Jump to content


Junior Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

102 Excellent


About OldCoot

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 01/12/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Central USA

Recent Profile Visitors

408 profile views
  1. It really is pretty basic.... who Yeshua is. And JW's drop the ball on that one right out of the gate. Now these next few verses seem to refer to Yehovah and most JW's would agree... Isaiah 41:4 (NKJV) Who has performed and done it, Calling the generations from the beginning? ‘I, the Lord, am the first; And with the last I am He.’ Isaiah 44:6 (NKJV) “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 48:12 (NKJV) “Listen to Me, O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. Pretty straight forward. Very consistent. Now we go to the book of the Revelation, which these same folks have a affinity for. Revelation 22:13 (NKJV) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. That seems to follow the same pattern we saw in Isaiah. But we come to this one......... Revelation 2:8 (NKJV) “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, ‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: Even from their own New World Translation..... Rev 2:8 “And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrʹna write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last, who became dead and came to life again: Now that was written as a direct quote of Yeshua. Yeshua is claiming to be the pre-existent, eternal Yehovah! The same Yehovah of Isaiah. Yet, JW's do not agree with their own scripture as they claim that Yeshua is actually the archangel Michael. If one cannot get this basic concept right, which is the foundation stone to build upon, then every other theological concept fails.
  2. Once saved always saved?

    If one can lose eternal life, then it stands to reason that it wasn't eternal to begin with. It is the paramount of non sequiturs.... one is granted the free gift of eternal life by trusting in Messiah, but it can be lost because it isn't eternal. And if one can lose eternal life, then we are all doomed. No one is sinless and even the most devout person, their righteousness is as filthy rags, or as the literal Hebrew says.... our righteousness is like a used menstrual cloth. Give the Hebrew language credit for graphic mental images. And everyone, daily, has committed some sin and more likely, many sins. A prideful look. Looking down at someone. An impure thought, even a short one that is hardly noticed by the person. A failure to testify of Yeshua to someone. One would have to seek forgiveness almost every second of every day for sin, both known and unknown. Virtually impossible. Especially one that might have occurred just before that semi truck slammed into that car one is riding in and they immediately die on the spot. There has to be some reliance on the idea that Yeshua is able to hold on to that which we have entrusted to Him. Else, who is it we are really placing our trust in? If it is not Him and who He is, then who? It would seem if it is not Him then it must be one's self and one's efforts. Best I can tell, we have no ability to save ourselves. That is why God the Father had to sacrifice His own Son. And if one realizes the gift that has been given them, they will want to live in appreciation of that gift. That doesn't mean anyone will live perfect lives. We all come to faith with a lot of baggage we have learn to rid our lives of. And we will all fall flat on our face almost daily, but we recognize our failures, turn from it and seek forgiveness, and get back up and drive on. Knowing that He understands our weaknesses and loves us. And that He paid the ultimate price for us and is going to do everything in His power to hold onto us.It would seem that there is too much Pharisaical approach to the issue. It turns things into a works righteousness thing and enslaves those individuals with weaker faith into submission to other's ideas of what salvation is and how to live their life. It has such weaker individuals so worried about it that they are no useful good to Messiah here and now, or they just plain give up because they feel they can never live up to the standard. And it allows pride, the deadliest sin of all, to enter into others who then feel they are more righteous than the other guy or gal. The whole thing is a trap to ensnare folks in. It is an academic exercise in futility and can make Christianity look less appealing to others. It can take the focus off of Yeshua and who He is.
  3. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

    Of course it has been promoted by books and hundreds of authors for the last 150 years, mass publication on a substantial scale and the internet was not available prior to that. But that doesn't mean the idea didn't have any support before that. Isaac Newton, who wrote a lot of commentary on scripture, held the view 100 years before John Darby was born. Ephraim the Syrian, of the Eastern Orthodox church, we have a sermon of his where he unequivocally promoted a pre-trib removal of the righteous. And that was roughly the 3rd century. The Pre-trib position is hardly new. Now, that doesn't make it correct, but it has some validity as an argument. It can hardly be equated to a lie. In the overall scheme of things, I would be willing to bet that EVERYONE has some aspect of how these things will play out, wrong. None of us wrote the Bible or inspired it. But as for the 150 years you mention, 150 years before Cyrus conquered Babylon in roughly 538 BC, Isaiah wrote about a removal of the righteous before the cataclysmic events of the last days, which included both the righteous dead (resurrected) and the righteous living being hidden from those events, as per Isaiah 26. Zephaniah 2 and Psalm 27 support that. Many of the prophets wrote that this would happen at the start of the birth pains, which Jeremiah specifically says the birth pains are the Time of Jacob's Trouble, which is seen as the Great Tribulation period Israel will be saved out of. Isaiah 66 and Jeremiah 30 speak of this. Even in Revelation 12, the woman (Israel) gives birth to the male child, which is immediately and forcibly caught up (harpazo) to the throne of God. Some argue that this is the Messiah, but Yeshua was never forcibly caught up to God's throne either at His birth or at His ascension. It would seem to be the body of Messiah, the ekklesia, which was conceived in Jerusalem at Pentacost by the Holy Spirit. But this child rules with a rod of iron and that can only be the Messiah Himself, right? Wrong. Revelation 2:26-27 says that all believers who overcome will rule with a rod of iron with Messiah. So Revelation 12 could indeed be speaking of the body of Messiah. Yeshua is the head, the believers are the body. And this passage has allusions to the birth pains mentioned in the Tanakh passages above. So the concept of a removal of the righteous before the Tribulation period has some support in scripture. Paul commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures daily to see if what Paul taught them was true. All they had was the Tanakh, or more commonly known as the Old Testament. The prophecy regarding the end times in the Tanakh eclipses the totality of end time prophecy in the NT in both amount of words and detail. For instance, Ezekiel outlines events that one could show from the latest government Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare manuals regarding cleanup and disposal procedures after a nuclear event. No NT passage goes into that kind of detail. Likewise, Zechariah 14 shows in detail what could be described as what happens to a human body when a NBC event occurs. Scripture points out that no issue can be determined without the testimony of 2 or more witnesses. We have those, the Tanakh (OT) and the NT. And both show support for a removal of the righteous early in the end times scenario. Conclusively beyond any shadow of a doubt? Maybe not. But the support for the contention is there.
  4. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

    Error, mistake, false, etc. But not necessarily a lie. A lie is when someone knows what they are saying is false and are intentionally trying to deceive others. Regarding this issue, that cannot be said with certainty. On all sides, there are those that passionately believe what they are espousing. But not everyone is correct, obviously. That doesn't mean those that are wrong are lying. You are trying to demean others by making accusations that you have no basis to make. That is violating the 9th commandment, whether you choose to accept that or not. There are many Bible expositors that I greatly admire that don't hold the same positions on every issue I do. But I would never call them liars. I think they are mistaken on some things.
  5. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

    While it is definitely outside of anything scriptural, it is fascinating in another way how the Evil One has gone to great lengths to explain away a pre-trib removal of the righteous. Yes, that is the case. Take a look at many of the works of so-called channelers that claim that alien entities speak thru them. They have written a lot of stuff on how many of who's vibrations will not mesh with a new world structure will be removed by craft that will swoop in close and remove them "in the twinkling of an eye". Now isn't that fascinating? Wonder where they got that phrase from? (sarcasm). As you watch this, keep in mind.... the Evil One has not wasted any time explaining away a mid or post trib rapture. Only a pre-trib rapture. Now why would that be?
  6. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

    That it is a lie. One may argue that the position doesn't have as much support from scripture as some other positions, but not that it is a lie. That saying it is a lie is stating emphatically that anyone who comes to that conclusion is intentionally and maliciously trying to deceive. They may be in error, but that is not on the same level as lying. The very fact that you choose that particular approach to discounting the position speaks more to the quality of your character, or rather lack thereof. I, for one, have no problem stating when I think someone is in error, but I have no definitive proof that they are intentionally and maliciously trying to decieve and are lying. Only the Father can know what is their motivation and what is in their heart. And that is not your job description or pay grade.
  7. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

    Wuest uses grammatical construct to point as to what he believes the departure is from. It is a reasoned argument. I have made no assertion one way or the other. I just posted what other very knowledgable folks like Wuest have stated. The other Bible translators that used departure left it up to the reader to assume what is meant. Whether that doesn't make sense, you can take that up with them, along with the original author, in the future. Actually, I think that both arguments can be in view. A departure from Messiah and a departure physically. Both arguments have good foundations. Neither is "fantasy", which is the word you have chosen to use before that is an emotionally loaded term, a similar tactic used by those in politics to demean their ideological opponents. That doesn't speak well to your character. As for what I believe, I know for certain in whom I have placed my trust. Of that, I am more than confident. And you are not in that pay grade. So you have no basis to make any contention that I should believe you or your assertions. Likewise, you have no reason to believe mine. And I don't lose one minute of sleep worrying about that. Just be sure that pride of your position is not in play. That can be dangerous.
  8. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

    You are in error and borderline lying about what I said. I stated that it simply means departure or the departure..... I specifically said that one cannot legitimately include anything else..... either from an ideology OR a place. It simply is departure as evidenced by the Latin Vulgate and many English translations prior to the KJV. The Geneva Bible (1608) has "departure", The Wycliffe Bible (1384) has departure, the Tyndale Bible (1526) has departure, Even the Hebrew Names Version of 1997 has departure. Kenneth Wuest, a well known Greek scholar has outlined extensively how apostasia in 2 Thes 2:3 has to have a definite article to allow for anyone to imply anything more than departure. You have placed yourself as more of a greek authority than Wuest, Jerome, Wycliffe, (all of who did not know each other). Both your assertion about pre-trib fantasies as well as fantasies about the text saying departing from the faith is lame. Both use presupposition outside the passage to support their position, which may or may not be valid. I am inserting nothing in my contention but simply departure. But here, Wuest does: Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar from Moody Bible Institute added the following contextual support to taking apostasia as a physical departure: 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 hoo katechoon (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.
  9. Salvation

    While that generally is accepted, I tend to take the position that repentance is more about changing one's mind about who Messiah is. Turning from unbelief and lack of acceptance of who He is. Kind of along the line... "Messiah doesn't make bad people good. He makes dead people live". Once we change our mind and accept Messiah, then He begins a work in us to "clean us up", as it were. We start as a new babe and grow from there. At least, that is the plan. Some folks never get past the "babe" part.
  10. 10 myths of calvanism

    I have always considered myself a Calvanistic Armenian. Both sides a generally correct in what they assert, but both sides are generally in error on what they deny. And both sides take positions to the extreme, more than even their founders intended.
  11. Am I bound for hell?

    You would be mostly correct. Why bother debating an issue on a site that caters to those who have determined that, while there may or may not be a God, they know for certain that no one knows either. John Ankerberg has a term for it.... ornery agnostic. An ordinary agnostic may hold a position that they are not sure one way or the other, but an ornery agnostic will claim they are not sure, but are certain no one else knows either. A ordinary agnostic would be open to the evidence, at least to give it some reasoned thought. They may not accept it, but they are willing to listen to the arguments. One who is an atheist, well by definition, they already claim there is no God. But even that is intellectually dishonest at the very least. They have not been to every spot of the universe to know for certain that a God is not there. The don't have a "God geiger counter" to know for certain that there is no God. They can't even tell, when sitting in an auditorium, what kind of looks they are getting from someone behind them about the goofy hair style they have or the style of clothes they are wearing. Yet, they can they know for certain there is no God. They simply have chosen to write off the idea of a God. In that instance, it is almost an exercise in futility to debate such.
  12. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

    I realize you have stated it, but that doesn't make it an accurate assertion and it is still taking liberties with the text and imposing your presupposition on it. There is nothing in that verse the gives license to say what is being departed from..... either from a place or from an ideology. Without a definite article that apostasia can point to, it stands on its own as simply "departure" or "the departure", as virtually every English translation prior to the KJV had done and as did the Latin Vulgate. This "falling away" idea only came about with the KJV and the Anglicized word Apostasy being transposed onto the Greek Apostasia as if they mean the same thing. It is translator incompetence. I won't go so far as saying falsehood. I don't know the translator's hearts and mindset. So I stick with incompetence, or at least, translator laziness. Many Greek scholars have made that same assertion, so I am not sticking my neck out as some sole authority. I am simply affirming what other more competent people have said. And Jerome in the 4th Century was well versed in the Greek to a greater extent than folks in academia some 12 or more centuries later, as NT Greek was still a living language in Christian circles to much of an extent. The NT was primarily only read and discussed in Greek until Jerome translated it to Latin, and he used the Latin, dicessio, which simply means departure, not falling away, apostasy, or some other loaded term promoting an agenda. As I referenced, the only other instance of the word apostasia in the NT is in Acts 21:21, and the verse gives a definite article to what is being departed from.... Moses, which is a euphemism for "The Law". Commentators have saw that and take it as license to apply the word the very same way in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in the absence of a definite article to say what is being departed from. It is grammatically and intellectually dishonest at the very least. And the idea of falling away or departing from an ideology is rather lame. That was going on right out of the gate before the church got out of the 1st century. A basic reading of Revelation 2 & 3 shows that. Or even the letters to the Corinthians (or Californians as I jokingly call it). The Church was already starting to mess up and depart from the truth before the ink was dry on the NT. And a casual look at church history shows that departing from the truth of the Gospel has been going on for a long, long time. I am not so sure than anyone could make a strong case that there is something unique about the departure from the Gospel going on now compared to the last 20 centuries. It a rather amazing that YHVH has kept a remnant of those that actually hold to the truth of the Gospel. It speaks well of His promise and character.
  13. Am I bound for hell?

    The problem seems to stem from what one would consider evidence. And when it comes to faith in the one God, that is primarily evidence that one would use in a court of law, not a science class. And using that standard, there is more evidence for the existence of a creator than there is that a universe created itself. John Warrick Montgomery, a certified trial lawyer in both the U.S. and U.K., and former dean of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law has some good works out that, under the standards of recognized jurisprudence, the evidence is overwhelming for the the existence and claims of God and specifically His Son, Yeshua. And taken into account, the laws of probability also support that. We based decisions in our lives on probabilities that are far less certain. It is "evidence" like this that will leave no one with an excuse. What a person does with that is their own choice. Yeshua is a perfect gentleman and will not force anyone to accept Him. He honors a person's free will. Whatever happens, it was the individuals sole choice and will deal with eternity based on that choice. That one doesn't accept it does not make it any less true. I would think the most sane approach is accepting who Yeshua claims he is than dismissing it. If He isn't who He claimed to be, well, nothing lost. If He is who He claimed to be, then the stakes are pretty high.
  14. Am I bound for hell?

    While not Catholic, and fully aware of issues during the dark ages and such regarding the checkered past of the Roman Church, what they did is hardly on the level of terroism on a global scale. It is estimated that roughly 2000 were killed during the Spanish Inquisition under the authority of the Roman Church. How does that compare to just what Christians have undergone in the last few years in the Sudan, or Iraq, or Iran, or Syria? The Roman church as a definitive history that they need to come to grips with and seek forgiveness for en masse. It is one of the primary reasons that many Christians moved to the New World of the Americas to escape the grasp of the Roman Church. The Roman church's hands are indeed stained with blood, and not only of christians but Jews as well. Much of their theology led right from Augustine to the death camps of Auschwitz and Dachau. But much of that theology is not part of individual Catholics. But it hardly compares to Communism and Islamic slaughter of Christians of the 20th and 21st centuries. Those two, it could indeed be argued that they are terrorism on a global scale.
  15. 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

    As has been pointed out by others, it simply means departure. Every English translation before the KJV used departure, the departure, separation, etc for apostasia. Even the Latin Vulgate did the very same thing by using dicessio for apostasia. Apostasia can mean a falling away or apostasy if there is context in the passage to what is being fallen away from or separated from. Like in Acts 21:21 where apostasia, combined with Moshe (symbolic of the Torah), the translation of forsaking Moshe or a falling away from Moshe is a proper translation, though separating or departing from Moshe would be more accurate. While 2 Thes 2:3 does not say it is a rapture, it does say departure. And without a reference to what is being departed from, it simply stands on its own as departure. Falling away is the translator adding their own perspective to the word, which is condemned by John in Revelation and elsewhere in scripture. And rapture is in the Bible. Maybe not in an english translation, but it is in the Latin Vulgate. And given that Jerome (4th century) was closer to the original writings and was influenced by those that had been influenced by those that had contact with students of the apostles themselves, I would tend to take his translating the word properly with more credibility than folks that are dozens of centuries removed from the originals with some sort of theological axe to grind.