Jump to content

OldCoot

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

439 Good

3 Followers

About OldCoot

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 01/12/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Central USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,363 profile views
  1. I just don't care for birthdays, at least mine, because it reminds me I am getting older. Just that simple. I never had any concern for where the practice came from or why. Some like birthdays, some think they are a pain. I never saw the need to dig into it any further. Then there is the argument as to who has the birthday of Yeshua correct. Was it in the Fall around the Feast of Tabernacles or was it in the winter around the feast of Hannukah? I am pretty convinced in my mind when it was, but I don't focus my attention on the actual day to an extreme. But that it is the only birthday that matters, irregardless of who has the correct day.
  2. Different English word, not a different Greek word. Using departure as opposed to falling away. I have as much license to put a different English word that applies to the Greek word as anyone who has done any translation of the text. Again, translators, dictionary writers, and anyone else has no greater authority in the body than anyone else, except the Apostles themselves when it comes to the scripture. I did stay quite focused. That you have problems with grammar and literary style is not my problem. I am not responsible for what others learned or didn't learn in school. The topic is about the pre-trib. You had referred to proof of it happening before the man of sin being revealed. I showed how the the text says it does and how the OT supports that as well in earlier posts. You are just playing the "death by a thousand conditions" methodology along with trying to turn the tables in an attempt to make any opposition look like a rube. Highly disingenuous on your part.
  3. The word apostasia is the noun form of the combination apo and histemi. Aphistemi is the verb form. It is similar to me saying "John went on a run". Run is a noun in that sentence. "See John run." Run is verb in that sentence. Yet both have the equivalent meaning of the exercise of running. Apostasia is only used in the NT twice. In Acts 21:21 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3. But Aphistemi is used 15 times in the NT, and in only 3 instances does it mean a spiritual departure. 75% of the time it refers to a physical/spatial/distance departure. Translations of aphistemi highlighted in red, and all these are a literal, physical, spatial departure..... Luke 2:37 (NKJV) and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. Luke 4:13 (NKJV) Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time. Luke 13:27 (NKJV) But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity. Acts 5:38 (NKJV) And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; Acts 12:10 (NKJV) When they were past the first and the second guard posts, they came to the iron gate that leads to the city, which opened to them of its own accord; and they went out and went down one street, and immediately the angel departed from him. Acts 15:38 (NKJV) But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. Acts 19:9 (NKJV) But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 2 Corinthians 12:8 (NKJV) Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And the list goes on, but this makes the point. The vast majority of passages that use the aphistemi verb form of apostasia reflect a physical, spatial departure. It is no different than using the word "run" as a noun or a verb. It can have similar meaning. Aphistemi and Aspostasia, combined for a total of 17 times in the NT, 4 times have an illustration of a spiritual departure and 13 times as a physical, spatial departure. Over 3 to 1 ratio in favor of a physical, spatial departure. Also in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, there is a definite article that suggests that what is being talked about is a singular, one time event expounded by the use of the noun apostasia... "the departure". And the only other use of the noun apostasia, what is being departed from is clearly outlined in the passage. But it 2 Thessalonians 2, it stands alone. Even if one views the passage as "falling away", there has been many departures or "falling away" from the faith over the centuries. Falling away is a not a singular event that one can point to that definitively is a marker to show the next phase is the revealing of the man of sin. There really is no definitive, unique, one time event that one can identify as "the" falling away. And regarding "man of sin", that has the definite article "the" also. "the" man of sin. Not a generic men of sin if one maintains a consistent interpretation in the verse by using "falling away" in a general sense. This is further evidence that the verse is speaking of a one time singular event of the departure. Again, given the context and the examples of the word forms of apostasia and aphistemi used, the reasoned assertion is that it is speaking of the physical departing of the redeemed before the man of sin is revealed. The verse says this will happen first, the man of sin will be revealed. The Greek "kai" in the verse has a meaning of a secondary conjunction. It could very well have been translated as "then" in the passage to more definitively show that the man of sin is revealed after the departure. The "and" usage in KJV, NKJV, and others can have the same intent. For instance, let's say I was speeding and I got a ticket. Obviously, the actual speeding and receiving the ticket were not in the same instance. The LEO does not hand me the ticket while I am speeding. They are separate events joined by "and", but in a 1-2 fashion. One had to happen first before the other did. If the one didn't happen first, then the second one would never have. The very same thing in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. The departure will happen first as a singular, definitive, unique event and (then) the man of sin as a singular, definitive, unique individual will be revealed. Nothing wild eyed here. Just using simple grammatical and literary principles to make the case. Paul's letter to the Romans is studied even in secular literary classes in college for its profound structure and style. Paul was a extremely learned man that wrote with a precision that is still being emulated today. I am just applying the same principles in viewing his letters to the Thessalonians.
  4. You seem to be focused on my reference to modern scholars. I also referenced every English translation prior to the KJV. I didn’t reference the LV in that last post, but the use of discessio in that translation also has a meaning of a physical, spatial departure. There is ample internal and external evidence that supports the passage of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as simply “departure” comes first and within the context of of our gathering together to Him of the first verse, it is a reasoned assertion that the passage is speaking of the removal before the revealing.
  5. Don’t place James Strong’s concordance on the level of scripture. Many Greek scholars both before and after JS made the same assertion I am, including the translators of every English translation prior to the KJV. And many modern reputable scholars like Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Ed Hindsen, Dr. Andy Woods, etc. all of which were/are heads of theology departments or presidents of Seminaries. Irregardless of that, James Strong offers his interpretation which is worthy to be noted, but it is just one interpretation by one man who was a fallen person saved by grace like the rest of us. JS was not an apostle or such that his work should be considered the final authority.
  6. Indeed. Aposrasia in verse 3 simply means “departure”. Without a reference to what is being departed from, as opposed to the use of apostasia in Acts 21:21 where departing from Moses (the Torah) is shown. Every English translation prior to KJV and DRV used “departure”. In the context laid out in verse one, our gathering to the Lord, departure gives the idea of the removal or rapture before the man of sin is revealed Isaiah 26:19-21 supports that concept as does Psalms 27:5. And these are in lock step with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.
  7. Then practice it as they practiced it. They confirmed all that Paul taught them from the OT. What Paul taught them now makes up a significant portion of the NT, along with the writings of the other Apostles. The Torah teaches us that a matter can only be established on the testimony of two witnesses. The Bereans showed us how to put that in to action in Acts 17. Every matter must be established from both the OT and NT. I followed the prescription. I showed equivalency in both OT and NT for my position. And likewise, the pre-trib position is in the OT just as much as it is in the NT. And just as Matthew 23-25 the focus is on the Hebrew people. The OT makes it very clear that Yeshua will not return again until Jacob (Israel) acknowledges the offense of rejecting Him and repents of that. Nothing else can cause Yeshua to return and set foot on this planet. And Yeshua affirmed that in Matthew 23, which is part of the discussion of Matthew 24-25.
  8. Except that application Yeshua was referring to was in the preceding verse..... Mark 13:31 (NKJV) Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. The antecedent is "Heaven and earth will pass away". That is what "that day" in verse 32 is referring to. Basic grammar. While I do agree that we may not know the day or the hour of the removal of the righteous, using that verse to support the argument doesn't work. And we are told of many signs that point to that day approaching and to be watching. But the overall post was good. And who will deliver it to them? It won't be believers or one of the Christian radio or TV shows. An angel will fulfill the totality of the word of God that the Gospel will be preached to all the earth...... Revelation 14:6-7 (NKJV) Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” No one will have an excuse.
  9. But this judgement of the sheep and goats is not the GWTJ. That is later after the millennial kingdom period. The S&G judgement is at the end of the GT period and the discourse in Matthew 25 regarding this is an exposition on Joel 3. And in the case, only the gentiles are referred to as the 'nations' or goyim. It really is just that simple if one reads the scripture. There is no resurrection at the S&G judgement. The redeemed that make up the church were already taken out before the GT period kicked into gear. The S&G judgement is to determine who is cast off and who goes into the kingdom. No different rapture or resurrection. If you can find where the resurrection is mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46, please let us know. But since this discourse is on Joel 3, you would have to also provide proof from Joel of that also. By golly, you actually got something right in this discussion! Well done! Except where does it say in Joel 3 or Matthew 25 about people "being cast into eternal life". But both are a judgement of how the Goyim (nations) treated the Hebrew people. Goes allllll the way back to Genesis 12:3. Yeshua did expand on Joel 3. That is what is done in an expository discourse. He did add elements that weren't stated by the HS to Joel. But Joel 3 still remains as the base text Yeshua was teaching from. And that is a slanderous lie. Where have I refused to acknowledge that Yeshua is the Son of Yahweh and the promised Messiah? Since you have decided to use character assassination as a tactic here, you will have to proceed on your own. I have no reason to consider anything more you have to say.
  10. Indeed, the church is made up of elect, but they are not the only elect. Don't confuse election with justification. A group can be elect, but that doesn't mean they are individually justified. Isaiah 45:4 is quite clear the Jacob (Israel) is Yahweh's elect and expounds on that in Chapter 65. And as Paul stated, though Israel is elect, not all of them have the faith of Abraham.... true Israel. In Isaiah 65, the elect inherit the land. It ties into what the disciples asked Yeshua before His ascension to the Father.... "is now the time You will restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6-7). Yeshua did not state that the question was invalid or stupid. He essentially stated that it is in the Father's hands to determine the time and they shouldn't worry about it. And in stating that, He affirms that the kingdom will one day be restored to the Hebrew people, that elect group of Yahweh, in accordance with Isaiah. Paul even makes a point in Romans 11:28 that Jacob (Israel) has an election. Peter refers to the Hebrews of the diaspora as being elect, right out of the gate in 1 Peter 1. Keep in mind Galatians 2, where the agreement was struck that Paul would be the emissary to the Gentiles/Goyim, whereas James, Peter, and John would be the emissaries to the Hebrew people. So while Paul calls the redeemed elect and rightly so, Peter calling the Hebrews in the diaspora elect is also right. No conflict. Election is a setting aside or calling out for the purpose of Yahweh. Justification before Yahweh is a separate concept. There are two groups in focus by Yeshua in Matthew 25 / Joel 3: The nations (group 1) and the brethren (group 2). In both scripture passages, it is the nations and Jacob/Israel. If the brethren of Matthew 25 are the believing elect that make up the church, then why is it only the nations (goyim) are being judged and not also the Jacob (Israel) along with them? In the world today, there is three distinct groups..... the nations/gentiles, the Hebrews/Jacob/Israel, and the redeemed that make up the body of Messiah where there is no longer a Hebrew or Gentile distinction. But there are only two groups in view in the passage of Matthew 25. Where is the third group? It was removed via the rapture early on leaving only the nations and the Hebrews. The third group we see in the world today is the redeemed who make up the Body of Messiah. That group is not part of the passages of Matthew 25 or Joel 3. Both the sheep and the goats come from the same group.... the nations. It is those that are declared righteous out of that group that are the saints (sheep) that come out of the GT period and go physically into the kingdom to repopulate the earth. They have eternal life because they are redeemed by Yeshua. Just like the redeemed now have eternal life, yet we are still in our physical bodies at the present time. Yeshua, in Matthew 25, is expanding on Joel 3, the nations are judged and separated in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, the very spot where Yeshua is delivering the Olivet discourse on the mount that overlooks that valley. Those listening to Him knew exactly what He was referring to, and it was in Joel 3 where the nations are being divided over how they treated the Hebrew people... the same people who are the physical brethren of the Hebrew Messiah.... Yeshua/Jesus. No, what I have stated provides a fine demonstration of following the guidance of scripture in how to establish a matter. The Torah (teaching) tells us that no matter can be established without the testimony of at least two witnesses. The Bereans in Acts 17 showed how that works. Essentially stating that for any matter to be established, it must be equally affirmed in both OT and NT. I have done that by showing the correlation between Mathew 25:31-46 and Joel 3:1-17. Likewise how in both the OT and NT, Jacob(Israel) is called elect just like the redeemed are called elect. It is that some have failed to follow the guidance of scripture that they come up with alternative ideas about who is who in Matthew 25. Although you chose to ridicule of me in your post, I will not return the favor.
  11. The removal or catching away may not be seen by all, or even any, but several are going to notice that there has been the disappearance of several folks. I believe the young children will be gone as well. Nothing definitive to support that in scripture is but the fact that they are not spiritually accountable and what the purpose of the GT is all about.
  12. The removal or catching away may not be seen by all, or even any, but several are going to notice that there has been the disappearance of several folks. I believe the young children will be gone as well. Nothing definitive to support that in scripture is but the fact that they are not spiritually accountable and what the purpose of the GT is all about.
  13. Indeed! That is the only mention of no man knowing, the angels not knowing, and the Son not knowing. Only the Father knowing. it is a secret to Him and no one else..... Matthew 24:35-36 (NKJV) Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. "that day and hour" refers to the antecedent in the previous verse... Heaven and Earth passing away.
  14. That portion from Matthew 24 has nothing to do with the redeemed of the church. Those taken later in that passage are the ones who are condemned, not the righteous. Just like those who were condemned in Noah's day were taken by the flood were the condemned while Noah and his family were saved thru it. So again, the passage is not relevant in regards to the redeemed of the church. That time will be just like Noah's day when the condemned were taken away. This passage is further expanded in Matthew 25 regarding the Parable of the Maidens and the Sheep and Goat judgement. Both of which, again, have nothing to do with the redeemed of the church. The target audience of the Olivet discourse is the Hebrew people. If you want a discourse directed at the redeemed of the church by Yeshua, then that is in John 13 onward. Yes indeed, there will be righteous that come out of the Tribulation Period. But that doesn't mean they go into that period righteous. The scripture, both OT and NT says in multiple passages that the redeemed.... before the tribulation period begins.... are kept from that time coming on the earth. But there will be those that witness the removal, see what is coming, and place their trust in Yeshua. But since they did not do that before the removal, they are stuck to deal with the Tribulation Period that is coming upon all the people of the earth. Just like the unbelieving Hebrews will have to face the music also. And it will be such as to drive them to realize the overall rejection of Yeshua by the Hebrew people and the acknowledge their mistake and petition for Yeshua to rescue them. That will be required before Yeshua will ever return and set foot on this planet. Hosea 5-6 is quite clear about that and Yeshua affirmed that in Matthew 23:39. Again, it comes down to a proper perspective of what the Tribulation Period is all about, what its purpose is, and who is the primary target for that purpose. And the saints during that period are just a side bar, not the focus.
  15. It is tricky only in that there has been a plethora of translations regarding the Greek "apostosia" in verse 3. Apostosia simply means "departure". it can only mean a departure from the faith if that was outlined in the passage. The only other passage that uses apostosia is Acts 21:21 and it explicitly says what is being departed from.... the Law of Moses. Up till the KJV came on the scene, every English translation simply used "departure", "the departure", "a departure", etc. Many well know Greek scholars concur that the passage should only say that, not falling away, apostasy, rebellion, etc. The context of the chapter is in verse one..... the Day of the Lord and our gathering to Him. Not our departing or falling away from Him. The departure of verse 3 only makes grammatical sense if it is the departure that is our gathering to the Lord. And the contextual structure of the Greek in verse 3 implies a specific departure event, not a general departure over time like a "falling away" would suggest. Just as in real estate the main focus is location, proper hermeneutics demands that context be the primary focus in scripture interpretation. Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Professor of NT Greek for Moody Bible Institute for over 40 years, Dr. Andy Woods, President of Chafer Theological Seminary, Dr. Ed Hindson, dean of the School of Religion at Liberty University, etc all concur that apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 has a physical, literal departure in view. As do the translators of the Geneva Bible, Tyndale Bible, Beza Bible, etc translated the passage as simply "departure". Likewise, the standard Bible of the church for 1200 years, the Latin Vulgate, uses discessio as the Latin for apostasia which also has the meaning of a physical, spatial departure, not a spiritual one. Actually, according to Dr. Andy Woods, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is pre-trib.... game, set, match.
×
×
  • Create New...