The Coming Great Apostasy

[Earburner]

Davy wrote:
All you did was prove something equivalent to ink on a page in The Bible. You didn't stay with the actual context and subject of the 2 Thess.2 chapter, and that's the cardinal sin you made.
> What?? The context of all of 2 Thes. chapter 2,
IS IN THE PLURAL. Read all of it!
.
So where's the "cardinal sin" ??
All of it can be read and understood in the plural, when the inserted word "that", is replaced with the correct Greek word "the".

 

[Earburner]

The "temple of God" Apostle Paul said the "man of sin" will come to sit in and play God, is NOT the spiritual temple idea of Ephesians.

If it was, then it would mean that "man of sin" would have power to corrupt even our Lord Jesus Christ!!! And that since Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone of the spiritual temple!

You simply are drunken on a false doctrine dreamed up by men and not from The Word of God.

You don't understand too deeply.
Every person who hath not the Holy Spirit of God, IS NONE OF HIS. Rom. 8:9
So then, if the Spirit of God isn't dwelling within a person, then who is?
Ans. "The natural man" 1 Cor. 2:14

 

[Earburner]

Oh, and BTW, should we read that in the singular, or the plural??
I already KNOW!

 

[Earburner]

"The natural man" IS "that man of sin, the son of perdtion" .

 

[Earburner]

Now back to 2 Thes. 2:3
There are still more problems with the word "that" and "the" .
In the KJV, verse 3 we read: "that" man of sin...
But in the TR Greek, the word "the" is used!
Thus saying: "the" man of sin...
.
Now to prove out the error of the translators, why doesn't the KJV stay with the flow of the Greek text in the plural, as so:
TR Greek: [the] man of sin, [the] son of perdition?
But no, they complicated it by writing it as so:
KJV: [That] man of sin, [the] son of perdition?
.
Although this all appears to be nonessential and without consequence, by the misuse of the words of "that" and "the" in the KJV, as opposed to how IT IS written in the TR Greek, it smacks of the translators pushing a personal agenda, in the times of 1611.
.
And when was the Protestant Reformation?
Ans. 1517-1648
Hmmm,...very interesting, that 1611 falls right in the midst of that time period of Luther and all leaving the RCC.
I wonder, do you think that they might've been focused a little too much, on their desire to find an antichrist at that time?
It's absolutely certain, that they translated it to be so, when THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE, and most importantly, they didn't have to!

Yes! They wrote 2 Thes. 2 with a hidden agenda, which was- the Pope is "THE" Antichrist, but neglect to say that there are MANY.

 

[Earburner]

Can you pronounce the word S-H-A-M?
OK, now back to reality!
I hope that you all have read 1 Maccabees, in conjunction with the angel's interpretations in Daniel! And remember, don't mix the visions with the interpretations, as you study
BTW, with the purposeful errors of 2 Thes. 2, NOW you know WHY Maccabees is NOT included in the Protestant Bibles!
.
The ONLY "little horn" that ever was, and shall never be again, was Antiochus Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire, one of the 4 horns that was "in the latter time of their kingdom", the 3rd Beast.
.
OK, moving on to "church-anity's" the severe misunderstanding of the 70 weeks of Daniel, KJV only.
If you try to work with any other Protestant version, there will be no telling how far of course you will be.
In spite of the errors found in the KJV, it is more accurate than them all.
.
A word of caution though, in the study of the 70 weeks- KJV, you may find that the truth found there will be very upsetting to your most popular and favorite doctrine of what THEY love to call
"THE" 7 year Great Tribulation.
BTW, did you notice that we are dealing with the word "the" again?

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman, did I hear the sudden shuffling of feet, and a door slam?

I'm still here waiting for you to come up with anything that even resembles a challenge to the truths that I've shared with you...about Antiochus...about the origin of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism. So far, you've done nothing but run the other way.

 

[Earburner]

The outline of the 70 weeks:
Dan.9[24] Seventy weeks
1. are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
2. to finish the transgression, and
3. to make an end of sins, and
4. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
5. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
6. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
7. to anoint the most Holy.
.
Now, we can waste all sorts of time going over when this began, and forever split the hairs of setting times and date into oblivion, or we can just line ourselves up with what Jesus said about it!
John.5[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
OK, here is a trick question:
Looking at the scripture, what is the focus on, concerning the 70 weeks?

Did I catch you sleeping already?
No! It's not about Jerusalem and the Jews!
It's about Jesus the Messiah!

Oh, and BTW, you will need to have a thorough understanding of the interpretations by the angel's in Daniel, and use 1 Maccabees for reference, by learning the importance of who Judas Maccabeus was, as described in Daniel.
If you have not read Daniel with 1 Maccabees yet, then what we shall study here, will encourage you to do so!

 

[Earburner]

I'm still here waiting for you to come up with anything that even resembles a challenge to the truths that I've shared with you...about Antiochus...about the origin of Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism. So far, you've done nothing but run the other way.

You wrote:
Dude, if you choose to continue believing Jesuit lies after you've been shown the truth about where Futurism and Preterism came from and why they were sent into the world, then I can't help you. I'll pray for you
.
>Hi Phoneman, I replied to your post, of which I took it that you were bowing out of the discussion, by what you said in the above.
I hope that you have followed my discussions with others in your absence. You might find them quite helpful, should you want to continue.
However, since I have moved on to the topic of the 70 weeks, please know that I will not be repeating what I have already discussed. So, I would appreciate it if you would catch up.
But if would like more clarity I can explain more thoroughly.

 

[Phoneman777]

Now back to 2 Thes. 2:3
There are still more problems with the word "that" and "the" .
In the KJV, verse 3 we read: "that" man of sin...
But in the TR Greek, the word "the" is used!
Thus saying: "the" man of sin...
.

Who cares? Both these words - "the" and "that" - are definite articles used for specific identification of something in nature or the supernatural. So what if the Greek is "the man of sin" in verse 3 and then "that great Wicked" in verse 7? The use of the one doesn't not disqualify the other from referring to what it is referencing.

It's no different than saying "the man of whiskey is ruining the party" and then saying, "that drunk can't hold his liquor at all". Same drunk, same pain in the neck.

 

[CoreIssue]

Here we go again praising the KJV.
2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival.

The correct words are lawless one

 

[Phoneman777]

The outline of the 70 weeks:
Dan.9[24] Seventy weeks
1. are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
2. to finish the transgression, and
3. to make an end of sins, and
4. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and
5. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
6. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and
7. to anoint the most Holy.
.
Now, we can waste all sorts of time going over when this began, and forever split the hairs of setting times and date into oblivion, or we can just line ourselves up with what Jesus said about it!
John.5[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
OK, here is a trick question:
Looking at the scripture, what is the focus on, concerning the 70 weeks?

Did I catch you sleeping already?
No! It's not about Jerusalem and the Jews!
It's about Jesus the Messiah!

Oh, and BTW, you will need to have a thorough understanding of the interpretations by the angel's in Daniel, and use 1 Maccabees for reference, by learning the importance of who Judas Maccabeus was, as described in Daniel.
If you have not read Daniel with 1 Maccabees yet, then what we shall study here, will encourage you to do so!

This is the SECOND time I've had to tell you the apocryphal books are not inspired and only in certain cases is the historicity of it authoritative.

So, either dispense with this nonsense, or consider our conversation over. I don't need to appeal to anything but the Bible and accurate history to prove my eschatology. Can you say the same?

 

[Earburner]

Who cares? Both these words - "the" and "that" - are definite articles used for specific identification of something in nature or the supernatural. So what if the Greek is "the man of sin" in verse 3 and then "that great Wicked" in verse 7? The use of the one doesn't not disqualify the other from referring to what it is referencing.

It's no different than saying "the man of whiskey is ruining the party" and then saying, "that drunk can't hold his liquor at all". Same drunk, same pain in the neck.

How many are there, in the words "the natural man"?
One, or billions?

 

[Phoneman777]

Here we go again praising the KJV.
2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival.

The correct words are lawless one

One of my favorite quotes from those who served on the front lines in the Battle of the Bibles:

“Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping?”

Les Garett, 1982, Which Bible Can We Trust? Christian Centre Press pg. 91-92

 

[Phoneman777]

You wrote:
Dude, if you choose to continue believing Jesuit lies after you've been shown the truth about where Futurism and Preterism came from and why they were sent into the world, then I can't help you. I'll pray for you
.
>Hi Phoneman, I replied to your post, of which I took it that you were bowing out of the discussion, by what you said in the above.
I hope that you have followed my discussions with others in your absence. You might find them quite helpful, should you want to continue.
However, since I have moved on to the topic of the 70 weeks, please know that I will not be repeating what I have already discussed. So, I would appreciate it if you would catch up.
But if would like more clarity I can explain more thoroughly.

I'm happy to discuss the 70 Weeks with you, but only if we use the Bible and history as evidence.

 

[Phoneman777]

"The natural man" IS "that man of sin, the son of perdtion" .

I've already shown you that Paul told the early church that the Restrainer preventing the rise of Antichrist was the Roman Empire - it was in the past, not our day. The man of sin, son of perdition is the papacy

 

[Earburner]

This is the SECOND time I've had to tell you the apocryphal books are not inspired and only in certain cases is the historicity of it authoritative.

So, either dispense with this nonsense, or consider our conversation over. I don't need to appeal to anything but the Bible and accurate history to prove my eschatology. Can you say the same?

Absolutely yes!
I (Earburner) don't need to appeal to anything but the Bible (KJV) and accurate history (and Maccabees, written BY the Jews, confirmed by their feast of Hanukkah) to prove my eschatology.

 

[Earburner]

I've already shown you that Paul told the early church that the Restrainer preventing the rise of Antichrist was the Roman Empire - it was in the past, not our day. The man of sin, son of perdition is the papacy

Wrong choice of words. Antichrist as you understand the term, is not written in 2 Thes. 2

 

[Phoneman777]

Absolutely yes!
I (Earburner) don't need to appeal to anything but the Bible (KJV) and accurate history (and Maccabees, written BY the Jews, confirmed by their feast of Hanukkah) to prove my eschatology.

When I asked "can you say the same?" it was in reference to my statement that I only appeal to the Bible and accurate history (not papal revisionist history).

If you're going to include Maccabees, then you actually can't say the same thing I said, which was the Bible and history PERIOD.

 

[Earburner]

Here we go again praising the KJV.
2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival.

The correct words are lawless one

The word "one" is an insertion in the TR Greek.
Saying "the lawless" is factually in the plural.
Saying "the lawless [one]" is assumed in the singular.