Preparation for the tribulation.

[WilliamL]

See my post on the other thread.

And again, I post proof by quoting exact scriptures, and you claim truth based soley upon your belief.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

And again, I post proof by quoting exact scriptures, and you claim truth based soley upon your belief.

I'm not going to argue with you. You're not going to accept any other explanation. I'm not going to waste my time with you.


🏩

 

[Dino246]

Thank you for displaying such grace in suffering with me. Re: that "Ye shall also appear with Him in glory..." I haven't completely come to the conclusion that His "coming with His angels" isn't (also) speaking toward "Ye." @Dino246, I think, might've once or twice mentioned a scholar that has explored this idea in more detail, and I wish I had noted the author and his work the better to see if his thoughts are of a similar notion.

It's not ringing a bell, but if I think of the name, I'll post it. Another member may have mentioned this scholar.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Thank you for displaying such grace in suffering with me. Re: that "Ye shall also appear with Him in glory..." I haven't completely come to the conclusion that His "coming with His angels" isn't (also) speaking toward "Ye." @Dino246, I think, might've once or twice mentioned a scholar that has explored this idea in more detail, and I wish I had noted the author and his work the better to see if his thoughts are of a similar notion.

Yes, I am familiar with the argument... which would be a fair argument except for the verse I'd pointed out.
Allow me to explain the issue briefly, as I understand it...

CONSIDER:

--the argument (which has SOME validity) goes something like this:

"[comes...and] holy [G40 - holy ones - PL] with [G3326 - accompanied-with] him [G846]" - Zech14:5LXX

...seems to correspond with...

• "holy [G40] angels [G32] with [G3326 - accompanied-with] him [G846]" - Matt25:31... and

• "with [G3326 - accompanied-with] the holy [G40] angels [G32]" - Mk8:38, and Mt16:27 [/Lk9:26]... and

• "[cometh] in [G1722 - in/accompaniment] ten thousands of his [G846] holy-ones [G40]" - Jude 1:14

... all of these (the argument goes) that the "G40" (holy ones) that are coming with Him are "angels" (because some of these texts actually state so... by also including the word "angels [G32]" which makes that abundantly clear in those texts).



I would point out (in these texts) that the "with" word is always either "G3326 [accompanied-with]" or "G1722 [in/accompaniment]".


My point being, in places wherever it is speaking of "angels" coming with Him (or even, also coming) it NEVER uses the "G4862 [UNIONed-with]" word that we see used in Colossians 3:4 I'd pointed out ('then shall YE also appear [G5319] WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-with] Him in glory");


And while it is true that we can (be spoken of as) [be] "G3326 - with [accompanied-with]" in some texts,
"angels" are never spoken of using the "WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-with] [Him]" word, see.



[the "G4862 [UNIONed-with] [Him]" word is also used in 1Th4:14 (a verse I find is often misunderstood), and in the well-known ['rapture'] verse 1Thess4:17 "so shall WE ever be WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-with] the Lord."
What I'm pointing out about those various texts AT TOP (which the argument goes, always refers to "angels" [as the "holy-ones [G40]"]), is that those instances NEVER use this "G4862 - WITH" word, as IS used regarding US]





____________

All of that ^ is beside the point that Colossians 3:4 also uses the word " *YE / YOU" (the persons being addressed; which I'm saying is [the corporate] "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" and not merely the Colossians-church of the first century alone... if that makes sense. )


[ * YE / YOU - "G4771 - hymeis " according to BibleHub - https://biblehub.com/text/colossians/3-4.htm ; or "G5210 - hymeis " according to BlueLetterBible - https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/col/3/4/ss1/t_conc_1110004 -- either way, it *means* the same thing: "YOU" (not referring to "angels [G32 (or even the less-specific "G40 [holy-ones]")]" here in this verse... no, the word is "YOU" =) )]





Hope that helps you see my perspective.

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument that I believe you are referring to (referenced BRIEFLY above, in my post here); but I don't see it holding up, considering the actual text of Col3:4 and its wording.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Sorry I don't know what you're talking about. Just say what you mean Keep it simple. So a child could understand. like me.

The question I'm asking you to address pertains to verse 2:


Select the EASIEST translation you wish, and explain WHAT that false claim is ABOUT that Paul is writing to the Thessalonians about... cautioning them about (in verse 2):

https://biblehub.com/parallel/2_thessalonians/2-2.htm [something like 40-50 VERSIONS of this verse are LISTED here at this LINK]...

...one example is the Amplified version, which says,

Amplified Bible
not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.



[pick ANY version you feel you can understand the easiest, and then let us know WHAT the underlined portion ^ *MEANS*--what was / is the "alleged claim" SAYING?]

 

[Mem]

It's not ringing a bell, but if I think of the name, I'll post it. Another member may have mentioned this scholar.

I'm certain the context of the discussion I'm thinking of pertained to whether the meaning of "sons of God" meant holy angels or holy men. There seems to be some peculiarity to me that Satan is never referred to as any sort of angel (other than in the arena of extra biblical speculations) after his fall but is referred to as a serpent.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ And may I just add to my Post #185, (to point out) verse 15 of this text states,

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions [/instructions / transmission] which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (IOW, Paul is saying, believe what WE taught you [v.15]... do not believe [or be deceived by] the false claimants with their false claim [v.2])

 

[Mem]

Yes, I am familiar with the argument... which would be a fair argument except for the verse I'd pointed out.
Allow me to explain the issue briefly, as I understand it...

CONSIDER:

--the argument (which has SOME validity) goes something like this:

"[comes...and] holy [G40 - holy ones - PL] with [G3326 - accompanied-with] him [G846]" - Zech14:5LXX

...seems to correspond with...

• "holy [G40] angels [G32] with [G3326 - accompanied-with] him [G846]" - Matt25:31... and

• "with [G3326 - accompanied-with] the holy [G40] angels [G32]" - Mk8:38, and Mt16:27 [/Lk9:26]... and

• "[cometh] in [G1722 - in/accompaniment] ten thousands of his [G846] holy-ones [G40]" - Jude 1:14

... all of these (the argument goes) that the "G40" (holy ones) that are coming with Him are "angels" (because some of these texts actually state so... by also including the word "angels [G32]" which makes that abundantly clear in those texts).



I would point out (in these texts) that the "with" word is always either "G3326 [accompanied-with]" or "G1722 [in/accompaniment]".


My point being, in places wherever it is speaking of "angels" coming with Him (or even, also coming) it NEVER uses the "G4862 [UNIONed-with]" word that we see used in Colossians 3:4 I'd pointed out ('then shall YE also appear [G5319] WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-with] Him in glory");


And while it is true that we can (be spoken of as) [be] "G3326 - with [accompanied-with]" in some texts,
"angels" are never spoken of using the "WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-with] [Him]" word, see.



[the "G4862 [UNIONed-with] [Him]" word is also used in 1Th4:14 (a verse I find is often misunderstood), and in the well-known ['rapture'] verse 1Thess4:17 "so shall WE ever be WITH [G4862 - UNIONed-with] the Lord."
What I'm pointing out about those various texts AT TOP (which the argument goes, always refers to "angels" [as the "holy-ones [G40]"]), is that those instances NEVER use this "G4862 - WITH" word, as IS used regarding US]





____________

All of that ^ is beside the point that Colossians 3:4 also uses the word " *YE / YOU" (the persons being addressed; which I'm saying is [the corporate] "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" and not merely the Colossians-church of the first century alone... if that makes sense. )


[ * YE / YOU - "G4771 - hymeis " according to BibleHub - https://biblehub.com/text/colossians/3-4.htm ; or "G5210 - hymeis " according to BlueLetterBible - https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/col/3/4/ss1/t_conc_1110004 -- either way, it *means* the same thing: "YOU" (not referring to "angels [G32 (or even the less-specific "G40 [holy-ones]")]" here in this verse... no, the word is "YOU" =) )]





Hope that helps you see my perspective.

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument that I believe you are referring to (referenced BRIEFLY above, in my post here); but I don't see it holding up, considering the actual text of Col3:4 and its wording.

I understand that most hold to a hard distinction between man and angel but, when I consider all the possible applications of the saying, "to which of the angels..." I haven't been successful in definitively ruling out this speaks toward holy, spiritual, ubernatural? men as qualifying, i.e. saints, holy ones, sons of God.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I understand that most hold to a hard distinction between man and angel but, when I consider all the possible applications of the saying, "to which of the angels..." I haven't been successful in definitively ruling out this speaks toward holy, spiritual, ubernatural? men as qualifying, i.e. saints, holy ones, sons of God.

While I can kinda understand your point, I don't think it really pinpoints what the text itself actually states in this Colossians 3:4 verse.


There was no reason for Paul to use the word "YE / YOU" (in this verse) if he'd meant some other [entity, or whatever].





[... and the fact that, in all of these similar-sounding [similarly-phrased] verses I'd listed out, it is only the "G3326 - ACCOMPANIED-with" word that is used when referring to the "angels"... never the "G4862 - UNIONed-with" word (though both are translated "with" in English--so not readily discernible upon first blush, or even a cursory reading)]


Just something to ponder...

 

[Mem]

he'd meant some other [entity, or whatever]

my point is that I'm not convince angels are "some other entity, or whatever" from men. That is, Man is created in God's image, but in whose image are angels created?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

my point is that I'm not convince angels are "some other entity, or whatever" from men. That is, Man is created in God's image, but in whose image are angels created?

I'm certain the context of the discussion I'm thinking of pertained to whether the meaning of "sons of God" meant holy angels or holy men. There seems to be some peculiarity to me that Satan is never referred to as any sort of angel (other than in the arena of extra biblical speculations) after his fall but is referred to as a serpent.

Okay I think you are saying that "angels" (as you are considering the possibility) ARE "men"? Am I understanding you correctly?


So that, in the following text, where it says / refers to "Satan... and his angels," that "angels" may be referring to "men" (you're perhaps thinking)...


7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels warred against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels warred back. 8And he did not have strength, nor was found a place for them any longer in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown out, the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, deceiving the whole inhabited world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

[Rev12]






[for the readers: (just to be clear) I believe this ^ text refers to what WILL take place at the MID-point of the *future* Tribulation Period, when there are yet remaining "1260 days" until Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19]

 

[ewq1938]

There seems to be some peculiarity to me that Satan is never referred to as any sort of angel (other than in the arena of extra biblical speculations) after his fall but is referred to as a serpent.

This implies satan is an archangel that leads other angels:

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

There's also this:

2Co_11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

 

[ewq1938]

my point is that I'm not convince angels are "some other entity, or whatever" from men. That is, Man is created in God's image, but in whose image are angels created?

God. Both angels and men look identical insomuch that people have interacted with angels thinking they were just human men.

 

[Mem]

Okay I think you are saying that "angels" (as you are considering the possibility) ARE "men"? Am I understanding you correctly?


So that, in the following text, where it says / refers to "Satan... and his angels," that "angels" may be referring to "men" (you're perhaps thinking)...


7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels warred against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels warred back. 8And he did not have strength, nor was found a place for them any longer in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown out, the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, deceiving the whole inhabited world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

[Rev12]






[for the readers: (just to be clear) I believe this ^ text refers to what WILL take place at the MID-point of the *future* Tribulation Period, when there are yet remaining "1260 days" until Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19]

I'm trying to work out that a "messenger" of either God or Satan are men, considering that a "message" is characteristically either a spoken, or written word, and words are spirit (since animals can't use them). Yes, I think you've come to a fairly close assessment of the line of my thinking there.

 

[BOY]

The question I'm asking you to address pertains to verse 2:


Select the EASIEST translation you wish, and explain WHAT that false claim is ABOUT that Paul is writing to the Thessalonians about... cautioning them about (in verse 2):

https://biblehub.com/parallel/2_thessalonians/2-2.htm [something like 40-50 VERSIONS of this verse are LISTED here at this LINK]...

...one example is the Amplified version, which says,

Amplified Bible
not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.



[pick ANY version you feel you can understand the easiest, and then let us know WHAT the underlined portion ^ *MEANS*--what was / is the "alleged claim" SAYING?]

Whatever happened to the simplicity that was in Christ?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Whatever happened to the simplicity that was in Christ?

So you're saying you do not know what Paul was CAUTIONING THEM ABOUT in verse 2 (not to be "deceived" by), and therefore we (today) should not be concerned about being "deceived" by it either?

He was just wasting ink there? Nothing to see, move along folks, verse 2b means nothing...



[seems doubtful, lol ]


____________

...one example is the Amplified version, which says,

Amplified Bible
not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ ... or, "...PURPORTING THAT the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT [perfect tense, indicative, transitive verb in Grk]" (v.2b)




[so, what were they "purporting"? / what's being "purported" (by others), according to Paul, here (v.2b)?]






[P.S. I'm getting ready to go on a two-week holiday... so I may not have a lot of time to respond immediately, to any further posts. My apologies... ]

 

[Dino246]

I'm certain the context of the discussion I'm thinking of pertained to whether the meaning of "sons of God" meant holy angels or holy men. There seems to be some peculiarity to me that Satan is never referred to as any sort of angel (other than in the arena of extra biblical speculations) after his fall but is referred to as a serpent.

In that case, the person's name is Dr. Michael Heiser. He passed away recently, but his website is still active (drmsh.com) and his many videos on YouTube are still available.

 

[Mem]

In that case, the person's name is Dr. Michael Heiser. He passed away recently, but his website is still active (drmsh.com) and his many videos on YouTube are still available.

Yes, that's it! Thank you.

 

[Psalm1]

The church is absent because the book isn't about the church. It's about the old covenant ending and the sanctions stipulated in the covenant being brought to pass.

The OT ended at John the Baptist.