Tommy Ice does very good work. But Dr. Ken Johnson, who also writes stuff that is on Tommy Ice's website, is far more meticulous in his works regarding the early church writers.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The true Christian Church is that part of the Church which did not participate in the apostasy which began in the 4th century AD, and which survived to participate in the Reformation.
There were a number of premils among the early church fathers. There were but a handful of whom it could be said espoused pretribism, and those are debatable. In comparison to the total number of early church fathers and apologists, including the more recent Reformers, the number of pretribbers is vanishingly small. They can be found in Thomas Ice's article here.
It isn't relevant to our current discussion. Paul says the rapture happens after the trib, not before it and much of his second letter is devoted to teaching against a pre-trib rapture belief...yet here we are in 2018 with people who still believe a pre-trib rapture.
Tommy Ice does very good work. But Dr. Ken Johnson, who also writes stuff that is on Tommy Ice's website, is far more meticulous in his works regarding the early church writers.
It is to relevant. You said that harpazo means rapture, and Harpazo is the word used for Philip being "caught away" after the event with the Ethiopian.
And it can be argued that in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul is reminding these folks that they had been misled by a forged letter or other that the tribulation period had begun. And how did he prove that to them? He reminded them that a departure would occur before the man of sin (antichrist) would be revealed.
Now, some would debate that the departure is called the falling away in many translations and it means an apostasy or departure from Christianity, but that is taking a lot of liberty with the text. Every major translation prior to the KJV translated the passage as simply "departure" or "the departure". Even the Latin Vulgate from the 4th century uses discessio which means a physical, spatial departure, not a spiritual one.
Now, some would debate that the departure is called the falling away in many translations and it means an apostasy or departure from Christianity, but that is taking a lot of liberty with the text. Every major translation prior to the KJV translated the passage as simply "departure" or "the departure". Even the Latin Vulgate from the 4th century uses discessio which means a physical, spatial departure, not a spiritual one.
No, it is not he opposite of what Paul says. Paul used the word in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that means simply departure. Like I stated, every major translation prior to the KJV used departure. The Vulgate uses discessio which means a physical departure not a spiritual one or "falling away". Many NT Greek scholars agree. Dr. Kenneth Wuest is one among many. Dr. Andy Woods is another. Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost is another.
No, it is not he opposite of what Paul says. Paul used the word in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that means simply departure. Like I stated, every major translation prior to the KJV used departure. The Vulgate uses discessio which means a physical departure not a spiritual one or "falling away". Many NT Greek scholars agree. Dr. Kenneth Wuest is one among many. Dr. Andy Woods is another. Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost is another.
Unless the Latin Vulgate was not written till after 1895, your assertion would be faulty. The Vulgate was written in the 4th Century. it states that the greek apostasia means a physical, literal departure. And Jerome was still living in the time when the Greek was a working daily language in many areas. I would tend to give him a little more credit on what the word means.
Of the approximately fifty contemporary English Bible versions in existence, not a single version translates "apostasia" as "rapture", but rather as apostasy, falling away, or the equivalent.
So you are saying you will take part in the Apostasy?
Nope, I will take part in the physical departure of the ekklesia prior to the revealing of the false messiah. Apostasy is a English transliterated word that does not have the same literal meaning as the Greek Apostasia.
Contemporary versions, you would be correct. But what of English translations prior to the KJV? The Geneva Bible (1608), the Tyndale Bible (1526), the Beza Bible (1583), the Wycliffe Bible (1384), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Breches Bible (1576) all translate apostasia as simply "departure" or "the departure". None of them use anything that suggests a spiritual falling away.
You appear not to have read post #185 at all. So please reread it.
Let's see if you are right:
G646
ἀποστασία
apostasia
Thayer Definition:
1) a falling away, defection, apostasy
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: feminine of the same as G647
Citing in TDNT: 1:513, 88
G646
ἀποστασία
apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): - falling away, forsake.
You are wrong again. apostasia does not mean what harpazo means.
Given a choice between a Greek Christian whose native tongue is the language, and any Greek scholar; I'll believe the former, every time.Likewise, you did not take into account many NT Greek scholars I mentioned. Modern Greek is not the same as the Koine Greek of the NT. I would not rely on what modern Greek users have to say about the proper interpretation of the word. The Greek Orthodox Church has been primarily Amillenial in its eschatology, so one would expect that they would not hold to a pre-trib position and negate meanings to support their own eschatology.
Nope. Not wrong. That is one man's interpretation of the meaning of the word. Just like Strong would be another. There is far more textual evidence that the word apostasia simply means a physical, spatial departure.
I agree. I have no anger issue here. I agree with you on your last point.I am not quite that harsh. I always like to say to those who don't agree with a pre-trib removal of the righteous that "It is Ok. We will explain it to you on the way up!" I know, it adds a little humor to the issue. We don't have to get so serious that we are angry all the time.
There is actually many unbelievers that know a pre-trib removal will happen. They just understand and describe it differently. Many New Age types that are into channelling, UFO's and other gobblety gook have written extensively how there will be a disappearance of perhaps millions from the earth early on in the "cleansing process" that is coming upon the earth. It will be required because those people are not in "harmonic vibration" with the earth changes. And in none of their writings has Satan tried to explain away a possible mid trib or post trib type of removal.
The question is, CAN this word mean something else? It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."There is zero evidence of that because the word does not mean what you are trying to change it into.
No, your thinking is wrong. You are mixing up the second coming with His THIRD coming as shown in Rev. 19. Paul tells us of a coming BEFORE the start of the DAY, if you study 1 thes. 5. And also before WRATH begins. In Revelation that would put the rapture before the 6th seal. And John does not begin the 70th week until the 7th seal - so Paul is certainly PRETRIB.It only takes two verses to prove that pre-trib is a false doctrine.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: (the second coming) and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (the resurrection of the dead in Christ)
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (the rapture)
Since the resurrection only happens at the second coming and that we have the rapture happening AFTER the resurrection and second coming means these two verses decisively prove the pre-trib rapture to be false.
This is true.Has anyone ever noticed how pre-trib folks really don't rant and rail about the other positions (unless attacked personally for their views), but those who dislike the pre-trib position will really go off the charts in their vitriol on those who do hold to it? I know it doesn't prove the point that a pre-trib is a viable position, but it really is interesting. It is almost as if those who disagree want to see everyone suffer and die just so they can later gloat how right they were. Whereas, the pre-trib position folks seem to have most folk's best interest in mind and want to "comfort one another with these words" as Paul wrote.
We are not going to agree on every minute detail of eschatology, but we don't have to resort to slander and inflammatory comments. It is likely that all of us will have egg on our face in some way on how we viewed the upcoming events. And it is our job to present Yeshua to a lost world that He overcomes and wins and wants as many as possible to be a part of that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?