Announcement

Collapse

Eschatology 201 Guidelines

This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.


Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.

However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.

End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.

Millennialism- post-, pre- a-

Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.

From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.

OK folks, let's roll!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Was Titus the Man of Sin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    How about reading my first post in this thread...
    I hardly ever quote the so called "Church Fathers." I find their writings too full of hearsay, speculation, personal opinions and plain old misinformation. The only exception is when they are giving a historical account of things that they were eyewitness to or at least happened in their own lifetimes. The Didache fits this category.

    My question remains - Why was Eleazar Ben Simon NOT the man of Sin. He is the only one who fits the historical situation to a "T".

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Cooter View Post
      I hardly ever quote the so called "Church Fathers."
      Then you are missing out on quite a bit.

      I find their writings too full of hearsay, speculation, personal opinions and plain old misinformation.
      You do realize that the canon was formalized by the very same fathers you seem to eschew.

      The only exception is when they are giving a historical account of things that they were eyewitness to or at least happened in their own lifetimes. The Didache fits this category.
      Exactly. It explains the way the Church viewed how to "do church" in the generations immediately following the death of John (from 90 AD to120 AD)

      My question remains - Why was Eleazar Ben Simon NOT the man of Sin. He is the only one who fits the historical situation to a "T".
      Because Eleazar had nothing to do with the Christians, which is who the man of sin will cause to apostatize. He also never claimed to be God. 2 Thess 2:1-4
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Then you are missing out on quite a bit.
        Here is the last time I quoted these so called "Church Fathers."

        "Woman is defective and misbegotten. For
        the active power in the male seed produces
        a perfect male likeness. A female comes from a
        defect in the male seed or from some indisposition
        such as the south wind being too moist." Thomas
        Aquinas - Church father
        *
        "God's sentence hangs over the female sex,
        and His punishment weighs down upon you.
        You are the devil's gateway. You first violated
        the forbidden tree and broke God's law. You
        shattered God's image in man, and because
        you merited death, you had to die."
        Tertullian - Church Father
        *
        "It brings man shame even to reflect on
        woman's nature. By no means shall
        women exhibit any part of their person
        lest men become excited and look and fall."
        Clement - Church Father
        *
        "It is part of her punishment and a part
        from which even God's mercy will
        not exempt her. Subjection to the will of her
        husband is part of her curse."
        Clement - Church Father
        *
        "Take women from their housewifery and they
        are good for nothing."
        Martin Luther
        *
        "Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips
        to sit upon, so they ought to stay home,
        keep the house, bear and raise children. The
        woman differs from the man; she is weaker in
        body, in honor, in intellect and in dignity."
        Martin Luther
        *
        "If a woman take upon her any office which
        God assigned to man, she shall not escape being
        cursed. Women are weak, they are frail, they are
        impatient and feeble and foolish. They are
        inconstant. They are changeable, they are cruel.
        They lack spirit and counsel. Woman in her
        greatest perfection was made to serve and
        only obey men."
        John Knox

        "Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman."
        St. John Chrysostom (345-407 CE)
        *
        "Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot
        give birth to as many children as she is capable of,
        makes herself guilty of that many murders."
        St. Augustine (354-430 CE)
        *
        "Do you know that each of your women is an Eve?
        The sentence of God - on this sex of yours - lives
        in this age; the guilt must necessarily live, too. You
        are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the
        forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the
        divine law."
        Tertullian in 22 CE
        *
        "Woman in her greatest perfection was made to
        serve and obey man, not rule and command him."
        John Knox (1505-1572)
        *
        "The souls of women are so small that some
        believe they've none at all."
        Samuel Butler (1612-1680)
        *
        "It seems to me that nearly every woman I know
        wants a man who knows how to love with authority.
        Women are simple souls who like simple things, and
        one of the simplest is one of the simplest to give...
        Our family Airedale will come clear across the yard
        for one pat on the head. The average wife is like that.
        She will come across town, across the house, across
        to your point of view, and across almost anything to
        give you her love if you offer her yours with some
        honest approval."
        Episcopal Bishop James Pike in a letter to his son (1968)
        *
        "Let us set our women folk on the road to goodness
        by teaching them to display submissiveness." "Every
        woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the
        thought that she is a woman."
        St. Clement of Alexandria in 96 CE
        *
        In the year 584 CE, in Lyons, France, forty-three
        Catholic bishops and twenty men representing other
        bishops, held a most peculiar debate: "Are Women
        Human?" After many lengthy arguments, a vote was
        taken. The results were: thirty-two, yes; thirty-one, no. Women were declared human by one vote!
        Council of Macon
        *
        "Woman should remain at home, sit still, keep house,
        and bear and bring up children." and "If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from child bearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it."
        Martin Luther (1483-1546)

        All I feel here is a wrong spirit. The chauvinism is unmistakable. The same wrong spirit as when I read that Irenaeus said that Jesus lived into his 50's. He also said that the crucifixion was God paying Satan. Utter nonsense.


        You do realize that the canon was formalized by the very same fathers you seem to eschew.
        Martin Luther was the one who finalized the New Testament - he determined the order of the books.

        Because Eleazar had nothing to do with the Christians, which is who the man of sin will cause to apostatize. He also never claimed to be God. 2 Thess 2:1-4
        Well that is just more futurist speculation. He had nothing to do with the Christians is right because they escaped to Pella right after Cestius retreated, Again you are totally confused and mistaken. This "falling away" is better translated "Rebellion." Paul was talking about the beginning of the "Rebellion" against Rome. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SOME SORT OF CHRISTIAN APOSTACY. He most certainly did claim to be God - he took over the temple and usurped the place of God.

        I must admit It was not easy determining who this man of sin was. It was done by identifying all of the main players in the war with the Romans. Then I had to account for each one of them. I had to know where they were at the time that Cestius's army of 30-40,000 was surrounding the city in 66AD. Because the AoD was set up at the same time that the army was present. The AoD was the terrorist takeover of the Temple which they used as a fortress. John of Giscala did not arrive in the city until much later so he was out. Eleazar Ben Ananus was assigned out of the city so he was out - but this did not happen until Cestius retreated.

        So there were two Eleazar's that could have been in the temple during the attack of Cestius. Simon Bar Gorius left the city and pursued his robberies in Judea and was not present after Cestius retreated. But it was Eleazar Ben Simon who possessed the temple for three years up to the point where Titus arrived at Passover on 70AD. At Passover 70AD Eleazar was tricked by John of Giscala into opening the gates and he took control at that point. At this juncture they both decided that their best interests would be served in fighting the Romans and not each other. It was Eleazar Ben Simon who held the temple during most of the tribulation. And Josephus continually remarks about the severity of the desecration of the temple.

        You don't need to speculate on this just read history - it's all in the past.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Cooter View Post
          Here is the last time I quoted these so called "Church Fathers."

          "Woman is defective and misbegotten. For
          the active power in the male seed produces
          a perfect male likeness. A female comes from a
          defect in the male seed or from some indisposition
          such as the south wind being too moist." Thomas
          Aquinas - Church father
          *
          "God's sentence hangs over the female sex,
          and His punishment weighs down upon you.
          You are the devil's gateway. You first violated
          the forbidden tree and broke God's law. You
          shattered God's image in man, and because
          you merited death, you had to die."
          Tertullian - Church Father
          *
          "It brings man shame even to reflect on
          woman's nature. By no means shall
          women exhibit any part of their person
          lest men become excited and look and fall."
          Clement - Church Father
          *
          "It is part of her punishment and a part
          from which even God's mercy will
          not exempt her. Subjection to the will of her
          husband is part of her curse."
          Clement - Church Father
          *
          "Take women from their housewifery and they
          are good for nothing."
          Martin Luther
          *
          "Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips
          to sit upon, so they ought to stay home,
          keep the house, bear and raise children. The
          woman differs from the man; she is weaker in
          body, in honor, in intellect and in dignity."
          Martin Luther
          *
          "If a woman take upon her any office which
          God assigned to man, she shall not escape being
          cursed. Women are weak, they are frail, they are
          impatient and feeble and foolish. They are
          inconstant. They are changeable, they are cruel.
          They lack spirit and counsel. Woman in her
          greatest perfection was made to serve and
          only obey men."
          John Knox

          "Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman."
          St. John Chrysostom (345-407 CE)
          *
          "Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot
          give birth to as many children as she is capable of,
          makes herself guilty of that many murders."
          St. Augustine (354-430 CE)
          *
          "Do you know that each of your women is an Eve?
          The sentence of God - on this sex of yours - lives
          in this age; the guilt must necessarily live, too. You
          are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the
          forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the
          divine law."
          Tertullian in 22 CE
          *
          "Woman in her greatest perfection was made to
          serve and obey man, not rule and command him."
          John Knox (1505-1572)
          *
          "The souls of women are so small that some
          believe they've none at all."
          Samuel Butler (1612-1680)
          *
          "It seems to me that nearly every woman I know
          wants a man who knows how to love with authority.
          Women are simple souls who like simple things, and
          one of the simplest is one of the simplest to give...
          Our family Airedale will come clear across the yard
          for one pat on the head. The average wife is like that.
          She will come across town, across the house, across
          to your point of view, and across almost anything to
          give you her love if you offer her yours with some
          honest approval."
          Episcopal Bishop James Pike in a letter to his son (1968)
          *
          "Let us set our women folk on the road to goodness
          by teaching them to display submissiveness." "Every
          woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the
          thought that she is a woman."
          St. Clement of Alexandria in 96 CE
          *
          In the year 584 CE, in Lyons, France, forty-three
          Catholic bishops and twenty men representing other
          bishops, held a most peculiar debate: "Are Women
          Human?" After many lengthy arguments, a vote was
          taken. The results were: thirty-two, yes; thirty-one, no. Women were declared human by one vote!
          Council of Macon
          *
          "Woman should remain at home, sit still, keep house,
          and bear and bring up children." and "If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from child bearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it."
          Martin Luther (1483-1546)

          Let's see... out of the 16 quotes you offered, less than half can be named "Church Fathers. Of those 7, ALL are talking about carnal non-believing women, not Christian saints.

          Source: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2793


          As a whole, patristic texts dealing with woman tend to be non-theoretical. Primarily concerned with the encouragement of virtue and the promotion of the life of perfection, the Fathers' statements about woman, depending on the audiences to which they are addressed, alternate between vile condemnations of woman as temptress and instrument of the devil, and exaggerated praises of woman and womanly virtue, especially as exhibited by Mary and the female saints. As ideal, Christian Woman is made an object of worship, and this of course encourages the women to whom St. Jerome, for example, is writing in their attempts to live up to this ideal. Woman as the source of all sin, trouble, and suffering for man is repudiated in those patristic writings addressed to monks, in order to encourage them in their repudiation of the world and women, in their celibate perfection. But St. Thomas is concerned neither with praising nor condemning woman; his writings are philosophical treatises, not pastoral enjoinders. For him woman is another part of reality to be scientifically investigated in order to discover her nature and her relation to the rest of reality.

          © Copyright Original Source




          All I feel here is a wrong spirit.
          I'm surprised you don't feel the black lung disease you must have from all of that quote mining you did.

          user1014376_pic103363_1373608951.jpg

          The chauvinism is unmistakable.
          Then you really must hate Paul

          The same wrong spirit as when I read that Irenaeus said that Jesus lived into his 50's.
          No he didn't. Matt Slick wrote an article for JP Holding where he said:

          Source: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html


          it should be pointed out that Irenaeus never once claims that Jesus lived to be fifty-in point of fact Irenaeus claims that Christ was "between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year" (2:22:6)

          © Copyright Original Source



          Additionally, just because Irenaeus possibly made a mistake on how old Jesus was doesn't negate the remainder of his testimony, nor does it negate the other Fathers. You've not only tossed the baby out with the bathwater, you've kicked the whole family out into the muddy puddle.

          He also said that the crucifixion was God paying Satan. Utter nonsense.
          Direct citation please.



          Martin Luther was the one who finalized the New Testament - he determined the order of the books.
          That's complete nonsense. Luther wanted to exclude Jude and Hebrews completely!


          Well that is just more futurist speculation.
          Whatever you say goober.

          He had nothing to do with the Christians is right because they escaped to Pella right after Cestius retreated, Again you are totally confused and mistaken. This "falling away" is better translated "Rebellion."
          No it isn't. Apostasia is never translated as rebellion. It is uniformly used of those who are a member of a group leaving that group never to return. It was used of deserters of the Roman army, of those who forsook the Mosaic laws, and for those who rejected Christ after their baptism.

          Paul was talking about the beginning of the "Rebellion" against Rome. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SOME SORT OF CHRISTIAN APOSTACY.
          It has EVERYTHING to do with it. That's why Paul was telling Christians to be sure NOT to fall away. That's why the author of Hebrews warned them that they could lose their salvation forever if they committed apostasy.

          He most certainly did claim to be God - he took over the temple and usurped the place of God.
          No he didn't ever claim to be God.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Let's see... out of the 16 quotes you offered, less than half can be named "Church Fathers. Of those 7, ALL are talking about carnal non-believing women, not Christian saints.
            Well in Israel the requirement was two or three witnesses. So seven ought to be sufficient to show the chauvinistic outrage that I posted. Oh they were talking about unbelievers. What an easy fabrication to protect and excuse the wrong spirit that they reveal about women. Nowhere does any of the text indicate this.

            Source: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2793


            As a whole, patristic texts dealing with woman tend to be non-theoretical. Primarily concerned with the encouragement of virtue and the promotion of the life of perfection, the Fathers' statements about woman, depending on the audiences to which they are addressed, alternate between vile condemnations of woman as temptress and instrument of the devil, and exaggerated praises of woman and womanly virtue, especially as exhibited by Mary and the female saints. As ideal, Christian Woman is made an object of worship, and this of course encourages the women to whom St. Jerome, for example, is writing in their attempts to live up to this ideal. Woman as the source of all sin, trouble, and suffering for man is repudiated in those patristic writings addressed to monks, in order to encourage them in their repudiation of the world and women, in their celibate perfection. But St. Thomas is concerned neither with praising nor condemning woman; his writings are philosophical treatises, not pastoral enjoinders. For him woman is another part of reality to be scientifically investigated in order to discover her nature and her relation to the rest of reality.

            © Copyright Original Source



            I'm surprised you don't feel the black lung disease you must have from all of that quote mining you did.

            [ATTACH=CONFIG]5661[/ATTACH]
            These were quotes taken directly from them. I find it amazing how you dismiss anything negative about these so called "Church Fathers." The Catholic Church derives a lot of their doctrines from this group so it is easy to understand why they are totally protected and excused. I don't see them as a credible source of advise and doctrine.


            Then you really must hate Paul
            Why would I hate Paul as he was very supportive of women in ministry.


            No he didn't. Matt Slick wrote an article for JP Holding where he said:

            Source: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html


            it should be pointed out that Irenaeus never once claims that Jesus lived to be fifty-in point of fact Irenaeus claims that Christ was "between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year" (2:22:6)

            © Copyright Original Source



            Additionally, just because Irenaeus possibly made a mistake on how old Jesus was doesn't negate the remainder of his testimony, nor does it negate the other Fathers. You've not only tossed the baby out with the bathwater, you've kicked the whole family out into the muddy puddle.
            There are a lot of people on the internet that say he did. It's nice to know however that Matt Slick has 100% accurate information.

            That's complete nonsense. Luther wanted to exclude Jude and Hebrews completely!
            Not to mention Revelation. However I just read last week that he was the one who in the end arranged the books in the New Testament. HE WAS NOT THE ONE WHO CHOSE WHICH BOOKS WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NT CANON.


            Whatever you say goober.
            Another intelligent reply.

            No it isn't. Apostasia is never translated as rebellion. It is uniformly used of those who are a member of a group leaving that group never to return. It was used of deserters of the Roman army, of those who forsook the Mosaic laws, and for those who rejected Christ after their baptism.
            Oh.. some more of your private doctrines...

            New International Version
            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.

            New Living Translation
            Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed--the one who brings destruction.

            English Standard Version
            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,

            International Standard Version
            Do not let anyone deceive you in any way, for it will not come unless the rebellion takes place first and the man of sin, who is destined for destruction, is revealed.

            NET Bible
            Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.

            Aramaic Bible in Plain English
            Let no man deceive you by any means, to the effect that surely no revolt will first come and The Man of Sin, The Son of Destruction, be revealed,

            GOD'S WORD® Translation
            Don't let anyone deceive you about this in any way. [That day cannot come unless] a revolt takes place first, and the man of sin, the man of destruction, is revealed.

            Douay-Rheims Bible
            Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,

            It has EVERYTHING to do with it. That's why Paul was telling Christians to be sure NOT to fall away.
            No if you follow the context he is giving them a priority of events.

            1. The restrainer will be removed

            2. The rebellion would begin as a result - this means war with the Romans.

            3. The "Man if Sin" would be revealed. This was Eleazar the terrorist leader of the revolt.


            That's why the author of Hebrews warned them that they could lose their salvation forever if they committed apostasy.
            You really need to start studying complete books. Hebrews was written specifically to the Jewish Christians in Rome. The persecution pressure was escalating and the problem that was being addressed in Hebrews was the fact that these Hebrew Christians were escaping the persecution by abandoning their Christianity and returning back to Judaism and the Synagogues. At that point of time the Jews were not being persecuted and so they were a safe haven. The entire book of Hebrews addresses this problem. The writer is saying that for them to return back to Judaism they are insulting the Spirit of Grace and are trampling underfoot the work of Jesus on the cross. The book further states that they had not as yet resisted unto blood. But this came shortly thereafter when Nero started killing Christians in the spring of 65AD.

            There is absolutely no connection between the two as you suggest. The so called "Falling away" is much better translated "rebellion" given the context of the situation in history.

            No he didn't ever claim to be God.
            How do you know - another one of your made up responses based on nothing but your errant eschatology? All of the prophesies of Daniel, Paul and Jesus can be fit together nicely when researching the history of the tribulation of Jerusalem. So why would my first step be throwing out all of the numerous fulfillments in favor of one that I think doesn't fit? If I buy a dozen eggs and one is broken I don't throw the whole dozen away. I would just dispose of the one broken one. Likewise if 11 points are in favor of a concept and only one is not I will dispose of the one and keep the other 11.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Cooter View Post
              Well in Israel the requirement was two or three witnesses.
              For specific judicial decisions, yes. But it's nice to see that you take more than just Thessalonians out of context.

              So seven ought to be sufficient to show the chauvinistic outrage that I posted.
              You have no clue what each one was talking about. How about you actually read what they are saying in context instead of tossing about mined quotes...

              Oh they were talking about unbelievers. What an easy fabrication to protect and excuse the wrong spirit that they reveal about women. Nowhere does any of the text indicate this.
              We call that poisoning the well. First off, their views on women are completely irrelevant to their views on the end times. Or are you the type that thinks that one error means nothing they say can be trusted? I sure hope your wife never hides a gift from you...



              These were quotes taken directly from them.
              And completely devoid of context. And I find it hilarious how you foist 21st century values and sensibilities on different cultures. You'd make quite a good fundy atheist.

              I find it amazing how you dismiss anything negative about these so called "Church Fathers."
              No I don't. I analyze what they are saying and why. It's called exegesis. You should try it sometime...

              The Catholic Church derives a lot of their doctrines from this group so it is easy to understand why they are totally protected and excused. I don't see them as a credible source of advise and doctrine.
              Ah... there it is. Anti-Catholic. No wonder you don't think too highly of the successors of the Apostles.


              Why would I hate Paul as he was very supportive of women in ministry.
              1 Timothy 2:12,I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
              1 Timothy 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
              1 Timothy 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression

              Those are the same things Tertullian said just before your quote mined section.


              There are a lot of people on the internet that say he did. It's nice to know however that Matt Slick has 100% accurate information.
              And Cooter has 110%... . I cited the EXACT verse Matt gave from Irenaeus on the issue. Your response... "nu-uh"...



              Not to mention Revelation. However I just read last week that he was the one who in the end arranged the books in the New Testament. HE WAS NOT THE ONE WHO CHOSE WHICH BOOKS WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NT CANON.
              You read wrong. The Council of Carthage in 397 finalized it.


              Another intelligent reply.
              It's equal to your "nu-uh" level responses.


              Oh.. some more of your private doctrines...
              Because it's MY private doctrine that the word apostasia was used of Roman army deserters, or that it was used in the Septuagint to describe those who left the Mosaic Law... You really aren't very good at this debate thing, are you?

              New International Version
              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.

              New Living Translation
              Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed--the one who brings destruction.

              English Standard Version
              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,

              International Standard Version
              Do not let anyone deceive you in any way, for it will not come unless the rebellion takes place first and the man of sin, who is destined for destruction, is revealed.

              NET Bible
              Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.

              Aramaic Bible in Plain English
              Let no man deceive you by any means, to the effect that surely no revolt will first come and The Man of Sin, The Son of Destruction, be revealed,

              GOD'S WORD® Translation
              Don't let anyone deceive you about this in any way. [That day cannot come unless] a revolt takes place first, and the man of sin, the man of destruction, is revealed.

              Douay-Rheims Bible
              Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,
              Ah, I see what you are doing. You are equivocating on the English word "revolt". You do realize that the Bible wasn't written in English, right? The Greek word for rising up against an oppressor in revolt is ἀπανέστησαν. ἀποστασία is not the same word.


              No if you follow the context he is giving them a priority of events.
              Let's look at the actual text, not your partial summary.

              1. The restrainer will be removed
              2 Thess 2
              1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to 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


              Paul connects Jesus' coming and our gathering together to Him with the Day of the Lord


              3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
              4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God


              Paul explains that the Day if the Lord would follow the apostasy, which would coincide with the man of lawlessness, who would display himself as God. This context shows your summary to be utter nonsense.

              2. The rebellion would begin as a result - this means war with the Romans.
              No it doesn't. The Christians in Thessalonica had nothing to do with the Jews in Jerusalem, especially decades later.

              3. The "Man if Sin" would be revealed. This was Eleazar the terrorist leader of the revolt.
              No it wasn't. Nowhere was it written that Eleazar claimed to be God. As I said in the beginning, the early church's doctrine was that the man of sin would be a world deceiver who claimed to be God. So, all you have is your own private interpretation which requires huge leaps across arguments from silence.


              You really need to start studying complete books.
              I have been for decades.

              Hebrews was written specifically to the Jewish Christians in Rome.
              No... really?


              /sarcasm

              The persecution pressure was escalating and the problem that was being addressed in Hebrews was the fact that these Hebrew Christians were escaping the persecution by abandoning their Christianity and returning back to Judaism and the Synagogues. At that point of time the Jews were not being persecuted and so they were a safe haven. The entire book of Hebrews addresses this problem. The writer is saying that for them to return back to Judaism they are insulting the Spirit of Grace and are trampling underfoot the work of Jesus on the cross. The book further states that they had not as yet resisted unto blood.
              No duh.

              But this came shortly thereafter when Nero started killing Christians in the spring of 65AD.
              No it didn't.

              There is absolutely no connection between the two as you suggest.
              Yes there is. Paul connects the two whether you like it or not.

              The so called "Falling away" is much better translated "rebellion" given the context of the situation in history.
              No it isn't. The term meant a specific type of "rebellion", and not the kind you invent with Eleazar's revolt. Different Greek words. But I'm sure you will just toss that aside too since it is inconvenient to your preconceptions. Your mind is already made up, and no amount of real evidence can chip your delusion.


              How do you know -
              Because he was a devout Jew, and that would be the ULTIMATE form of blasphemy in his eyes.

              another one of your made up responses based on nothing but your errant eschatology?
              No. From decades of research on this subject.

              All of the prophesies of Daniel, Paul and Jesus can be fit together nicely when researching the history of the tribulation of Jerusalem.
              In your interpretation, but not mine. There are several things, like the man of sin and the end of the age statements that simply blow your theory out of the water.

              So why would my first step be throwing out all of the numerous fulfillments in favor of one that I think doesn't fit? If I buy a dozen eggs and one is broken I don't throw the whole dozen away. I would just dispose of the one broken one. Likewise if 11 points are in favor of a concept and only one is not I will dispose of the one and keep the other 11.
              How about just considering that maybe someone else may be just as sure as you are with a differing opinion, and that you don't have all of the answers?
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                You read wrong. The Council of Carthage in 397 finalized [the NT canon].
                For its region (link). It explicitly only covered Africa, and not transmarine regions. In Syria (IIRC), a couple of the catholic epistles were not accepted until the 7th century. In the Greek East, Revelation was not accepted as canonical until after the yearly cycle of readings had been set; as a consequence, it is not included in it, although it is considered canonical. IIRC the Armenian church did not accept Revelation until the 13th century.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  For its region (link). It explicitly only covered Africa, and not transmarine regions. In Syria (IIRC), a couple of the catholic epistles were not accepted until the 7th century. In the Greek East, Revelation was not accepted as canonical until after the yearly cycle of readings had been set; as a consequence, it is not included in it, although it is considered canonical. IIRC the Armenian church did not accept Revelation until the 13th century.
                  Either way, it wasn't Luther.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Either way, it wasn't Luther.
                    He wasn't saying that Luther chose the books; he claimed that Luther finalized the book order (which is still wrong).
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      He wasn't saying that Luther chose the books; he claimed that Luther finalized the book order (which is still wrong).
                      Oh.... says who? My comment was based on the work of The Christian History Institute. I don't fabricate answers like Futurists do. They live in a constant state of historical denial. If you do a search on the subject you will find several people who have been credited with the arrangement of the New Testament. Among them were Jerome, Irenaeus, and Augustine.


                      (Quote from Christian History Magazine)
                      “One strong point of Luther’s work that impressed Tyndale was the order given to the books of the New Testament. In previous Bibles, there had been no uniform arrangement; translators placed them in whatever order suited them.“

                      “Luther, however, ranked them by the yardstick of*was treibt Christus—how Christ was taught: the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John); the Acts of the Apostles; the Epistles, in descending order of the Savior’s prominence in each; and, finally, the Revelation of John. Tyndale followed Luther’s lead, as have virtually all Bible translators since.”
                      (close quote)

                      https://www.christianhistoryinstitut...ked-the-world/

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Either way, it wasn't Luther.
                        Right = just like there are ABSOLUTELY NO translations that use the word "Rebellion." And just what is the difference between a "rebellion and a "revolt."

                        Well you will deny historical facts all day long but the thing that Futurists CANNOT do is go through scripture word for word and line for line and give an interpretation. So since you study complete books of the Bible lets see you take chapter 2 of 2 Thessolonians and give an interpretation. No you cannot because you only "cherry pick" the Bible and cannot account for the remaining context of scripture. Lets see you do it!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Cooter View Post
                          Right = just like there are ABSOLUTELY NO translations that use the word "Rebellion."
                          I already told you when it was first finalized. It was not Luther.

                          Source: Revisioning, Renewing, Rediscovering the Triune Center: Essays in Honor of Stanley J. Grenz


                          At the Reformation, the Protestant Churches said that the Bible should contain the Hebrew Bible as approved at the Council of Jamnia and the New Testament as FINALIZED in the fourth century.
                          p. 241

                          ~Derek J. Tidball and Brian S. Harris

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Emphasis mine. So put that in your whiskey jug and chug it.

                          And just what is the difference between a "rebellion and a "revolt."
                          That is absolutely immaterial. We are not discussing English words, we are discussing the Greek word ἀποστασία. I've told you where it is used and how. It is never meant to refer to revolting against an occupying army.

                          Well you will deny historical facts all day long but the thing that Futurists CANNOT do is go through scripture word for word and line for line and give an interpretation.
                          Boy, you sure are an arrogant cuss, aren't you?

                          So since you study complete books of the Bible lets see you take chapter 2 of 2 Thessolonians and give an interpretation.
                          How about no. You've lost my interest and my time. I've better things to do than argue with someone who is so sure of himself that he won't even admit error on his mistaken interpretation of one single word from the chapter. I've given you the Bible verses, the early Church's beliefs on the subject, and how the word apostasia was used in the Greek speaking world.

                          No you cannot because you only "cherry pick" the Bible and cannot account for the remaining context of scripture. Lets see you do it!
                          ME? Cherry pick?

                          o-POT-MEET-KETTLE-570.jpg
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Cooter View Post
                            Oh.... says who? My comment was based on the work of The Christian History Institute. I don't fabricate answers like Futurists do. They live in a constant state of historical denial. If you do a search on the subject you will find several people who have been credited with the arrangement of the New Testament. Among them were Jerome, Irenaeus, and Augustine.
                            I am not a futurist - and I don't fabricate answers.
                            (Quote from Christian History Magazine)
                            “One strong point of Luther’s work that impressed Tyndale was the order given to the books of the New Testament. In previous Bibles, there had been no uniform arrangement; translators placed them in whatever order suited them.“

                            “Luther, however, ranked them by the yardstick of*was treibt Christus—how Christ was taught: the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John); the Acts of the Apostles; the Epistles, in descending order of the Savior’s prominence in each; and, finally, the Revelation of John. Tyndale followed Luther’s lead, as have virtually all Bible translators since.”
                            (close quote)

                            https://www.christianhistoryinstitut...ked-the-world/
                            That may be an accurate explanation for Luther's ranking, but Luther famously used a different order:

                            Source: Luther's Treatment of the 'Disputed Books' of the New Testament


                            [Luther] had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end.

                            link

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            Source: Fowler Bible Collection


                            Luther’s theological opinions caused him to have unfavorable attitudes toward the New Testament books of James, Hebrews, and Revelation. Regarding them to be less important books, he changed the traditional order of the New Testament and placed them at the end of the book.

                            link

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Though there were many exceptions in the manuscript tradition, the current order appears to be the typical order of the Vulgate with the exception that James comes before the Petrine epistles instead of after. And because Peter's epistles were placed first in the catholic epistles only because of the primacy of Peter, which Protestants reject, it makes sense that the Reformers would revert to the typical Greek order of the catholic epistles.

                            Try using a better source than a personnel specialist at the U. S. Department of Health & Human Resources next time.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Luther had a rather famous dislike for the Epistle of James calling it "a right strawy epistle" (sometimes erroneous translated as "an epistle of straw"). If it hadn't been universally accepted for centuries IIRC a number of scholars think that he very likely would have discounted it.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Luther had a rather famous dislike for the Epistle of James calling it "a right strawy epistle" (sometimes erroneous translated as "an epistle of straw"). If it hadn't been universally accepted for centuries IIRC a number of scholars think that he very likely would have discounted it.
                                Luther's preface to the Epistle of James:
                                Source: Luther

                                Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

                                In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

                                In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, "You shall bear witness to me." All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.

                                But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty," though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

                                Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: "Love covers a multitude of sins," and again, "Humble yourselves under the hand of God;" also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

                                In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture?

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by eschaton, 02-12-2020, 10:26 PM
                                21 responses
                                2,796 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eschaton  
                                Started by seanD, 05-29-2019, 07:07 AM
                                204 responses
                                23,369 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Working...
                                X