Posted on 02/14/2021 10:01:18 AM PST by Roman_War_Criminal
The context is staged as regarding the gathering together unto Him, as amoreperfectunion pointed out eloquently.
The Greek word apostasia can be used both to refer to departing from the Judaic traditions (as is the current pc consensus) and it can also be used to convey a meaning like a ship disappearing over the horizon.
Have you ever considered that Paul would use word that way since his theme in the passage is 'The Departure' as Jesus gathers us to himself?
2 Thess 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him,
2 That ye be not suddenly moved from your mind, nor troubled neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as it were from us, as though the day of Christ were at hand. 2 Thessalonians 2 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
Cronos, make sure to tell Concentrate about preterism and futurism and how the Catholic church came up with these theories after they were getting dumped on by the Protestant reformers. They had to come up with something because everyone was calling them the Antichrist power. Imagine that? And, this pre trib rapture thing is basically the same thing in that everyone is looking for the Antichrist AFTER they are all magically whisked off to heaven BEFORE the tribulation/plagues. Pretty convenient, right?
I suppose you won’t tell him because it would look bad on your church, the CATHOLIC church. I mean no offense to Catholics, but it’s the truth. Here it is....
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm
http://www.redeemerfw.org/resources/reformers_antichrist.pdf
Yeah. No.
Here’s why I’m not a buyer:
8 Then the male goat made himself exceedingly great. But once he became powerful, the large horn was broken; and in its place four prominent horns came up toward the four winds of heaven.
9 And OUT OF ONE OF THEM came a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land.
Daniel 8:8-9 NASB
The ram — Greece — was divided into the four kingdoms of Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus I, and Ptolemy I.
Rome does not lie within the bounds of any of these four Kingdoms, but Daniel clearly records that this horn emerges OUT OF the fragments of Greece.
ALSO, this horn expands north, south, east, and “toward the Beautiful Land” (Israel). If Antichrist emerged out of Rome, saying his kingdom expands east AND “toward the Beautiful Land” would be redundant, as Israel is East of Rome. Quite clearly, wherever this Antichrist kingdom sprouts up, it must be EAST of Israel to obviate that redundancy.
Neither Cassander nor Lysimachus extended East of Israel.
Ptolemy extended into Syria, but was mainly south and west.
Seleucius alone extended appreciably east of Israel.
Called King of the North, and “The Assyrian,” in combination with his kingdom and influence extending “toward the beautiful Land,” puts us decidedly geographically north and east of Jerusalem; Damascus a the very least, but — as A/C is also linked to the old Medo-Persian Empire — Tehran is well inside the box.
All that stated, I’m not shackled to any particular view; there’s no shortage of texts making clear that his identity will not be obscure, and it’s more his acts than his origin that we ought most be concerned about.
Yeah, as a matter of fact, let’s look it again:
1 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, ...
2 Thess. 2:1-3
SINCE, per vv1 & 2, “the coming” and “our gathering” are BOTH incorporated into “the day of the Lord,” what sense does verse 3 make if instead of “apostasy” we substitute “departure” as of from a place?
Paraphrasing, then, v3 would read “No one is to deceive you in any way! For [the day of the Lord, including his coming and our gathering to him] will not come unless [our departure from this place] comes first.
Huh? We’re not gathering unless we depart first??
That’s nonsense.
CLEARLY “departure” has a different sense, and speaks to a different event than gathering.
The sequence is the departure first, then the man of sin revealed, then seven years later The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord ends the epoch to make way for the start of the Kingdom.
The crux of your mistake, stating, “SINCE, per vv1 & 2, “the coming” and “our gathering” are BOTH incorporated into “the day of the Lord,” ... the Day of the Lord is separate from the gathering us unto Him.
I have no idea what you Adventists mean by those terms as you even say that Jesus is just one of the Angel’s. On that you share the same belief as your sister cult, the Jehovah’s witnesses.
Not strange as both jehovah’s witnesses and Seventh day Adventists arose from Millerism. The difference being that you Adventists had a prophets Ellen G white.
Did Ellen G white also define those terms for you?
I know you hold her writings on par with the Bible
Ellen White:
“Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God...but Christ did not rebuke His adversary... He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, ‘The Lord rebuke thee.’” Early Writings, p. 164 (emphasis added).
“When Jesus stands up; when his work is finished in the Most Holy, then there will be not another ray of light to be imparted to the sinner....The light is made to reach far ahead, where all is total darkness. MICHAEL stands up.” Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 276 (emphasis added).
“As Christ and the angels approached the grave, Satan and his angels appeared at the grave, and were guarding the body of Moses, lest it should be removed. As Christ and his angels drew nigh, Satan resisted their approach, but was compelled, by the glory and power of Christ and his angels to fall back. Satan claimed the body of Moses, because of his one transgression; but Christ meekly referred him to his Father, saying, “The Lord rebuke thee.” Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 58 (emphasis added).
“Just before going into the meeting, I had a revival of some interesting scenes which had passed before me in vision...It seemed to me that the angels were making a rift in the cloud and letting in the beams of light from heaven. The subject that was presented so strikingly was the case of Moses....The angels buried him, but the Son of God soon came down and raised him from the dead and took him to heaven.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 659 (emphasis added).
“As a people we must stand as did the world’s Redeemer. When in controversy with Satan, in regard to the body of Moses, Christ durst not bring against him a railing accusation.” Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 239.
So, follower of Ellen, Phil, what does your prophets teach you Adventists?
After all, isn’t it true that
1. Ellen G White a non-negotiable part of SDA church doctrine. SDA theologians point out there is no good reason for the SDA church to exist if she is a false prophet.
2. There is and was the eugenics movement within the American SDA church.
3. Adventist are unwilling to abandon their Investigative Judgement doctrine because that would undermine Ellen G White.
4. Adventist justify divorce and remarriage despite that being contrary to Jesus’s teachings.
Ellen g white the anti christ?
MY MISTAKE? HELLO?
Take it up with St. Paul; he's the one who made the assertion by phrasing it that way. He very plainly describes that the coming of Jesus, and our being gathered to Him both occur in immediate relation to an event called “the day of the Lord.”
I've no issue you debating point and counterpoint with me; iron sharpens iron, after all, but in your zeal for your preferred view, you very nearly call The Apostle himself into question...
May I ask you, with your pre-wrath perspective, can Jesus come for His Body of Believers today?
Paul starts the segment inferring he had dealt with the gathering to Jesus departure in prior letter and in personal teaching, and the Thessalonians were disturbed by a fraudulent letter telling them that The Day of The Lord Great Tribulation had already arrived, kind of like preterists claiming the Revelation of John was fulfilled in 70AD.
Paul has his readers in Thessalonika start with the gathering unto Jesus portion he had taught them, that such an event would preceed the revealing of the antichrist man of sin.
Far from disputing Paul, I am disputing your pre-wrath Rapture because it is place dduring the Tribulation, at the great and terrible Day of The Lord, the very mistake you are making with your assumption that the gathering is related to the Day of The Lord. The gathering is not related to the Day of the Lord is Paul's point. Even the revealing of the man of sin is not related to the Day of The Lord.
Again, is the departure imminent or did Paul teach that the departure would only occur after signs of/in the Tribulation are fulfilled first?
Not today.
A.) The gospel has not yet been preached to the whole world; there yet remain a few thousand people groups that have no witness among them. Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10
B.) The Man of Sin has not yet been revealed. 2 Thess. 2:1-3
C.) The Last (Seventh) Trumpet has not sounded to announce, first, the Resurrection of those who died in Christ; and, second, the Repture of all who live in Christ. 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 1 Cor. 15:51 & 52
It may help to clarify that I do not believe the Seals and Trumpets release wrath. I believe that only the Bowls of Wrath release wrath.
I believe the events that take place upon the breaking of the Seals, and the sounding of the Trumpets have a redemptive purpose; such that at the sounding of The Last (Seventh) Trumpet, all who possibly can be saved will have, at last, repented and been saved. Then that Last Trumpet will sound, the dead in Christ shall be raised incorruptible, and all we who are alive and remain shall be gathered together with them in the presence of our Returned Lord and Savior.
But, again, that’s Seven Seals and Seven Trumpets deep into The Tribulation, not way up front.
Nay I respectfully ask why you reject the doctrine of imminence?
Jesus, himself declares in Matthew 24:14 that “the end” will come AFTER the gospel has reached the whole world, which I construe to include every distinct group of people, as I believe to be consistent with the “every nation, tribe, languageb and people” mission of the angel in Revelation 14:6. So, until the day the gospel is proclaimed among the last unreached group, “the end” is not yet, and the Second Coming is at the end.
More fully, as I read the series of events laid out in Revelation, I observe that there’s but one remaining Coming of Christ; most clearly described in chapter 19. There’s no buzzing the control tower; this isn’t “Top Gun,” there is The (singular) Coming of Jesus.
I observe that Jesus returns all the way down in chapter 19, and that there’s a great deal that happens beforehand, and I look around and — although times look like they’re heading in that direction — I don’t see that any of the described events have begun, yet.
I hear Paul teaching the Thessalonians that we who live in Christ will follow the resurrected dead in Christ into glory at the sounding of a trumpet, which his teaching to the Corinthians more specifically identifies as The Last Trumpet. And this agrees with the timing of “one like a son of man” reaping his harvest in Revelation 14:14-16, because that harvest is part of a series of many events taking place almost on each others heels at the sounding of the Seventh (and Last) Trumpet. I see all that and note that Seven Seals came beforehand, and six other Trumpets were sounded beforehand.
I cannot, in the face of that (and other) biblical textual testimony, embrace the idea that Jesus might pop out of the sky at any moment to wink us away to glory; it’s FAR TOO CLEAR that lots of other things take place first.
The ram — Greece — was divided into the four kingdoms of Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus I, and Ptolemy I.
Actually, the ram is Media-Persia. See verses 20 and 21.
20The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
21And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
9 And OUT OF ONE OF THEM came a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land.
Rome does not lie within the bounds of any of these four Kingdoms, but Daniel clearly records that this horn emerges OUT OF the fragments of Greece.
Please consider this:
9. Out of one of them. In the Hebrew this phrase presents confusion of gender. The
word for “them,” hem, is masculine. This indicates that, grammatically, the antecedent is
“winds” (v. 8) and not “horns,” since “winds” may be either masculine or feminine, but
“horns,” only feminine. On the other hand the word for “one,” ’achath, is feminine,
suggesting “horns” as the antecedent. ’Achath could, of course, refer back to the word for
“winds,” which occurs most frequently in the feminine. But it is doubtful that the writer
would assign two different genders to the same noun in such close contextual
relationship. To reach grammatical agreement, either ’achath should be changed into a
masculine, thus making the entire phrase refer clearly to “winds,” or the word for “them”
should be changed into a feminine, in which case the reference would be ambiguous,
since either “winds” or “horns” may be the antecedent. A number of Hebrew manuscripts
have the word for “them” in the feminine. If these manuscripts reflect the correct reading,
the passage is still ambiguous.
Commentators who interpret the “little horn” of v. 9 to refer to Rome have been at a
loss to explain satisfactorily how Rome could be said to arise out of one of the divisions
of Alexander’s empire. If “them” refers to “winds,” all difficulty vanishes. The passage
then simply states that from one of the four points of the compass would come another
power. Rome came from the west. In the literal explanation of the symbols of the vision
Rome is said to arise “in the latter time of their kingdom” (v. 23), that is, the “kingdom”
of the four horns. However, v. 23 refers only to the time when the little horn would arise
and says nothing of the place of its rising, whereas v. 9 is concerned exclusively with its
location.
It should be remembered that the prophet is here giving a running account of the
prophetic symbolization, as the scenes were presented to him. He is not yet interpreting
the vision. The interpretation of this feature of the vision occurs in v. 23. An important
rule to follow when interpreting the symbols of visions is to assign an interpretation only
to those features of pictorial representation that were intended to have interpretative
value. As in parables, certain features are needed to complete the dramatic presentation,
but are not necessarily significant of themselves. Which of these have interpretative
value, Inspiration alone can determine. Seeing that in this instance Inspiration (v. 23)
speaks only of the time when the power represented by this horn was to emerge, and says
nothing as to its geographical point of origin, there is no reason for us to lay stress on the
phrase, “out of one of them.”
Inasmuch as the vision of ch. 8 closely parallels the prophetic outlines of chs. 2 and 7,
and inasmuch as in both of those outlines the power succeeding Greece is Rome (see on
chs. 2:40; 7:7), the reasonable assumption here is that the “horn” power is of v. 8 also
applies to Rome. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Rome precisely fulfilled
the various specifications of the vision.
Everything I said about EVERY Protestant reformer claiming the Catholic church was the Antichrist is 100% true. The same goes for why the Catholic church got these Jesuit priests to come up with smoke and mirror alternate theories about when the Antichrist would show up and who he/it was. Most of the Christian world has been fooled by one or the other theory, mostly Futurism (pre trib rapture theory). The theory that Cronos has picked is Preterism and Nero as the Antichrist. Yes, it is ridiculous. Some more information to consider.
https://emahiser.christogenea.org/PDF/Futurism-and-Preterism.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.