and everyone has their pet theory which is perfectly "clear" and they know it's true because the Holy Spirit told them. And that is why I am loathe to tell the intelligent people with whom I mingle, that I study eschatology.

This is another warning sign for me, when someone thinks they have had God, or the Holy Spirit "speak" to them, or when they think the "truth" has been revealed by the Holy Spirit or God to them. I saw this sign in a Church: Don't believe everything you think. That is good, solid advice, and I will add: never ever delude yourself that you're so special that God speaks the truth to you personally, especially when it is at odds with Scripture or what He did tell the Prophets, or in the case of the Apostles and Paul, what He told them personally.

The problem for you is that what you have presented is a spin on Scripture and not facts. You can own your opinion and form it anyway you like, but you don't get to have your own "facts" (Patrick Moynihan).

That goes against several linear, end-time, prophetic narratives. Your final thought? Well, that cuts both ways RM. And ANYTIME someone tells me something is "clear" ~ I know it is anything BUT "clear" and really, it is only their conclusion.

Paul laid out the sequence-of-events in 2Th 2:1-8. The rebellion The Son of Perdition revealed. The Day of Christ (of the Lord) Our being gathered (Rapture) to Him. Paul's linear, sequenced, narrative to the Thessalonians says the Rapture will take place sometime AFTER the anti-Christ goes into the Temple.

I don't think you have a reading anywhere near the how I am reading Daniel 8, and with some of the stuff you post, I don't think I'll ever be able to show you a way of reading the text which differs so much from how you do read it as evidenced by your conclusion here. Just to let you know, though, I thoroughly disagree with your conclusion that the anti-Christ arises out of two separate Kingdoms.

1. Why are there 5 lines of blank space after your posts? 2. I can understand that. 3. There is still no Scriptural reference for what you allege.

The half of the one 'seven' in Revelation 13 comes before the midpoint abomination of the talking image of the man. Scripture never says that. Here is a part of the description of the man: Daniel 11:36 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard- of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.

Pretty cheeky of you to speak for people who can't speak for themselves. No, you have no direct evidence, or even contributing evidence for your contention.

You know Cyrus was called a messiah in Scripture, and he wasn't an Israelite ~ Isa 45:1. In fact, he didn't even worship the God of Israel. He worshiped Marduk and other pagan deities.

Aaaah - NO. That verse does NOT establish the anti-Christ as the King of Israel. He is the "ruler" who will come, so he is a king - but verse does not make it known. This is the first I've ever heard of such a proposition.

That was Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century B.C.

The only thing missing is your Scriptural support in end-time prophecy that the anti-Christ will be the King of Israel.

No, it's not "known", so please provide chapter and verse saying the anti-Christ will be the King of Israel. The beast-of-a-man comes from the "sea" which physically points to the Mediterranean, but also, according to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament can refer to Europe as a "sea" of peoples, and that source just happens to be the people who tore down the city and the Sanctuary in A.D. 70, and from whom the "ruler" will come.

I disagree. The anti-Christ will be the King of the North.