If the Rapture is true, just who are the saints beheaded by the Antichrist?
- Thread starter saintrose
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
According to the copyright statement at the front of my book - which allows for "brief quotations" - I believe the following is "in good faith" of the intent of the statement.
646. <greek word> apostasia, ap-os-tas-ee-ah; fem. of the same as 647; deflection from truth (prop. the state) ["apostacy"]:-falling away, forsake.
(I did not "go all out" and put greek letters, etc. because of my SLOW computer...)
I am not going to take the time and make the effort to copy the full listing of the other word entries (such as 647); however, if you look them up (647, 868, 575, 2476) in an actual [real] Strong's Concordance - AND - you don't do cut-and-paste "mincing" of words and meanings - you should discover that the meaning of the [word 646] is quite closely akin to what is written in the above [word 646] definition.
@TheDivineWatermark - you are doing cut-and-paste "mincing" of words and meanings.
You have to take into account what the words meant to those who originally wrote them.
You always have to be careful when crossing "the 'derivation/derivative' boundary" of word definitions.
You have to understand properly how a word was derived from one or more other words.
Going "multiple-reference-levels deep" and choosing a word that fits how you want it to be defined doesn't work.
646. <greek word> apostasia, ap-os-tas-ee-ah; fem. of the same as 647; deflection from truth (prop. the state) ["apostacy"]:-falling away, forsake.
(I did not "go all out" and put greek letters, etc. because of my SLOW computer...)
I am not going to take the time and make the effort to copy the full listing of the other word entries (such as 647); however, if you look them up (647, 868, 575, 2476) in an actual [real] Strong's Concordance - AND - you don't do cut-and-paste "mincing" of words and meanings - you should discover that the meaning of the [word 646] is quite closely akin to what is written in the above [word 646] definition.
@TheDivineWatermark - you are doing cut-and-paste "mincing" of words and meanings.
You have to take into account what the words meant to those who originally wrote them.
You always have to be careful when crossing "the 'derivation/derivative' boundary" of word definitions.
You have to understand properly how a word was derived from one or more other words.
Going "multiple-reference-levels deep" and choosing a word that fits how you want it to be defined doesn't work.
Yes - I saw them all. And - all of them "defined" the Strong's 646 word (They implied: "This is the definition of Strong's 646.") - and, none of them actually matched the Strong's 646 word - as written in an actual Strong's Concordance.
They all "claimed the name" of Strong - yet modified his original definition [enough] to change the meaning - which then no longer properly represented Strong's definitions.
Do you not find anything wrong with that?
They should not use the name of Strong (referring to Strong's definitions); instead, they should [simply] use their own name - and be honest:
"This is how I define these words."
They should not say:
"This is how Strong defines these words."
- and not give the actual Strong's definition.
They are using "the trusted name of Strong" (for having the most trusted definitions available) while misrepresenting Strong's definitions.
They did not quote Strong's definitions; instead, they provided their own definition in his name.
(And, that is my point.)
They all "claimed the name" of Strong - yet modified his original definition [enough] to change the meaning - which then no longer properly represented Strong's definitions.
Do you not find anything wrong with that?
They should not use the name of Strong (referring to Strong's definitions); instead, they should [simply] use their own name - and be honest:
"This is how I define these words."
They should not say:
"This is how Strong defines these words."
- and not give the actual Strong's definition.
They are using "the trusted name of Strong" (for having the most trusted definitions available) while misrepresenting Strong's definitions.
They did not quote Strong's definitions; instead, they provided their own definition in his name.
(And, that is my point.)
I don't find there (at that LINK I provided to BibleHub) that *everything* THERE is solely from "STRONG'S".
The part *I* quoted from... is under the [*separate*] HEADING OF "HELPS Word-studies" which I believe is an entirely DISTINCT "source"
(and BibleHub isn't claiming that EVERYTHING on that PAGE is sourced from "Strong's"... you are just incorrectly assuming that).
The "HEADINGS" (labeled fairly clearly) distinguish the "sources".
Hope that helps. = )
____________
[and in ADDITION to that BibleHub link, I had provided the "Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1889)" also--different link altogether]
The part *I* quoted from... is under the [*separate*] HEADING OF "HELPS Word-studies" which I believe is an entirely DISTINCT "source"
(and BibleHub isn't claiming that EVERYTHING on that PAGE is sourced from "Strong's"... you are just incorrectly assuming that).
The "HEADINGS" (labeled fairly clearly) distinguish the "sources".
Hope that helps. = )
____________
[and in ADDITION to that BibleHub link, I had provided the "Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1889)" also--different link altogether]
Which I have repeatedly stated [the word MEANS] "DEPARTURE" / "A STANDING away-from [away-from a previous STANDING]"... and that it is the CONTEXT that determines JUST "WHAT KIND" of "departure" is MEANT (in any given context),... whether:
--"a departure FROM MOSES" (Acts 21:21)
--"the departing of a boat from a dock" (spatial/geographical departure--used in that same era!)
--"the departing of a fever (same as above)
--a departure from some kind of civil/governance-type issue (as in, a revolt or rebellion, etc)
--"THE Departure" (one ALREADY referred to in the context [one of the PURPOSES of "the definite article ('THE'), to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY referred to in the text]; and one ALREADY known unto the recipients of the letter... which Paul had written about in NEARLY EVERY CHPT of his FIRST EPISTLE--and not MERELY/ONLY in the ONE VERSE 1Th4:17!! But MULTIPLE TIMES, using a VARIETY OF TERMS... but NOT ONCE mentioning "[a departure] FROM SOME 'FAITH issue'"!)
The CONTEXT is indeed "OUR RAPTURE" [using different wording in both 2Th2:1 here as well as v.3b--our word under discussion--but these are not the ONLY references [these 3 verses alone, NO!], there are LOTS MORE references TO THIS EVENT in his two epistles. This is one of the FUNCTIONS OF "the definite article ['the']" used with this word, where it isn't ordinarily necessary with this Greek word... our job is to ask "WHY" ("WHY" is it being used HERE?!... and in basically the SAME SENTENCE as the Subject of VERSE 1!)])
--"a departure FROM MOSES" (Acts 21:21)
--"the departing of a boat from a dock" (spatial/geographical departure--used in that same era!)
--"the departing of a fever (same as above)
--a departure from some kind of civil/governance-type issue (as in, a revolt or rebellion, etc)
--"THE Departure" (one ALREADY referred to in the context [one of the PURPOSES of "the definite article ('THE'), to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY referred to in the text]; and one ALREADY known unto the recipients of the letter... which Paul had written about in NEARLY EVERY CHPT of his FIRST EPISTLE--and not MERELY/ONLY in the ONE VERSE 1Th4:17!! But MULTIPLE TIMES, using a VARIETY OF TERMS... but NOT ONCE mentioning "[a departure] FROM SOME 'FAITH issue'"!)
The CONTEXT is indeed "OUR RAPTURE" [using different wording in both 2Th2:1 here as well as v.3b--our word under discussion--but these are not the ONLY references [these 3 verses alone, NO!], there are LOTS MORE references TO THIS EVENT in his two epistles. This is one of the FUNCTIONS OF "the definite article ['the']" used with this word, where it isn't ordinarily necessary with this Greek word... our job is to ask "WHY" ("WHY" is it being used HERE?!... and in basically the SAME SENTENCE as the Subject of VERSE 1!)])
Okay - sorry if I assumed you were trying to attach it to the word directly.
Honestly - sometimes I just 'skim' your posts if I don't really feel like "interpreting your syntax"... (hahaha)
I do a similar thing myself - to try to make my intent more explicitly known without having to write so many more words/paragraphs/pages/dissertations/etc. - so, I understand why you do that type of thing too.
Honestly - sometimes I just 'skim' your posts if I don't really feel like "interpreting your syntax"... (hahaha)
I do a similar thing myself - to try to make my intent more explicitly known without having to write so many more words/paragraphs/pages/dissertations/etc. - so, I understand why you do that type of thing too.
Act
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Read full chapter
Forsake>departure from Moses
Figurative.
Departure from the Moses teaching
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;
Falling away>apostasy> departure from the teaching of Jesus
Consistense with verse 4
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.
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Read full chapter
Forsake>departure from Moses
Figurative.
Departure from the Moses teaching
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;
Falling away>apostasy> departure from the teaching of Jesus
Consistense with verse 4
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.
Never in the bible Paul say apostasy mean rapture.
Apostasy in Christianity is the rejection of Christianity by someone who formerly was a Christian or who wishes to administratively be removed from a formal registry of church members. The term apostasy comes from the Greek word apostasia ("ἀποστασία") meaning "defection", "departure", "revolt" or "rebellion". It has been described as "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against, Christianity. Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian...."[2] "Apostasy is a theological category describing those who have voluntarily and consciously abandoned their faith in the God of the covenant, who manifests himself most completely in Jesus Christ."[3] "Apostasy is the antonym of conversion; it is deconversion."[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Christianity#Biblical_teaching
Apostasy in Christianity is the rejection of Christianity by someone who formerly was a Christian or who wishes to administratively be removed from a formal registry of church members. The term apostasy comes from the Greek word apostasia ("ἀποστασία") meaning "defection", "departure", "revolt" or "rebellion". It has been described as "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against, Christianity. Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian...."[2] "Apostasy is a theological category describing those who have voluntarily and consciously abandoned their faith in the God of the covenant, who manifests himself most completely in Jesus Christ."[3] "Apostasy is the antonym of conversion; it is deconversion."[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Christianity#Biblical_teaching
The rapture is true..
1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
The timing is what is debated. I think the rapture happens before God’s wrath and not pre trib.
And the Antichrist isn’t revealed until the middle of the tribulation..
1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
The timing is what is debated. I think the rapture happens before God’s wrath and not pre trib.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ
It doesn’t happen until the apostasy and the man of lawlessness...the antichrist is revealed..For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ
2 Thessalonians 2:3
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.
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.
And the Antichrist isn’t revealed until the middle of the tribulation..
Daniel 9:27
And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.
And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.
2 Thessalonians 2 (New King James Version)
1... concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, ... 3Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless ... the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2 (New King James Version)
1Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of [a]Christ had come. 3Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
1... concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, ... 3Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless ... the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2 (New King James Version)
1Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of [a]Christ had come. 3Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
The question is rhetorical and is therefore invalid before being answered.
It begins by assuming the Roman Catholic doctrine of the rapture is true. It isn't.
Formulated in the late 1500's by Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera, the rapture as well as many other deliberate misrepresentations of End Times prophecy was meant to deter Protestants from an accurate appraisal of the Bible. A Vatican representation is substituted which is based on the idea that no prophecy is fulfilled until Jesus makes His second advent. The modern church now marches in lock-step with Vatican ideology and makes no effort whatsoever to discern Biblical accuracy. Instead the same dogma is reiterated ad nauseam while brain dead protestants sit calmly by nodding their heads like the bobble toys on automobile dashboards.
In truth the anti-Christ system IS the Roman Catholic church with the many horns of Revelations sea beast depicting the succession of popes in Rome.
"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth."
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V.
Instead of following a lie, study the Bible instead. Few there are who will do it and fewer still who will prosper from what they discover in its pages.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
It begins by assuming the Roman Catholic doctrine of the rapture is true. It isn't.
Formulated in the late 1500's by Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera, the rapture as well as many other deliberate misrepresentations of End Times prophecy was meant to deter Protestants from an accurate appraisal of the Bible. A Vatican representation is substituted which is based on the idea that no prophecy is fulfilled until Jesus makes His second advent. The modern church now marches in lock-step with Vatican ideology and makes no effort whatsoever to discern Biblical accuracy. Instead the same dogma is reiterated ad nauseam while brain dead protestants sit calmly by nodding their heads like the bobble toys on automobile dashboards.
In truth the anti-Christ system IS the Roman Catholic church with the many horns of Revelations sea beast depicting the succession of popes in Rome.
"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth."
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V.
Instead of following a lie, study the Bible instead. Few there are who will do it and fewer still who will prosper from what they discover in its pages.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...