Is there justification for adding anything to the discussion of end times besides what the bible tell us.?

[Starise]

16 minutes ago, Josheb said:

1) Get your act together and practice what you preach because asking me about when, not attending to the answer, and moving the goal posts to who is condescending; you talking down to me. 

2) You just said, "I didn't say there wasn't a when," but the original point of exchange between us states,  "We still don't have a "when" for the famous 2 Thessalonian passage."  

Josheb you're still doing it!!!!!!

It really should not matter what I am or am not doing in order for you to make a clear point void of contention. If you have decided not to make your point because I am not requesting it the way you want, fine. I was only curious where you were coming from. 

I am impervious to your continued personal attacks on my methods. TBH I don't CARE how we arrive at a conclusion. I just wanted answers not excuses and attacks.You apparently can't see past the little stuff and simply line up your beliefs in a way that's free of condescension and focus on organized thinking..

For the sake of clarity I'll go back to my original idea. I am looking at how different people seem to break down the end times. The "when"is where most disagreements happen over this subject. The best we can do is break down the Bible in context and see where those chips fall. My study has led me to ENTIRELY different conclusions. 

My approach to you was, as a person who IS NOT a "futurist" i.e. Josheb-a person who believes either all or most of the things we call prophecy already happened, how does that wash out all the way through the time line for you? From beginning to end in a nutshell. I'm not asking for piles of notes just a brief description of how you see events unfolding according to scripture. Much like a dispensationalist would state their case. Even if you don't agree with it you have to admit that they have a sequence they look at. So what is your sequence?

29 minutes ago, Josheb said:

ou just said, "I said you didn't give your opinion of when that "when" was," when in fact I have made scores of statements about when the when was.... beginning with the premise the "when" is tied to what is stated in the 2 Thes. 2 text, and I'm trying to work with you from the text to a specific timeframe we can agree upon.

But I can't get you to stay on the "when" because you keep changing the subject.

Thes. 2 tells us a lot but it doesn't tell us any specifics as to time or date or name. This is why I think it odd that you have a name of someone in the 1st century. How did you determine it? I am trying to work with you as well. The "when" is a series of happenings. My take on it is a description of events happening and the "mystery of lawlessness" at work. The devil always hides what he does. It's the occult pure and simple. "Hidden" knowledge. If the GP knew all about it it would not be a mystery, yet God is telling them and us that He knows all about it. He sees everything. He knows when that which holds back will let loose. At that time this PERSON OF LAWLESSNESS will appear. Not to rebeat a dead horse, but this person, this individual will do great signs and wonders. We can't forget this because it differentiates him from all others up to this point. 

Revelation speaks of the beast. The beast and the false prophet. The dragon who was kicked from heaven ( guess who that is?) gives power and works deception with the beast to fool everyone but those who can see what they are up to.  The 1st beast comes from the sea. The second beast comes from the land. All of their power comes from the evil one. The beast is the man of lawlessness in Thess 2. 

I find this is an easy interpretation compared to the idea the MOS was already here and did his thing. None of that coincides with scriptural comparisons for me. Unless you have some unturned stone. 

I need definitive proof or at least a direction that leans strongly in favor of the most legitimate interpretation. 

[David1701]

17 minutes ago, Starise said:

Josheb you're still doing it!!!!!!

It really should not matter what I am or am not doing in order for you to make a clear point void of contention. If you have decided not to make your point because I am not requesting it the way you want, fine. I was only curious where you were coming from. 

I am impervious to your continued personal attacks on my methods. TBH I don't CARE how we arrive at a conclusion. I just wanted answers not excuses and attacks.You apparently can't see past the little stuff and simply line up your beliefs in a way that's free of condescension and focus on organized thinking..

For the sake of clarity I'll go back to my original idea. I am looking at how different people seem to break down the end times. The "when"is where most disagreements happen over this subject. The best we can do is break down the Bible in context and see where those chips fall. My study has led me to ENTIRELY different conclusions. 

My approach to you was, as a person who IS NOT a "futurist" i.e. Josheb-a person who believes either all or most of the things we call prophecy already happened, how does that wash out all the way through the time line for you? From beginning to end in a nutshell. I'm not asking for piles of notes just a brief description of how you see events unfolding according to scripture. Much like a dispensationalist would state their case. Even if you don't agree with it you have to admit that they have a sequence they look at. So what is your sequence?

Thes. 2 tells us a lot but it doesn't tell us any specifics as to time or date or name. This is why I think it odd that you have a name of someone in the 1st century. How did you determine it? I am trying to work with you as well. The "when" is a series of happenings. My take on it is a description of events happening and the "mystery of lawlessness" at work. The devil always hides what he does. It's the occult pure and simple. "Hidden" knowledge. If the GP knew all about it it would not be a mystery, yet God is telling them and us that He knows all about it. He sees everything. He knows when that which holds back will let loose. At that time this PERSON OF LAWLESSNESS will appear. Not to rebeat a dead horse, but this person, this individual will do great signs and wonders. We can't forget this because it differentiates him from all others up to this point. 

Revelation speaks of the beast. The beast and the false prophet. The dragon who was kicked from heaven ( guess who that is?) gives power and works deception with the beast to fool everyone but those who can see what they are up to.  The 1st beast comes from the sea. The second beast comes from the land. All of their power comes from the evil one. The beast is the man of lawlessness in Thess 2. 

I find this is an easy interpretation compared to the idea the MOS was already here and did his thing. None of that coincides with scriptural comparisons for me. Unless you have some unturned stone. 

I need definitive proof or at least a direction that leans strongly in favor of the most legitimate interpretation. 

2 Thess. 2:1-12 (ESV)

1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,
  2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
  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,
  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.
  5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
  6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.
  7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
  8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
  9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,
  10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
  11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
  12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Gill's commentary has a good comment on verse 7b.

"...only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way;

that is, the Roman empire and Roman emperors, and which were by degrees entirely removed, and so made way for the revelation of this wicked one: and which was done partly by Constantine the emperor receiving the Christian faith, whereby the Roman empire as Pagan ceased; and by increasing the riches of the church, and feeding the pride, ambition, and covetousness of the bishops, especially the bishop of Rome; and next by removing the seat of the empire from Rome to Byzantium, which he called Constantinople: here the Greek emperors continued in succession, and neither they themselves, nor even their exarchs, resided at Rome, but at Ravenna; so that way was made for antichrist to come to his seat, and there was nothing to rival and eclipse the grandeur, power, and glory of the Roman popes: and that which let was also taken out of the way, by the division of the empire, by Theodosius, giving to his elder son Arcadius, the eastern, and to the younger, Honorius, the western parts of it: the eastern empire was in process of time seized upon and possessed by Mahomet and the Saracens; and the western empire was overrun by the Goths, Vandals, and Huns, and became extinct about the year 476, in Augustulus, the last of the Roman emperors, who was obliged to abdicate the government by Odoacer king of the Heruli; when the kingdom of the Lombards took place in Italy, and afterwards that was translated to Charles the great, king of the French; so that there was nothing more of the Roman empire remaining than the bare name, as at this day; and by this means the popes of Rome got to the height of their power and glory, which is meant by the revelation of the man of sin."

[Revelation Man]

13 hours ago, Josheb said:

Then stop using them. 

And realize I didn't invent the "tags." They were coined as a means of mutual communication between differing points of view in an effort to facilitate comparisons in hopes of achieving agreement. The only division occurring by their use is that which has already occurred in your head. Please don't put your baggage on me. I've got no use for it and will not accept it. Futurists are futurists and if you're a futurist then own up to it proudly and realize that helps everyone better understand your pov. If you don't like the tag then maybe you should look first within at why that label is so onerous to you and fix that problem rather than blaming me. Log, not speck. 

And whatever else you do...  learn to stay on topic. This op is on whether or not there is any justification for adding to the end times discussion besides what the Bible tells us (a curious way to word the thesis since "tells us" can have very different meanings from person to person).

I have been on this site for years. The BIBLE is THE BIBLE, the only time I see someone bellyaching about the TOPIC is when they are getting defeated in a Debate, I find that so amusing tbh. Just tap out man. 

[Diaste]

47 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Never said it did specific a date. I don't think anyone in the entire history of the Church has ever claimed it did. That does not mean it does not speak to the when. It was stated there is no "when," but that's incorrect. You may have meant there was not specified date, but that's not what was actually posted. 

Which is irrelevant to your solicitation.. I was asked about my views, not yours. 

If we're sticking first to the 2 Thessalonians text then all the "happenings" are implicitly tied to the first century and the only way they can be made otherwise is by eisegetic copy and paste and that's not what I do. I was asked about my view, not yours. Many posts ago I said if the interest in understanding my pov is authentic then your "studies" will be laid aside for just a few days and so the text can be read as written and what I post as posted. Every time you think about posting your view you should understand, 

 

I DO NOT CARE!

 

Every time any alternative views are posted you're betraying your original request. You may not see it that way but there's an inherent lack of sincerity when someone asks for something from another and then makes it all about their views. 

Josh, I want to know and understand your views but I'm not going to give them a moments consideration because here's is what I believe. 

That's nice, but I didn't ask for your views. Nor was I originally invited to read them or treat them. 

 

 

Is it understood the epistle to the Thessalonians was written years before Revelation by an entirely different author about entirely different circumstances that were all conspiring toward a single end?  The same holds true of 2 Thessalonians in regard to Matthew's gospel and its 24th chapter. When you're able to examine 2 Thessalonians first on its own before bringing other texts into your interpretation then you let me know. Otherwise, my admonitions of the digressions are warranted. 

 

There are "when" statements in the second letter to the Thessalonians. It is incorrect to say otherwise. The MOL was a man, a human male of whom the first century Thessalonians knew during a time when the mystery of lawlessness was already at work in the first century and these conditions (and others we haven't yet gotten to) were tied to the afflictions Paul, his companions, and the Thessalonian converts were suffering at that time in the first century. This is what the text itself reports. I didn't add or subtract a single sliver of a fraction of a pixel to or from the text. 

I wish I had received parity. 

If I copy and paste various scriptures from other parts of the Bible onto the epistle I can make 2 Thessalonians teach just about anything I want to make it teach. 

So you let me know when you can and will examine 2 Thessalonians, beginning solely with the 2 Thessalonians text and only the 2 Thessalonians text until only the 2 Thessalonians text has been examined for what it states. Let me know. 

I love talking about 2 Thess 2:1-8 specifically but the whole page generally. Just saying. 

[DeighAnn]

On 1/10/2021 at 9:51 PM, Josheb said:

Why tell them about things that are not going to occurr in their lifetime? If they are going to be told then why not use future plural pronouns (they, them, those, etc.)? What does a plain ordinary reading of the text tell you?

AGAIN, most likely a repeat of what has been said over the last 3 days but since I needed to refresh....


They did believe it was to happen in their lifetime but 

 Paul quickly dispels that erroneous belief by

2 Thess 2:2  FOR NOT QUICKLY TO BE SHAKEN YOU IN MIND NOR TO BE TROUBLED NEITHER BY SPIRIT NOR BY WORD NOR BY LETTER AS IF BY US AS THAT IS PRESENT THE DAY OF THE LORD


By TELLING them THINGS MUST COME FIRST, one being the Apostasy and the other the Adversary
we remember  Judas -  an excellent example for me anyhow,
Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly. ”

 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.


Who the Adversary was and is and will be and won't be and will be and wont be anymore at all.  

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception...


So do we know when "the mystery of iniquity" started WORKING and continuing 

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Who would letteth?  God lets, Satan taken out
(or we could skip the SPIRIT of it and get into the letter of it all and go to the transitive verb usage there )

but since 

we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

and since 

 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

and

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

and we read
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.


We know the why and who and where and we know who is kicking him out and we know Who created all things.




Are angels called men/man and are men/man called angels?

Genesis 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

Genesis 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

Genesis 18:16 And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.

Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;


Genesis 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

 

Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

 

Hebrews 13:1 Let brotherly love continue.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.


Daniel 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.







 

 

[DeighAnn]

On 1/10/2021 at 4:26 PM, Josheb said:

The correct statement is "Jesus did no miracle until after he was tempted in the wilderness."

Of which is written and we are to know of

[DeighAnn]

On 1/10/2021 at 9:55 PM, Josheb said:

Let's amend that to be a little more respectful, a little less divisive, and a little more accurate to say, 

"I marvel even more over the vehemence of some who, in one breath pledge they believe the words of God while in the next add to and subtract from it rather than read it as written. It's terrible to witness." 

AS LONG AS THIS REMAINS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING CAUSE IF IT DOESN'T WHAT WAS THE POINT?

2 Corinthians 3:4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

2 Corinthians 3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament;
NOT OF THE LETTER BUT OF THE SPIRIT, FOR THE LETTER KILLETH BUT THE SPIRIT GIVETH LIFE.

[Starise]

21 hours ago, David1701 said:

2 Thess. 2:1-12 (ESV)

1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,
  2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
  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,
  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.
  5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
  6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.
  7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
  8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
  9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,
  10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
  11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
  12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Gill's commentary has a good comment on verse 7b.

"...only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way;

that is, the Roman empire and Roman emperors, and which were by degrees entirely removed, and so made way for the revelation of this wicked one: and which was done partly by Constantine the emperor receiving the Christian faith, whereby the Roman empire as Pagan ceased; and by increasing the riches of the church, and feeding the pride, ambition, and covetousness of the bishops, especially the bishop of Rome; and next by removing the seat of the empire from Rome to Byzantium, which he called Constantinople: here the Greek emperors continued in succession, and neither they themselves, nor even their exarchs, resided at Rome, but at Ravenna; so that way was made for antichrist to come to his seat, and there was nothing to rival and eclipse the grandeur, power, and glory of the Roman popes: and that which let was also taken out of the way, by the division of the empire, by Theodosius, giving to his elder son Arcadius, the eastern, and to the younger, Honorius, the western parts of it: the eastern empire was in process of time seized upon and possessed by Mahomet and the Saracens; and the western empire was overrun by the Goths, Vandals, and Huns, and became extinct about the year 476, in Augustulus, the last of the Roman emperors, who was obliged to abdicate the government by Odoacer king of the Heruli; when the kingdom of the Lombards took place in Italy, and afterwards that was translated to Charles the great, king of the French; so that there was nothing more of the Roman empire remaining than the bare name, as at this day; and by this means the popes of Rome got to the height of their power and glory, which is meant by the revelation of the man of sin."

Thank you @David1701.This was also my interpretation though you have said so much in such a condensed way I doubt I could have textually articulated it as well. Anything that denies Jesus as the son of God who died for our sins is anti-Christ. Although I think the main poison root comes from Rome which you have shown here, any other belief or system that sets itself up which includes Jesus but does not acknowledge Him as The Son Of God come to save us is also anti-christ. This includes anything New Age in teaching, this includes all pantheism, all Islamic teaching. Anything that has a "form of godliness" but denies the power therof.

I see this poison root of Rome as possibly assimilating all false religions under one cloak in the future. It would become the Amazon of religion for the world with one blaspheming Satan led demonically inspired man at the head of it. 

How do you see this?

[Starise]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

If we're sticking first to the 2 Thessalonians text then all the "happenings" are implicitly tied to the first century and the only way they can be made otherwise is by eisegetic copy and paste and that's not what I do. I was asked about my view, not yours. Many posts ago I said if the interest in understanding my pov is authentic then your "studies" will be laid aside for just a few days and so the text can be read as written and what I post as posted. Every time you think about posting your view you should understand, 

 

I DO NOT CARE!

 

Every time any alternative views are posted you're betraying your original request. You may not see it that way but there's an inherent lack of sincerity when someone asks for something from another and then makes it all about their views. 

Yes and this has pretty much been your approach. State your views with little or no reasoning with others and then get into a bunch of divisive discussion about how and why no one else is ever going about anything the proper way except for you. I'm not sure about anyone else but I grow tired of it. I want discussion on a topic, not a bunch of long drawn out accusations against me and other brothers here. I mean, if we don't agree that's ok. No two of use reason exactly the same. Most of use come to very similar conclusions though.

I am a very analytical person ( a trouble shooter by trade which involves a lot of logic) who does a bunch of comparisons in my studies. If I don't know why someone thinks a certain explanation of the text fits, I ask them. This is plain and simple what I did with you. EVEN if it wasn't my view I wanted to know how a person who sees it this was reasons it. That's all. Nothing more nothing less. I'm not trying to push you into a corner on anything. Just reading, studying and learning day by day.

You go down more holes than a two headed rabbit. I wish you could just stay on topic or at least the subject without condemning someone every other paragraph. That isn't Christian Love brother. It's stubborn hard headed bullying.

 I can tell you really don't care. It comes out in everything you say. That isn't what a Christian thread on theology is all about. 

[DeighAnn]

Has God sentenced anyone BY NAME to eternal destruction/DEATH/perdition?  

Yes, but just one, the son of perdition.  

Ezekiel 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

 

No one you should deceive in not one way because if not shall have come the apostasy first and shall have been revealed the man of lawlessness the son of destruction

458 anomia
lawlessness, iniquity, disobedience, sin

the utter disregard for God's law (living and writte

684 apoleia
destruction, loss, ruin, perishing, eternal ruin

 to be completely severed – cut off (entirely) from what could or should have been.
the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition,