Did Jesus Renege On His Word? ---- Behold I Come Quickly

[Thumbelina]

Patience man, I was getting to where I expounded my previous answer. I did not say the other apostasies were not important, they were just not the main one that made Daniel sick to his stomach.

Bible prophecy is not written the way secular people would want predictions e.g. Asking someone what color dress Auntie May was wearing on October 10th 1952. This is how the biblical God uses bible prophecy to encourage believers and potential believers: John14:29 "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe."

So we're looking at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. It starts off with Paul indicating that people were being told that Jesus was coming in their lifetime and Paul was telling them to not be distressed. He let them know that even if they get a prophetic dream or vision (the bible says the devils can cause people to have these) or someone told them that Jesus was coming or if they sent a supposed letter from him; they are NOT to believe it for Jesus will not come UNTIL the man of sin/son of perdition/Antichrist is revealed.

 

Antichrist was already trying to manifest itself in Paul's day. (see Acts 20:29-31; John 1-3). In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 it states that Antichrist will be an apostate, the Greek word for falling away is apostasia. It also states that Antichrist will be a man of sin and a son of perdition. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4), therefore the man of sin will be teaching people to transgress God's law (Daniel 7:25).

 

Q.What is meant by the son of perdition?

 

A. The same expression is used in John 17:12. Perdition means destruction or annihilation. Judas was the son of perdition. He was a subtle impostor who was undermining Christ's ministry while professing to serve Him. Therefore the Antichrist power/man of sin will be like Judas, covetous, conniving, politically ambitious, an insider and a turncoat (see John 6:70-71; John 13:2; John 13:27) .

Antichrist does not always mean against, it can also mean in place of.

 

Dave Hunt in his book Global Peace on pages 7,8 wrote: "While the Greek prefix anti generally means against or opposed to, it can also mean in place of or a substitute for. The Antichrist will embody both meanings. He will oppose Christ while pretending to be Christ. Instead of a frontal assault against Christianity, the evil one would pervert the church from within by posing as its founder. He will cunningly misrepresent Christ while pretending to be Christ. If the Antichrist will indeed pretend to be Christ then his followers must be Christian."

 

What Dave Hunt wrote about was fulfilled during the middle ages.

Antichrist was just like Judas. Judas was slick! He even had the other disciples fooled and even after Jesus told them who the traitor was they still did not get it (see Matthew 26:25; John 13:26-29). Judas had them fooled till the end.

 

 

2 Thessalonians was expounding 1 Thessalonians because the people misunderstood what Paul was teaching them (see 2 Thessalonians 2:5). Paul had to use ambiguous language because he knew about the prophetic timeline in Daniel and if he had said that Rome would be taken out of the way he would have been charged with sedition and he would have caused unnecessary persecution on Christians. He knew that after Rome there would be divided Rome. In 2 Thessalonians 2:6 Paul was telling them that Rome was restraining Antichrist from manifesting itself but it will be revealed in its own TIME. Daniel 7:23-24; Revelation 13:2 shows the sequence in which the powers were to rule. If one power is ruling then another power cannot take its place; one had to be taken out of the way.

Alrighty then...

 

Is this really so hard? I can't imagine Paul whipping out the Gospel of John, or any gospel or other texts presumably written after his own, at any point if he were to attempt to answer this question.

 

 

Paul had the OT and so did the other apostles; that was their bible in those days. John's and Paul's writings are in harmony with OT scripture and with each other.

 

We'll even forget this is a massive apologetic where Paul is actually having to downplay the idea that their lord may actually have returned and no one noticed

 

That's not what the texts say and that's not what I said.

 

 

 

but is instead pointing out this other "big events" that will allow people to know when the "big day" is going to happen so they don't miss it.

 

 

The bible says no one knows the day or the hour of the second coming. The bible teaches that people are to look for signs.

 

 

The text said that there will be *THE* apostasy *FIRST* (protos - temporally before something else so first or earlier in that this comes first before that) and then the man of lawlessness (the son of destruction) will be revealed (apokalyptos - so a vision is sufficient to satisfy this).

 

Now how do we tell *A*[n] apostasy from *THE* apostasy?

 

mwc

 

Ah, you looked up the Greek . Yes the son of destruction that was concelaed and would have eventually been revealed (antonym of concealed). The bible gives certain identification marks that will let its followers or potential followers identify what THE Antichrist is.

 

To recap,the book of Daniel gave a timeline that will extend to the end of the world. Daniel 2:31-45 states the historical events that will affect God's church and consequently the second coming putting an end to all earthly kingdoms. It states that the kingdoms will be Babylon (head of gold) , Medo-Persia (breast and arms of silver), Greece (belly and thighs of bronze), Rome (legs of iron) , divided Rome (feet of iron and clay that will NOT mix together; i.e. they will not be united) and eventually God will set up His kingdom (stone without hands). N.B. In bible prophecy a beast is a metaphor for kingdom (e.g. Daniel 7:23)

Daniel 7 gives the same chronology as Chapter 2 and Daniel 7:1-8 gave more details. Part of chapter 8 also expounds the texts. Daniel 8:19 states that after the major world empires have been displaced we will be entering the time of the end. It was not saying will be the end but the process will have begun.

 

 

The Lion represents Babylon. The wings on the lion indicates conquering speed. King Nebuchadnezzar conquered Babylon and became its king.

 

The Bear represents Medo-Persia. The bear is described as having one shoulder raised above the other and this represented the dominance the Medes had over the Persians. The three ribs in the bears mouth represent the three kingdoms overthrown by Medo-Persia- Egypt, Lydia and Babylon.

 

The Leopard represents Greece. Four wings symbolize great conquering speed. The four heads represent Alexander the Great’s four generals who ruled Greece after his death – Seleucus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Cassander.

 

The different beast with ten horns and huge iron teeth represents Rome. The ten horns of the different beast represents the divisions of Rome (this is the same as the toes of Chapter 2 of Daniel) The ten horns are the 10 divisions of the Roman Empire as Rome was being taken out of the way. These were the Anglo Saxons (England), Alemanni (Germany), Heruli (493AD), Vandals (534AD), Ostrogoths (538AD), Visigoths (Spain), Suevi (Portugal), Lombard’s (Italy), Burgundians (Swiss) and the Franks (France). N.B. Three of the ten divisions were rooted up just as the bible predicted ( see Daniel 7:8), they were the Heruli,Vandals and Ostrogoths.

So Rome did eventually fall and divide just as prophecy predicted.

 

 

 

Antichrist was supposed to be manifested after Rome fell :

 

 

"The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire." Tertullian, 'Apology' Chapter 32; Ante Nicene Fathers vol iii, p. 43

 

 

"After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear."

Ambrose, quoted in Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertation on the Prophecies p.463

 

It did indeed surface after Rome was dissolved. This was the belief among many scholars and believers who studied the time prophecies. A more recent and popular belief is that Antichrist is one person but the bible indicates that Antichrist is a system.

 

Let's look at the identification points given by Daniel in order to detect THE Antichrist.

Before I do that I need to provide a key for the prophetic symbols.

 

Beasts = kingdoms (political powers) ( Daniel 7:7;23)

Sea = peoples/nations/ multitudes/tongues (Revelation 17:1,15)

Horns = subdivisions of political powers (Daniel 7:24;8:21-22)

Wings = Speed or Swiftness / Protection / Deliverance Deuteronomy 28:49; Matthew 23:37

Heads = Major powers/rulers/governments Revelation 17:3, 9, 10

time = 360 days Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32; 7:25; Daniel 11:13 margin

times = 2 prophetic years or 720 days

dividing of time = 1/2 prophetic year or 180 days

Day = Literal year Ezekiel 4:6; Numbers 14:34

 

 

Daniel 7:7-8

After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.⁸ I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.

 

Daniel 7:21

“I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,

Daniel 7:24-25

The ten horns are ten kings

Who shall arise from this kingdom.

And another shall rise after them;

He shall be different from the first ones,

And shall subdue three kings.

²⁵ He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,

Shall persecute ^[a] the saints of the Most High,

And shall intend to change times and law.

Then the saints shall be given into his hand

For a time and times and half a time.

 

Footnotes:

1. Daniel 7:25 Literally wear out
   

 

OK, so lets go point by point to identify that Antichrist and THE apostasy. N.B. Many portions of the bible are written in chiastic structure, therefore there is repetition and enlargement in some parts.

1) The Antichrist power was to be unique, it was to be different from any of the previous kingdoms that affected God's people.

 

2) It was to come up among the ten divisions of Western Europe.

 

3) It was to pluck up or subdue three kingdoms from the ten.

 

4) It was to have a man heading it who speaks for it.

 

5) It was to blaspheme God (see Luke 5:21 John 10:33 ; Matthew 23:9; Revelation 19:10)

 

6) It was supposed to attempt to change times and laws.

 

7) It was to persecute/wear out God's people.

 

8) God's people were to be persecuted for a time and times and half a time or 360+ 720+ 180= 1260 years

 

Now, looking at the timeline from Daniel 2,7 and looking back at history, the power that fits that criteria is supposed to be THE Antichrist. One needs to look at when Rome fell and at what power officially reigned for over one thousand years and one will know what the Antichrist SYSTEM is. Hey mwc? If you do the calculations correctly, the time of the end mentioned in Daniel reaches to the eighteenth century (naturally we went beyond but the really dark period lasted to the 1700s), though Paul and the others did not realize that it would have been that long. The vision was sealed up until our time; until recent history. The bible says that people in the last stretch of history will understand Daniel's prophecy, knowledge of said prophecies will increase. Modern people would understand more than the apostles because it would directly affect them.

 

N.B. The bible points out and corrects false teachings, it criticizes SYSTEMS. However it encourages individuals to seek God and it does not condemn sincere and repentant people who follow false systems out of ignorance.

[centauri]

John's and Paul's writings are in harmony with OT scripture and with each other.

No, they are not.

 

But you can demonstrate this so-called "harmony" by doing the following:

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says an expected king messiah would make parts of the law irrelevant and no longer binding, as Paul claimed.

To make things easier for us ignorant skeptics, place the chapter and verses(s) below, right on the blank line, so there can be no confusion:

 

_______________________________________

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says the new covenant would eliminate parts of the law and be based on faith in a human sacrifice that dies for your sins.

Place it below on the blank line, so there can be no confusion:

 

_______________________________________

 

Cite the section of the law that says a human being is a valid sin sacrifice.

Place it below on the blank line, so there can be no confusion:

 

________________________________________

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says introducing a new ritual that involves the drinking of blood would be part of the new covenant.

Place it below on the blank line, so there can be no confusion:

 

________________________________________

[par4dcourse]

snipped. you're welcome.

Or not.

My version doesn't need interpretation.

[mwc]

Paul had the OT and so did the other apostles; that was their bible in those days. John's and Paul's writings are in harmony with OT scripture and with each other.

Nice try. But Matthew, John, Acts and Revelation are simply not to be cited by Paul. Harmony is irrelevant.

 

Paul is writing to the Thessalonians to give them some much needed information. He cannot give them information, harmonious or not, from sources that simply do not exist. He gives them what we see in his letter. That is all he provides. He does not tell them to refer to the old writings. He gives a complete answer. We are using this information, as they would, to arrive at our answer.

 

How do we tell *A*[n] apostasy from *THE* apostasy?

 

We'll even forget this is a massive apologetic where Paul is actually having to downplay the idea that their lord may actually have returned and no one noticed

 

That's not what the texts say and that's not what I said.

This is what he is addressing. I never said anything about you. I don't care what your opinion is on this.

 

but is instead pointing out this other "big events" that will allow people to know when the "big day" is going to happen so they don't miss it.

 

The bible says no one knows the day or the hour of the second coming. The bible teaches that people are to look for signs.

Indeed it does. You can't know the date of what isn't ever happening.

 

Ah, you looked up the Greek . Yes the son of destruction that was concelaed and would have eventually been revealed (antonym of concealed). The bible gives certain identification marks that will let its followers or potential followers identify what THE Antichrist is.

 

[snipped irrelevant stuff from Daniel]

 

So Rome did eventually fall and divide just as prophecy predicted.

 

Antichrist was supposed to be manifested after Rome fell :

 

"The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire." Tertullian, 'Apology' Chapter 32; Ante Nicene Fathers vol iii, p. 43

 

"After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear."

Ambrose, quoted in Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertation on the Prophecies p.463

I did look up the Greek. Not just the Strong's like you do either. No where is the "antichrist" mentioned here by Paul. You conflate things for your own purposes.

 

There is the "man of sin (the son of destruction)" and he is not here because there has not been *THE* apostasy. It would be good to know how to recognize this apostasy so I can know when is going to be revealed. I don't want to be taken by surprise.

 

You've abused the statement by Tertullian. Just continue to the next line: "We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome’s duration."

 

He believed the the world existed for himself and fellow believers. He believed that they were postponing the end via their prayers as is clearly seen in the above line I just quoted. He wasn't making the slightest attempt to put it off for centuries.

 

I don't care what Thomas Newton has to say. Tertullian wasn't really relevant either but at least he was close to the time period in question.

 

 

It did indeed surface after Rome was dissolved. This was the belief among many scholars and believers who studied the time prophecies. A more recent and popular belief is that Antichrist is one person but the bible indicates that Antichrist is a system.

 

Let's look at the identification points given by Daniel in order to detect THE Antichrist.

Before I do that I need to provide a key for the prophetic symbols.

 

[snip more useless stuff]

 

Now, looking at the timeline from Daniel 2,7 and looking back at history, the power that fits that criteria is supposed to be THE Antichrist. One needs to look at when Rome fell and at what power officially reigned for over one thousand years and one will know what the Antichrist SYSTEM is. Hey mwc? If you do the calculations correctly, the time of the end mentioned in Daniel reaches to the eighteenth century (naturally we went beyond but the really dark period lasted to the 1700s), though Paul and the others did not realize that it would have been that long. The vision was sealed up until our time; until recent history. The bible says that people in the last stretch of history will understand Daniel's prophecy, knowledge of said prophecies will increase. Modern people would understand more than the apostles because it would directly affect them.

 

N.B. The bible points out and corrects false teachings, it criticizes SYSTEMS. However it encourages individuals to seek God and it does not condemn sincere and repentant people who follow false systems out of ignorance.

So after Rome fell people studied the prophecies and made them fit events that already happened but could not use them to predict future events? So they had to keep revising and revising as things happened to fit the prophecies to the events? That is rhetorical. Do not speak to any of this as it matters not at all.

 

Here's what does matter...

 

Paul heard from the Thessalonians. They heard that the day of the lord has come. Translated to more modern terms this would mean "Jesus has returned. Oh lordy lordy!"

 

But this is silly since we know such a huge, mega, event would be inescapable. So Paul says...

 

Don't be stupid. Before this can happen *THE* apostasy must happen. *THEN* the man of lawlessness (the son of destruction) will appear and go sit in the temple (the one that actually, really exists). So just watch for these things. *THE* apostasy *MUST* occur before anything else though. *THE* apostasy before all else. *THE* apostasy. Let me be clear on this. It is first. *THEN* the man of lawlessness. Then the day of the lord (whatever that means).

 

So there we have it. He doesn't spend lots of time or energy going into details but the order is clear. Apostasy -> Man -> Lord. We need to, as Thessalonians, watch for this apostasy. It's the first step. The man cannot be revealed until it happens. What were they looking for? What are we looking for?

 

How do we tell *A*[n] apostasy from *THE* apostasy?

 

mwc

[Akheia]

Watching Thumbelina wiggle around the interpretations she is reminds me of people trying to figure out what Nostradamus wrote. The simplest explanations really are the best ones: that all these things she's wiggling through are just wrong, the product of many years of revision and collation by people who were repeatedly upset by their prophecies not turning out as planned.

 

Look, that whole thing took me three lines.

[Thumbelina]

Paul had the OT and so did the other apostles; that was their bible in those days. John's and Paul's writings are in harmony with OT scripture and with each other.

Nice try. But Matthew, John, Acts and Revelation are simply not to be cited by Paul. Harmony is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

I disagree, it fits in with the topic of this thread and all of them quote the OT but I see you wanted to concentrate on Paul's writings.

 

 

 

 

Paul is writing to the Thessalonians to give them some much needed information. He cannot give them information, harmonious or not, from sources that simply do not exist. He gives them what we see in his letter. That is all he provides. He does not tell them to refer to the old writings. He gives a complete answer. We are using this information, as they would, to arrive at our answer.

 

How do we tell *A*[n] apostasy from *THE* apostasy?

 

 

You ASSUME that Paul does not refer to other writings but the OT was their bible ( the NT quotes the OT extensively) and Paul was quoting Daniel. Where do you think Paul's knowledge of the scripture came from, out of thin air? To get the answer to that question one needs to spend the time reading and studying and submitting to God. I apologize, I should have mentioned that virtually all theologians agree that the man of sin, the little horn and the beast power are the same power and therefore the Antichrist. You want to quibble about Paul and yet Paul does NOT use the word Antichrist, John did. I did answer your question but you dismissed it but more about that later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mwc said: We'll even forget this is a massive apologetic where Paul is actually having to downplay the idea that their lord may actually have returned and no one noticed

 

That's not what the texts say and that's not what I said.

 

mwc said: This is what he is addressing. I never said anything about you. I don't care what your opinion is on this.

 

 

You are still using your own private atheistic interpretation and misquoting Paul. I am not giving opinion, I am giving scriptural answers, you are the one giving your opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

mwc said: but is instead pointing out this other "big events" that will allow people to know when the "big day" is going to happen so they don't miss it.

 

The bible says no one knows the day or the hour of the second coming. The bible teaches that people are to look for signs.

 

 

mwc said: Indeed it does. You can't know the date of what isn't ever happening.

Can you provide texts that show that disingenuous scoffers will understand the bible and its prophecies?

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, you looked up the Greek . Yes the son of destruction that was concealed and would have eventually been revealed (antonym of concealed). The bible gives certain identification marks that will let its followers or potential followers identify what THE Antichrist is.

 

[snipped irrelevant stuff from Daniel]

 

So Rome did eventually fall and divide just as prophecy predicted.

 

Antichrist was supposed to be manifested after Rome fell :

 

"The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire." Tertullian, 'Apology' Chapter 32; Ante Nicene Fathers vol iii, p. 43

 

"After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear."

Ambrose, quoted in Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertation on the Prophecies p.463

 

 

 

 

mwc said: I did look up the Greek. Not just the Strong's like you do either. No where is the "antichrist" mentioned here by Paul. You conflate things for your own purposes.

 

 

 

Back to me providing the answer and you dismissing it because you are reading the texts superficially. Though I still acknowledge that I did not mention that the man of sin, little horn power, the beast, son of perdition (that Paul did mention) and Antichrist are all the same.

 

 

mwc said: There is the "man of sin (the son of destruction)" and he is not here because there has not been *THE* apostasy. It would be good to know how to recognize this apostasy so I can know when is going to be revealed. I don't want to be taken by surprise.

 

 

Oy vey mwc *chuckle* ; you don't want to be taken by surprise and yet you said this: " You can't know the date of what isn't ever happening." The mystery of iniquity refers to the spirit of the man of sin/Antichrist. E.g. We still say today that such and such a person has a rebellious spirit; it's an attitude. The church encountered opposition from the get-go but as I said in a previous post, THE apostasy would be HUGE. It will have a major impact on God's church, it would last for a long time and that system would have had major clout unlike any other apostate system that the church had to face.

 

 

 

 

mwc said: You've abused the statement by Tertullian. Just continue to the next line:

 

We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome’s duration."

 

He believed the the world existed for himself and fellow believers. He believed that they were postponing the end via their prayers as is clearly seen in the above line I just quoted. He wasn't making the slightest attempt to put it off for centuries.

 

 

 

I haven't abused anything, you just don't understand what's going on. The existence of the Roman empire was preventing the church from being persecuted to a greater extent. There were actually times where the Romans left the "crazy" Christians to worship their God. The man of sin would do no such thing. Christians had a dilemma; they had to choose the lesser of the two evils -- crazy pagans or utterly crazy apostates. They chose to pray for the lesser evil which was the Romans. They hoped that their relative peace will continue. It's the same today, some Christians are really nonpartisan but they hope that more secular governments will govern because they generally permit a separation of church and state therefore they will still be able to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. Whereas a party that does not believe in separation of church and state will want to legislate religion and persecute people who just want to worship God according to their conscience.

 

 

mwc said: I don't care what Thomas Newton has to say. Tertullian wasn't really relevant either but at least he was close to the time period in question.

 

 

 

In other words 'I don't want anything that will make me look away from an atheistic worldview.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It did indeed surface after Rome was dissolved. This was the belief among many scholars and believers who studied the time prophecies. A more recent and popular belief is that Antichrist is one person but the bible indicates that Antichrist is a system.

 

Let's look at the identification points given by Daniel in order to detect THE Antichrist.

Before I do that I need to provide a key for the prophetic symbols.

 

[snip more useless stuff]

 

Now, looking at the timeline from Daniel 2,7 and looking back at history, the power that fits that criteria is supposed to be THE Antichrist. One needs to look at when Rome fell and at what power officially reigned for over one thousand years and one will know what the Antichrist SYSTEM is. Hey mwc? If you do the calculations correctly, the time of the end mentioned in Daniel reaches to the eighteenth century (naturally we went beyond but the really dark period lasted to the 1700s), though Paul and the others did not realize that it would have been that long. The vision was sealed up until our time; until recent history. The bible says that people in the last stretch of history will understand Daniel's prophecy, knowledge of said prophecies will increase. Modern people would understand more than the apostles because it would directly affect them.

 

N.B. The bible points out and corrects false teachings, it criticizes SYSTEMS. However it encourages individuals to seek God and it does not condemn sincere and repentant people who follow false systems out of ignorance.

 

 

mwc said: So after Rome fell people studied the prophecies and made them fit events that already happened but could not use them to predict future events? So they had to keep revising and revising as things happened to fit the prophecies to the events? That is rhetorical. Do not speak to any of this as it matters not at all.

 

 

You snipped out the relevant stuff you know. We can't really discuss this unless you are willing to look at the OT prophecies which Paul was using in order to state his case. If you are not doing the favorite disingenuous atheistic pastime of grabbing any propaganda just to discredit the bible then I would ask you what year do Christians believe the book of Daniel was written? Christians, who follow the bible, believe it was written way before some of the events it describes occurred.

 

 

 

 

 

mwc said Here's what does matter...

 

Paul heard from the Thessalonians. They heard that the day of the lord has come. Translated to more modern terms this would mean "Jesus has returned. Oh lordy lordy!

 

Why don't you give the texts? Why don't you learn to cross reference so you may let the bible interpret itself? You stated it incorrectly and I did mention in a previous post that the people thought Paul was teaching that Jesus will come in their lifetime. Paul thought 'these people are slow' and he had to expound on what he already told them. He let them know that for Jesus to return the Romans had to be taken out of the way and the man of sin will have to be revealed first.

 

 

 

Oh wait, I just read ahead and you did realize that Paul was telling the Thessalonians that they're slow.

 

 

 

mwc said: mega, event would be inescapable. So Paul says...

 

Don't be stupid. Before this can happen *THE* apostasy must happen. *THEN* the man of lawlessness (the son of destruction) will appear and go sit in the temple (the one that actually, really exists). So just watch for these things. *THE* apostasy *MUST* occur before anything else though. *THE* apostasy before all else. *THE* apostasy. Let me be clear on this. It is first. *THEN* the man of lawlessness. Then the day of the lord (whatever that means).

 

So there we have it. He doesn't spend lots of time or energy going into details but the order is clear. Apostasy -> Man -> Lord. We need to, as Thessalonians, watch for this apostasy. It's the first step. The man cannot be revealed until it happens. What were they looking for? What are we looking for?

 

How do we tell *A*[n] apostasy from *THE* apostasy?

 

mwc

 

 

Hey, you are being quite wishy washy and yet you're asking questions *shakes head* I'm referring to you saying this: "Then the day of the lord (whatever that means)."

It is quite relevant for the day of the Lord is the second coming. That IS what the Thessalonians were concentrating on! You know if you stop being a wishy washy superficial reader you can actually understand what Paul is talking about.

 

Here's some HW if you're up to it, what system OFFICIALLY replaced Rome and had a major impact on Christians, like persecuting them for a long time? Try reading over my identifying points that you snipped to help you if you wish.

If you do your HW you will identify the man of sin/Antichrist.Btw it's not a person, it's a system.

[bdp]

virtually all theologians agree

 

Who needs theologians?

[hereticzero]

god is such an inept keeper of time and so lacking in communication skills he couldn't come up with a date?

[hereticzero]

Can Thumby prove snakes talk? Didn't think so. If you can't prove one part of the babble is true and without error, the rest of your arguement is moot.

[florduh]

Can Thumby prove snakes talk? Didn't think so. If you can't prove one part of the babble is true and without error, the rest of your arguement is moot.

She's been here preaching on and on just to give atheists an idea of what eternity must be like. That's why I am trying to get her to post some of her nude mud wrestling pics. Some still enjoy knocking around doctrines and theology, and she provides an endless cavern of canned responses. I think we should each enjoy her as we see fit.

[Ouroboros]

virtually all theologians agree

 

Who needs theologians?

Right? I though the Holy Book interpreted itself with the help of the Holy Spirit and no theologians are necessary.

 

Seems like it's a good tactic to invoke "theologians" opinions whenever the Holy Book doesn't agree with religious views. It's more of a holey (full of holes) book.

[mwc]

Here's some HW if you're up to it, what system OFFICIALLY replaced Rome and had a major impact on Christians, like persecuting them for a long time? Try reading over my identifying points that you snipped to help you if you wish.

If you do your HW you will identify the man of sin/Antichrist.Btw it's not a person, it's a system.

Are you or are you not able to answer how we tell *A*[n] apostasy from *THE* apostasy?

 

If you are then answer the question as concisely as possible.

 

mwc

[Thumbelina]

Here's some HW if you're up to it, what system OFFICIALLY replaced Rome and had a major impact on Christians, like persecuting them for a long time? Try reading over my identifying points that you snipped to help you if you wish.

If you do your HW you will identify the man of sin/Antichrist.Btw it's not a person, it's a system.

Are you or are you not able to answer how we tell *A*[n] apostasy from *THE* apostasy?

 

If you are then answer the question as concisely as possible.

 

mwc

 

It was the Roman-Church State. They did all the things that Daniel said would happen. They were the son of perdition.

 

I need to stress that it's the system and damnable doctrines that should be addressed. The bible states God will judge/condemn individuals.

[Akheia]

I don't see the need for him to do it. His putative followers are doing plenty fine judging people all by themselves.

 

So, stoned anybody lately?

[mwc]

It was the Roman-Church State. They did all the things that Daniel said would happen. They were the son of perdition.

 

I need to stress that it's the system and damnable doctrines that should be addressed. The bible states God will judge/condemn individuals.

Nice. Something resembling an answer. And the not unexpected answer to boot.

 

Now, without using hindsight, how do we tell this particular apostasy from any other apostasy?

 

mwc