Paralambanetai

[Truth7t7]

You have already asked me these questions just a few short weeks ago, and I already answered them. The answer was Yes to both.

My apology again, I have 7×70=490-1=489 more times to be forgiven

 

[Hidden In Him]

My apology again, I have 7×70=490-1=489 more times to be forgiven

Ha Ha! Ok, LoL : )

 

[stunnedbygrace]

And how so?

Lol. Okay.
I agree that the passage is Paul trying to alleviate their fear that they’d been left behind and the tribulation had already begun. If they knew there was a coming tribulation (which they did) and believed it had begun, they wouldn’t be so alarmed and shaken, in my opinion. They were already facing and dealing with persecution so what was the alarm, the “so easily shaken?”

Secondly, as I said, Ice makes a good argument - how could they gauge whether an event called the falling away or departure from the faith had happened or not? They couldn’t. It’s too nonspecific. Paul is giving them something specific, a specific event, that must happen first, THE departure. (and the argument of using the article is a convincing one.)

The debate is not whether the word “departure” is a valid translation. It is a very valid translation. It’s one of the given meanings of the word. The debate is: departure from what? Some men say departure from faith in God. Others say departure from earth in the gathering. And Ronald is correct - what Paul was addressing was fear that the tribulation had begun and they had not been gathered. Why would that shake them so much?

He begins with, I beg you, listen, concerning Jesus coming and gathering us…
That’s the real thrust of what he’s talking about.

 

[Truth7t7]

Lol. Okay.
I agree that the passage is Paul trying to alleviate their fear that they’d been left behind and the tribulation had already begun. If they knew there was a coming tribulation (which they did) and believed it had begun, they wouldn’t be so alarmed and shaken, in my opinion. They were already facing and dealing with persecution so what was the alarm, the “so easily shaken?”

Secondly, as I said, Ice makes a good argument - how could they gauge whether an event called the falling away or departure from the faith had happened or not? They couldn’t. It’s too nonspecific. Paul is giving them something specific, a specific event, that must happen first, THE departure. (and the argument of using the article is a convincing one.)

The debate is not whether the word “departure” is a valid translation. It is a very valid translation. It’s one of the given meanings of the word. The debate is: departure from what? Some men say departure from faith in God. Others say departure from earth in the gathering. And Ronald is correct - what Paul was addressing was fear that the tribulation had begun. Why would that shake them so much?

What is your belief, departure from the faith or earth?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I am NOT a Preterist, Lol. How many times have I told you this?

Lol, even I saw that!

 

[ScottA]

We disagree, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 speaks of a singular man (Man Of Sin) "He" "Himself" Singular, and this is a future event unfulfilled, when he will be revealed in Jerusalem

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4KJV
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

No, you are getting caught up in the unfolding of all who are in Christ-- which are "One" in Christ. Therefore, the passage refers to both the individuals involved as the sand on the sea shore, but ultimately to the One. The words are spirit.

To the contrary: Satan is not a man.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

What is your belief, departure from the faith or earth?

Earth.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Lol. Okay.
I agree that the passage is Paul trying to alleviate their fear that they’d been left behind and the tribulation had already begun. If they knew there was a coming tribulation (which they did) and believed it had begun, they wouldn’t be so alarmed and shaken, in my opinion. They were already facing and dealing with persecution so what was the alarm, the “so easily shaken?”

Secondly, as I said, Ice makes a good argument - how could they gauge whether an event called the falling away or departure from the faith had happened or not? They couldn’t. It’s too nonspecific. Paul is giving them something specific, a specific event, that must happen first, THE departure. (and the argument of using the article is a convincing one.)

The debate is not whether the word “departure” is a valid translation. It is a very valid translation. It’s one of the given meanings of the word. The debate is: departure from what? Some men say departure from faith in God. Others say departure from earth in the gathering. And Ronald is correct - what Paul was addressing was fear that the tribulation had begun and they had not been gathered. Why would that shake them so much?

He begins with, I beg you, listen, concerning Jesus coming and gathering us…
That’s the real thrust of what he’s talking about.

Although I still see problems. But I’ll just keep working on it.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I agree that the passage is Paul trying to alleviate their fear that they’d been left behind and the tribulation had already begun. If they knew there was a coming tribulation (which they did) and believed it had begun, they wouldn’t be so alarmed and shaken, in my opinion. They were already facing and dealing with persecution so what was the alarm, the “so easily shaken?”

Well of course! : ) So do I. That wasn't something I disagreed with him on : )

Secondly, as I said, Ice makes a good argument - how could they gauge whether an event called the falling away or departure from the faith had happened or not? They couldn’t. It’s too nonspecific. Paul is giving them something specific, a specific event, that must happen first, THE departure. (and the argument of using the article is a convincing one.)

I'm telling you, the definite article is essential to my argument as well. That's why I said it's no refutation of what I am saying. The thing we disagree on is that the Greek word should even be translated "departure," since there is no evidence in Classical usage for that translation/ meaning. As I and Mark and Ewq1938 have all pointed out, the word was used of political and religious revolts and rebellions against established authority.

In other words, we agree that the definite article is important, but not on how the word should be translated.

The debate is not whether the word “departure” is a valid translation. It is a very valid translation. It’s one of the given meanings of the word.

Ok, then here is where we disagree. See, I was asking Ronald to give me examples of this transition in usage, and he didn't really give me any. He cited use of the definite article, and then tried to argue from early English translations that this was the "original" meaning/ translation. That's not what Mark and I were after. He would need to provide evidence that this is how the GREEK word was originally used.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Although I still see problems. But I’ll just keep working on it.

Debates on eschatology are fraught with peril, LoL.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, you are getting caught up in the unfolding of all who are in Christ-- which are "One" in Christ. Therefore, the passage refers to both the individuals involved as the sand on the sea shore, but ultimately to the One. The words are spirit.

To the contrary: Satan is not a man.

At no time did I state "Satan Was A Man" as you claim, however the (Man Of Sin) will be a future human man as scripture clearly teaches

It might be your opinion that the "He" "Himself" is Satan, but I strongly disagree

The scripture is very simple and easy to understand

We disagree, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 speaks of a singular man (Man Of Sin) "He" "Himself" Singular, and this is a future event unfulfilled, when he will be revealed in Jerusalem

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4KJV
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

 

[Truth7t7]

Earth.

Thanks for the response, it appears you follow the dispensationalist views in eschatology, pre-trib rapture, millennial kingdom on earth?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I'm telling you, the definite article is essential to my argument as well. That's why I said it's no refutation of what I am saying. The thing we disagree on is that the Greek word should even be translated "departure," since there is no evidence in Classical usage for that translation/ meaning. As I and Mark and Ewq1938 have all pointed out, the word was used of political and religious revolts and rebellions against established authority.

Nah. It would be perfectly valid to say: he tries to convince people to depart from Moses, separate from Moses, leave Moses. I think depart is valid no matter WHICH way you see it.

 

[Truth7t7]

Nah. It would be perfectly valid to say: he tries to convince people to depart from Moses, separate from Moses, leave Moses. I think depart is valid no matter WHICH way you see it.

Just as Apostasia is depart, separate, leave, from a faith or belief once held, used only 2 times in the NT, with exactly the same meaning

 

[marks]

The thing we disagree on is that the Greek word should even be translated "departure," since there is no evidence in Classical usage for that translation/ meaning.

My understanding is that in Classic Greek 400 BC or so, that departure was the meaning, and it began to be used for rebellion.

Aristophanes' play, "The Birds", has a couple of humans planning to leave the surface of the earth to fly up to the bird city in the sky, planning their apostasia, their departure.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Just as Apostasia is depart, separate, leave, from a faith or belief once held, used only 2 times in the NT, with exactly the same meaning

It's used 2 times, this time, and in Acts 21, as they accused Paul of teaching departure from Moses. Paul wasn't saying anything against Moses, only that the Law didn't need to be kept by the gentiles. Not rebellion against, but departure from.

The more we talk about this, the simpler this seems to me.

Much love!

 

[Truth7t7]

My understanding is that in Classic Greek 400 BC or so, that departure was the meaning, and it began to be used for rebellion.

Aristophanes' play, "The Birds", has a couple of humans planning to leave the surface of the earth to fly up to the bird city in the sky, planning their apostasia, their departure.

Much love!

Aristophanes now becomes scripture, and the Strongs concordance for definition, Big Smiles!

Your claim is just that "Comedy" just like Aristophanes occupation was

Wikipedia: Aristophanes (/ˌærɪˈstɒfəniːz/;[2] Ancient Greek: Ἀριστοφάνης, pronounced [aristopʰánɛːs]; c. 446 – c. 386 BC), son of Philippus, of the deme Kydathenaion (Latin: Cydathenaeum),[3] was a comic playwright or comedy-writer of ancient Athens and a poet of Old Attic Comedy.[4

 

[marks]

Nah. It would be perfectly valid to say: he tries to convince people to depart from Moses, separate from Moses, leave Moses. I think depart is valid no matter WHICH way you see it.

Me too.

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Thanks for the response, it appears you follow the dispensationalist views in eschatology, pre-trib rapture, millennial kingdom on earth?

Im not sure. I’m not at all well read on dispensationalism. I do believe there will be a time of a greatly improved (though not perfect) thousand years on earth. It says there will be no war during that time but there will still be some arguments, which Jesus will settle. And some men will still die it says, and a man who dies at 100 will be considered a youth, but others will outlast the work of their hands. (I always think houses there, that men will live longer than the houses they build will last.) So, greatly improved, but not yet perfect.

I do also believe a time of terrible testing is coming on the whole world to test all its people and that we are to pray we be accounted worthy to escape that time of testing and stand before Jesus.

 

[Truth7t7]

It's used 2 times, this time, and in Acts 21, as they accused Paul of teaching departure from Moses. Paul wasn't saying anything against Moses, only that the Law didn't need to be kept by the gentiles. Not rebellion against, but departure from.

The more we talk about this, the simpler this seems to me.

Much love!

Yes "Departure" from following the teachings of Moses, and "Departure" from faith or belief once held, as simple as it gets, no rapture of the Church to heaven seen or needed