Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

Take the Matthew 24 Grammar Challenge.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post The strict Constructionis
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
What else could Matt 24:29-31 possibly be referring to, if not the second coming of Christ to earth?


God I hope this does not start getting weirder ! Laughing
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 8:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post About the thief in the night thing... Quiet Wyatt
1 Thess 5:1 Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. 2For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; 5for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; 6so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober. 7For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and those who get drunk get drunk at night. 8But since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. 9For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, NASB

Growing up under pretrib teaching in the 1970s (AoG and CoG), I was taught by no doubt sincere, God-fearing teachers and preachers that Christ would come back for his church unexpectedly, like a thief in the night.

However, the above passage reveals the same basic idea as in Matt. 24. For the wicked, our Lord's physical return to eartth will indeed be just as it was for the wicked in the Days of Noah. They didn't believe what Noah had been preaching was true and had no fear of God--or else they would have repented, believed, and gotten in the ark while they had time. The flood came upon them quite unexpectedly, just as Christ's second coming will come unexpectedly on the wicked/unbelievers in that day.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 12405
6/16/11 8:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post War Eagle
Many believe Jesus is talking about the rapture.

If you read the few verses before, Jesus is warning the disciples to not get caught up when people are talking about they saw Jesus here or there and that He will come like lightening when He does come.

The verses before that, Jesus does speak of tribulation, the abomination desolation, and fleeing to the mountain. But He also calls a lot of what He says in the verses before that the beginning of birth pains. Paul would later state that the earth is already travailing in those pains now.

So some would say that Jesus is talking about what they can expect before the rapture, what will happen during the 7 year tribulation, and to not be deceived about when He will come to put these events in motion. This is why He states no man knows the day or the hour, only the Father. John accurately predicts as well as Daniel that the tribulation is 7 years, therefore His return can be calculated. If the beginning of the 7 years can't be determined, the abomination desolation certainly would be distinguishable thus identifying the midpoint of the tribulation and thus allowing the world to know exactly when Christ would return. But yet Jesus says that no one knows. All of these reasons is what many cite to suggest that the verses you have shared do not definitely mean the second coming for the millennial reign.

Sorry to get off topic.
Friendly Face
Posts: 366
6/16/11 8:21 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
The strict Constructionis wrote:
bonnie knox wrote:
The English teacher you spoke with is partially right.


So you deny that it is pointing back to and referring to the event of verse 30?

If you feel that (and I mean this respectfully), please tell us what event that it is pointing back to in the prophecy of Matthew 24.


I'm neither denying nor affirming. ALL I'm doing is pointing out in this "grammatical debate" that the word "that" is an adjective modifying the noun "day." It's hardly a big deal (to me). I just found ironic humor that this debate was based on grammar, and you called an adjective a pronoun. Laughing
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/16/11 8:38 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post The strict Constructionis
bonnie knox wrote:
The strict Constructionis wrote:
bonnie knox wrote:
The English teacher you spoke with is partially right.


So you deny that it is pointing back to and referring to the event of verse 30?

If you feel that (and I mean this respectfully), please tell us what event that it is pointing back to in the prophecy of Matthew 24.


I'm neither denying nor affirming. ALL I'm doing is pointing out in this "grammatical debate" that the word "that" is an adjective modifying the noun "day." It's hardly a big deal (to me). I just found ironic humor that this debate was based on grammar, and you called an adjective a pronoun. Laughing


Yes, I should have been more clear. Nevertheless, we are clear now and I'd like to know your stand.
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 9:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post War Eagle The strict Constructionis
Quote:
All of these reasons is what many cite to suggest that the verses you have shared do not definitely mean the second coming for the millennial reign.


And who are these MANY? I've Googled this and I can find not one mention of such a teaching. This is the first I've ever heard of it. These kinds of teachings always seem to pop up when the pre-trib rapture is being unmasked. Now we're to believe that Matthew 24:30 is actually describing the BEGINNING of the Tribulation period? Rolling Eyes
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/16/11 10:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Fuel for the fire - Ed Brewer
The strict Constructionis wrote:
Mamy Pre-Tribbers on this board insist that Jesus' reference to his coming being "as it was in the days of Noah" could only be in reference to a "Pre-Trib" rapture, since it involves an appearance that seems to catch people off guard.

I can prove, through simple grammar, that the reference to Christ's coming being "as it was in the days of Noah" can only be understood in the context of a "post-trib rapture.

I respectfully challenge anyone to refute this. But here are the rules. You MUST refute my argument on its substance. In other words, you must prove that my grammatical interpretation in flawed, and you must also use grammatical rules to prove that these verses are speaking of a pre-trib rapture. Fair enough?

Here is the argument....

Quote:
29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


We all agree that this is referring to the physical second coming when Christ returns for the 1000 year reign.

Let's continue in the chapter....

Quote:
36But of THAT day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


All we have to have is a basic understanding of English grammar to understand this verse.

What part of speech is the THIRD word of verse 36 (the word, "that")? It is a pronoun. And what is a pronoun? It is a word that takes the place of another noun. Now let's consider what an antecedent is. The first four letter of "antecedent" are "ante" which simply means "before".

An antecedent is the noun that comes before a pronoun, to tell us what the pronoun is or is taking the place of (or pointing back to).

If I say, "John has a dog. IT is ugly", the word "IT" is the pronoun than points back to the noun, the antecedent (John's dog) which is the subject of the discourse.

If I say "but of THAT day" (verse 36), what would be the natural question we'd all ask? We'd ask,"WHAT day?" Well, we'd have to go back a couple of verses and read a little bit to determine what "THAT day" is. Let's do that...

Quote:

29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that IT is near, even at the doors.

34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

36But of THAT day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


Again, in verse 36, we see the pronoun "THAT day" and in verse 33 we see the pronoun "IT".

And what is the antecedent of these pronouns? The day of his coming in verse 30. Simple grammar.

Then Christ continues.....

Quote:

37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (already mentioned in verse 30)

38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

43But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

44Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.


Christ did not interrupt his train of thought. He continues talking about "THAT day", the day of his return in verse 30, and he compares it to the "days of Noah".

Even though Noah had preached and built and ark as a testimony of judgment to come, the spiritually blinded people "knew not" and were "taken away" by the flood. Jesus is saying the same thing will happen on the day he returns (verse 30). In spite of centuries of warnings, in spite of dramatic fulfillment of prophecy happening before their very eyes, that generation will "know not" and will be "taken" away by the wrath of Christ when he returns.


Three questions (in the context of your grammatical challenge)
1. Who is the 'elect' of vs 31?
2. You didn't deal with the interrupted thought in vs. 40 (THEN) - when is 'then'?
3. Depending on your answer to question #1, who is this entire passage addressed to when He says "...in such an hour as YOU think not", and likewise, how do you get past the obvious break of thought for a summation when he uses the word 'therefore' (vs 44)?

Once again we must appeal to the context of the letter and the intent of the author when the text was written. Remember that Matthew would have almost certainly been aware of the letters Paul had written to the Thessalonian church wherein he made this absolutely clear - that God Himself would send a strong delusion to ALL who reject Christ in favor of continued unrighteousness, and that they ALL would be damned in the context of the Apocalypse (2 Thes 2:10-12). Applying your novel grammatical challenge to this passage, it is clear that the 'salvation' of which he spoke in vs. 13 is tied to the removal of the masculine restrainer back in vs 7. I suggest that this is the Holy Ghost indwelt BODY of Christ - not the entirety of the BRIDE which will continue to be 'made up' until the consummation (including the 'elect' - those who are redeemed out of the tribulation in this context). The Pre-trib rapture OF THE CHURCH is not the last rapture, nor will it have been the first - it is only the blessed hope OF THE CHURCH - we comfort OURSELVES with these words - not the whole creation, or even the whole 'Bride'. If we're gonna' do grammar, it is just as important to do syntax as well - the cast of characters is just as important as the script.
_________________
....from Barney Creek to Bountyland through every open door


Last edited by Ed Brewer on 6/16/11 11:18 pm; edited 4 times in total
Friendly Face
Posts: 312
6/16/11 10:41 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Well Ed, you have me confused by bringing in John. I thought John was the one with the ugly dog, not the author of Matthew. However, you already rocked my world by saying Augustine was not the originator of the "in essentials, unity" phrase, so I should not be so surprised. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
6/16/11 11:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post .... I need my meds - lucidity optional at this hour.... Ed Brewer
bonnie knox wrote:
Well Ed, you have me confused by bringing in John. I thought John was the one with the ugly dog, not the author of Matthew. However, you already rocked my world by saying Augustine was not the originator of the "in essentials, unity" phrase, so I should not be so surprised.


Thanks, Bonnie - I fixed it before we did too much damage to the faith/time continuum - blessings!!
_________________
....from Barney Creek to Bountyland through every open door
Friendly Face
Posts: 312
6/16/11 11:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post I would be interested Curtis Lowe II
to know where Tom and Travis stand on all of this pre and post stuff. I enjoy their posts and respect their opinions.
_________________
"you should've seen it in color"

"Don't taze me bro!"
Acts-celerater
Posts: 902
6/16/11 11:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bullseye77
Why are we having an English lesson on something that did not originate in English? Maybe I jumped the gun and skipped too many posts to know what is going on here.
_________________
On Target!!
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1441
6/17/11 9:11 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The strict Constructionis
Bullseye77 wrote:
Why are we having an English lesson on something that did not originate in English? Maybe I jumped the gun and skipped too many posts to know what is going on here.


Oh comon! That's a cop out. Ok, let's call it a grammar lesson. Go read your Greek interlinear and it will all come out the same.
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/17/11 10:53 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post @Ed Brewer The strict Constructionis
Quote:
Who is the 'elect' of vs 31?


I believe the answer is found in verse 9....
Quote:

9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.


One of the pre0trib arguments is that Jesus is speaking of Israel as the elect. However, these warnings are being given to those who will be persecuted for HIS NAME'S SAKE. Israel does not bear the name of Jesus, the church does. The elect are the one body made up of the righteous ones from OT Israel and anyone who is part of the Church. By the time Matthew 24 is fulfilled, anyone who was part of OT Israel will have long since died. Therefore, the only members of the elect who will be present are Christians. Other scriptures confirm that the Church is called God's "elect"....
Quote:

33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
(Romans 8:33)
Quote:


12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
(Col 3:12)


Quote:
10Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Tim 2:10)


Quote:
1Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
(Titus 1:1)


Quote:
You didn't deal with the interrupted thought in vs. 40 (THEN) - when is 'then'?


How in the world can you call this an "interruption" in the thought? On the contrary, it's a clear continuation of the thought of verse 30. "Then" is obviously referring to the second coming of verse 30. Jesus is liking that day to the day of Noah. He then gives greater detail as to how it will then (the day of his return) be like the events of Noah's days.

Verse 40 is describing how that then(the day of his coming in verse 30) people will be caught unaware and will be "taken"by God's wrath at Christ's return in the same way that the sinners were "taken away" by the flood of Noah.

Quote:

3. Depending on your answer to question #1, who is this entire passage addressed to when He says "...in such an hour as YOU think not",


The YOUare his disciples. Jesus told the twelve to make other disciples and to "teach them whatsover things I've commanded you". Since the original twelve are dead, this command falls to those disciples who will be living when Matthew 24 is fulfilled.

Quote:

and likewise, how do you get past the obvious break of thought for a summation when he uses the word 'therefore' (vs 44)?


Not really an interruption, but a repeat of the thought in verse 42...

Quote:
42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.


He's simply stressing to them that, in light of the fact that so many will have been deluded in to a false sense of security by deception (that would "deceive even the very elect if it were possible" verse 24)), they really need to be on their guard at all times so they will not be like those who will be caught off guard when he comes.


Quote:
Once again we must appeal to the context of the letter and the intent of the author when the text was written. Remember that Matthew would have almost certainly been aware of the letters Paul had written to the Thessalonian church wherein he made this absolutely clear - that God Himself would send a strong delusion to ALL who reject Christ in favor of continued unrighteousness, and that they ALL would be damned in the context of the Apocalypse (2 Thes 2:10-12).


True and it is clear that Paul got this from Jesus' dissertation in Matthew 24. This "delusion" was described by Jesus Matthew 24:4-5,11,23-24...

Quote:
4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


In verse 8, Jesus tells you that the sorrows begin with a great deception. Then in verse 15, he pinpoints when this sorrowful time of deception begins....

Quote:
15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:
)

This is the strong delusion that Paul spoke of in 2 Thessalonians 2.


Quote:

Applying your novel grammatical challenge to this passage, it is clear that the 'salvation' of which he spoke in vs. 13 is tied to the removal of the masculine restrainer back in vs 7. I suggest that this is the Holy Ghost indwelt BODY of Christ - not the entirety of the BRIDE which will continue to be 'made up' until the consummation (including the 'elect' - those who are redeemed out of the tribulation in this context). The Pre-trib rapture OF THE CHURCH is not the last rapture, nor will it have been the first - it is only the blessed hope OF THE CHURCH - we comfort OURSELVES with these words - not the whole creation, or even the whole 'Bride'. If we're gonna' do grammar, it is just as important to do syntax as well - the cast of characters is just as important as the script.


The "restrainer" mentioned here is not the church. Why? Because has already made it clear that "our gathering together unto Him" cannot happen until the anti-Christ is revealed....

Quote:
3Let 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;

4Who 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.


You're saying that the anti-Christ can't take power until the church has been raptured. But Paul is saying just the opposite, that the church can't be raptured until the anti-Christ is revealed. Paul's words clearly follow the pattern set forth by Jesus in Matthew 24.
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/17/11 11:52 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post ....to Strict Constructionist Ed Brewer
Even though this discussion is getting a bit time consuming, my 'two cents worth' is burning a hole in my spiritual pocket... so here goes....

Quote:
Quote:
3Let 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;
4Who 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.


You're saying that the anti-Christ can't take power until the church has been raptured. But Paul is saying just the opposite, that the church can't be raptured until the anti-Christ is revealed. Paul's words clearly follow the pattern set forth by Jesus in Matthew 24.


Sorry for the complicated quotes, but it seems necessary to answer a long post seriatim.

Quote:
Quote:
Who is the 'elect' of vs 31?

I believe the answer is found in verse 9....
Quote:
9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

One of the pre0trib arguments is that Jesus is speaking of Israel as the elect. However, these warnings are being given to those who will be persecuted for HIS NAME'S SAKE. Israel does not bear the name of Jesus, the church does. The elect are the one body made up of the righteous ones from OT Israel and anyone who is part of the Church. By the time Matthew 24 is fulfilled, anyone who was part of OT Israel will have long since died. Therefore, the only members of the elect who will be present are Christians. Other scriptures confirm that the Church is called God's "elect"....


I believe you mischaracterize the pre-trib position of Israel being 'the elect' by presuming a reference to the unsaved of Israel. Your appeal to the idea that 'the elect' applies only to OT Israel betrays your apparent embrace of replacement theology, and in my opinion is fundamentally theologically flawed. I believe this reference is speaking of the redeemed of Israel during the tribulation hour, just as the term has always been applied to those who are Christ-followers in all generations, dispensations, and times (or any other man-made time distinction you choose to pick). Your appeal to Romans, Colossian, and Titus only serves to emphasize the fact that Paul considered the New Testament JEWISH Christians to be part of the elect (they were technically OT believers who came to the truth, just as the redeemed of Israel will be during the Tribulation hour).

Quote:
Quote:
You didn't deal with the interrupted thought in vs. 40 (THEN) - when is 'then'?

How in the world can you call this an "interruption" in the thought? On the contrary, it's a clear continuation of the thought of verse 30. "Then" is obviously referring to the second coming of verse 30. Jesus is liking that day to the day of Noah. He then gives greater detail as to how it will then (the day of his return) be like the events of Noah's days.

Verse 40 is describing how that then (the day of his coming in verse 30) people will be caught unaware and will be "taken"by God's wrath at Christ's return in the same way that the sinners were "taken away" by the flood of Noah.


Focus, my brother! I am not suggesting an interruption as in a referral back to the pre-trib rapture - this scripture speaks of the catching up of the faithful 'elect' from the tribulation hour - those who turn to Christ during the 'time of Jacob's trouble'. Using 'then' in the context of vs. 40 is a grammatical equivalent of using a semi-colon instead of a colon - a way to connect related thoughts, not a shift in focus.

Quote:
Quote:

3. Depending on your answer to question #1, who is this entire passage addressed to when He says "...in such an hour as YOU think not",

The YOU are his disciples. Jesus told the twelve to make other disciples and to "teach them whatsover things I've commanded you". Since the original twelve are dead, this command falls to those disciples who will be living when Matthew 24 is fulfilled.


My question in context is WHICH disciples? Who was Jesus talking to? Clinging tenaciously to the idea that somehow modern Israel is cut out of the mix just because a dozen dudes are dust is another misappropriation of scripture with unjustified appeal to supercessionism. Jesus was addressing JEWISH believers in this entire passage. His focus was in preparing them to meet their Messiah at His physical return to the earth, and is fundamentally NOT a reference to the pre-trib Rapture of the Church. We do harm to the scriptures when we de-contextualize commands (as well as promises, but that's for another discussion).

Quote:
Quote:

and likewise, how do you get past the obvious break of thought for a summation when he uses the word 'therefore' (vs 44)?

Not really an interruption, but a repeat of the thought in verse 42...


A minor point, but it does indeed move outward from the focus on the reason to 'watch' (the fact that there will be no immediate warning), while vs. 44 moves to the larger structure of the entire warning in the context of the 'good man's' responsibility to live a life of perpetual preparation.

Quote:
Quote:
42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

He's simply stressing to them that, in light of the fact that so many will have been deluded in to a false sense of security by deception (that would "deceive even the very elect if it were possible" verse 24)), they really need to be on their guard at all times so they will not be like those who will be caught off guard when he comes.


Another minor point, but this is a specific utilitarian warning, and not a conceptual one. The danger Christ is pointing out in Matthew's inspired recollection is not that the 'elect' will be like the world, but that they will miss the literal promise that they'll be spared it's ultimate fate in the context of His continuing familial covenant with them.


Quote:
Once again we must appeal to the context of the letter and the intent of the author when the text was written. Remember that Matthew would have almost certainly been aware of the letters Paul had written to the Thessalonian church wherein he made this absolutely clear - that God Himself would send a strong delusion to ALL who reject Christ in favor of continued unrighteousness, and that they ALL would be damned in the context of the Apocalypse (2 Thes 2:10-12).

Quote:
True and it is clear that Paul got this from Jesus' dissertation in Matthew 24. This "delusion" was described by Jesus Matthew 24:4-5,11,23-24...

Quote:
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


Are you actually suggesting that the delusion that God will send to those who reject the cross of Christ will be a lie?

Quote:
God is not a man, that he should lie (emphasis mine); neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Numbers 23:19


I believe the delusion that God will 'send' to those who have heard the Gospel and rejected it our of hand will be a hardening of heart (as in the Pharaoh with Moses) to allow them to continue in their unbelief as reprobate. Besides, this scripture (2 Thessalonians) is not even addressed to the elect of Israel, but to the Church.

Quote:
In verse 8, Jesus tells you that the sorrows begin with a great deception. Then in verse 15, he pinpoints when this sorrowful time of deception begins....

Quote:
15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:
)

This is the strong delusion that Paul spoke of in 2 Thessalonians 2.


Wow! Your presumptions are showing, SC. What is your specific scriptural justification for suggesting that Paul was thinking about 'the abomination of desolation' here? This is the context....

Quote:
Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Dan 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.


All three references attributed to Christ by Matthew concern the beginning of the 'Great Tribulation' or 'the time of Jacob's Trouble' that will occur 'in the midst' of the Tribulation, and have no connections whatever to Paul's invocation of an impending curse upon the unbelieving of the Church Age.

Quote:
Quote:
Applying your novel grammatical challenge to this passage, it is clear that the 'salvation' of which he spoke in vs. 13 is tied to the removal of the masculine restrainer back in vs 7. I suggest that this is the Holy Ghost indwelt BODY of Christ - not the entirety of the BRIDE which will continue to be 'made up' until the consummation (including the 'elect' - those who are redeemed out of the tribulation in this context). The Pre-trib rapture OF THE CHURCH is not the last rapture, nor will it have been the first - it is only the blessed hope OF THE CHURCH - we comfort OURSELVES with these words - not the whole creation, or even the whole 'Bride'. If we're gonna' do grammar, it is just as important to do syntax as well - the cast of characters is just as important as the script.


The "restrainer" mentioned here is not the church. Why? Because has already made it clear that "our gathering together unto Him" cannot happen until the anti-Christ is revealed....


Once again I appeal to the context, my determined friend. Who, again, is Jesus speaking to? More to the point - who was Jesus? In Matthew 24, the JEWISH Jesus was speaking to a JEWISH audience about their fate, and speaking as a Jew - prior to his crucifixion (therefore the 'Church Age' had not yet begun (see John 20:22). In 2 Thessalonian 2, Paul was speaking to the ethnically blended Church firmly entrenched in that promised 'New Covenant in His blood', and as such he was revealing a promise to the BODY of Christ, specifically the one who restrains the revelation of 'that Wicked' (anomos = lawless one) in vs. 8. Even here, Paul is not confusing the 'day of Christ' from vs. 2-6 with 'our (once again, emphasis mine) gathering together unto him' from vs. 1. If OUR refers to the elect who will be saved out of instead of from the hour of tribulation, then your theory has merit, but if, as I believe the scripture teaches, it refers to the BODY of Christ which is the 'restrainer' of vs. 7, then your whole theory collapses like a house of cards (pardon the appeal to a woefully overused alliteration, but it seems apropos).
_________________
....from Barney Creek to Bountyland through every open door
Friendly Face
Posts: 312
6/17/11 2:20 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Several brilliant men would take you up on it... spartanfan
One of the best known is Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, who argues the opposing view. He writes, “Within premillennial and pretribulational circles, the majority view today is that this passage is speaking of the Second Coming rather than the Rapture. Two main reasons are given. First: contextually, Jesus has been speaking about the Second Coming and since this passage follows that discussion, then, logically, it would mean that He is speaking of the same thing. Second: the ‘taking away’ of Matthew 24:40-41 is taken to be the same as verse 39, which is a ‘taking away’ in judgment. Hence, the ‘taking away’ is in judgment at the Second Coming, and not the blessing of the Rapture.”

He continues, “In answer to the first point, Matthew 24:36 begins with the word But, which in Greek is peri de. The peri de construction in Greek is a contrastive introduction of a new subject and, hence, is often translated as: But concerning (I Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1; I Thess. 5:1; etc.). The usage of this construction points to the introduction of a new subject. So yes, He has been discussing the Second Coming until this point. However, the peri de means that He is now introducing a new subject, and that is the Rapture.

This would not be the first time the chronological sequence of the Olivet Discourse, was broken to speak of an earlier event. It also happened in Luke 21:12.

In answer to the second point, the “taking away” in verses 40-41 is a different Greek word than the one used in verse 39, and so it need not be interpreted as the same kind of ‘taking away.’”

We have already pointed out that in Matthew 24:39, “took … away” comes from the verb that means to carry away, in this case, by the waters of the Flood. Dr. Fruchtenbaum mentions that the second occurrence of “taking away” uses a different verb.

He is quite correct. Verses 40 and 41 (one taken, the other left) translate the word “taken” from the Greek paralambano. Unlike the first verb, airo, this one means, “to take to or to take with oneself.” It seems most logical, therefore, to interpret the action of these verses as individuals being “taken to be with the Lord,” rather than “taken in judgment.” Interpreted in this way, the ones “left” are those left behind, to experience judgment.

This explanation is emphasized in the observation that Jesus’ words end in an exhortation to “watch,” using the Greek verb, gregoreo, meaning to continually be spiritually alert or awake. This vital directive is given to “the goodman of the house,” (the master of the house) not to the sinner in the world. This is simply another indication that the one “taken” is to be watching for the Lord. This would, by definition, be the saved, not the unsaved. The “taken” would therefore, be those saved; the “left” would be the unsaved; the ones whose houses would be “broken up” would be those who were not watching, in other words, those spiritual people who are saved.

“Ye know not what hour…”

This brings us to another important point. Because of the way they are described, the “day” and “hour” in question are most logically interpreted as the Rapture, not the Second Coming.

Jesus closes his dissertation upon the days of Noah by referencing an earlier statement. Remember, He began the “Days of Noah” dissertation by stating, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matt. 24:36).

Now, He concludes with the assertion that the “hour” of His coming is absolutely unknowable, beyond any human reckoning:

“Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh” (Matt. 24:44).

Like bookends, these two verses bracket the illustration that the Tribulation will come in the same manner as Noah’s Flood. As we have seen from the examples above, contemporary pretribulational thinking is that the “day and hour” Jesus has in mind is that of His Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation. But this simply cannot be the case, because many of those alive during the Tribulation will have read and understood prophetic Scripture.

By reading Revelation, they will understand that there is a finite time period from the beginning to the middle of the Tribulation:

“But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth” (Rev. 11:2,3).

The first half of the Tribulation is 1,260 days, forty-two months or three and half years. Those alive at that time will also understand that the second half of the Tribulation will also be three and a half years long, beginning with the deaths of the two witnesses and the persecution of Israel:

“And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days” (Rev. 12:6).

The elect who are alive during the Tribulation will know the Scriptures, and will be able to perfectly calculate the Lord’s Second Coming, which will be dated precisely seven years after the signing of the covenant between the antichrist and the leaders of Israel.

This is yet another reason to believe that the “Days of Noah” discourse is talking about the Rapture – an undatable event – as contrasted with the Second Coming, which will be quite datable. Those alive during the Tribulation will, indeed, be able to calculate “the day and the hour!” They will count the days of that dark period in a gravely serious manner, and with great attention to the passing details of the period.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum, J.R. Church and others are well able to take you up on your Matthew 24 "show me the Rapture" challenge! Booya! Another "slam dunk" by the spartanfan!
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3628
6/17/11 4:28 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post @Spartanfan The strict Constructionis
Quote:
He continues, “In answer to the first point, Matthew 24:36 begins with the word But, which in Greek is peri de. The peri de construction in Greek is a contrastive introduction of a new subject and, hence, is often translated as: But concerning (I Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1; I Thess. 5:1; etc.). The usage of this construction points to the introduction of a new subject. So yes, He has been discussing the Second Coming until this point. However, the peri de means that He is now introducing a new subject, and that is the Rapture.



Well, your post only goes to prove the lengths that so called "scholars" in the pretrib camp will go to to mentally escape the truth that they will probably be required to give their very lives for the Lord that bought them (not aimed at you, Spartanfan). I don't want those people anywhere near me when the great falling away happens and people start betraying one another.

This "scholar"(Dr. Frankenstein, or whatever it was, because he certainly has created a freak monster with his teachings) is going to tell us that EVERY translation in EVERY language EVER written is wrong and he is right? Sounds to me like he should have been on the editing committee of the New World Translation. Rolling Eyes How insulting to any thinking person.

It is SO obvious and clear to anyone without an escapist agenda that Jesus is referring to ONE coming. He does not mention two comings. Those listening to him understood that he was talking about the same event because in verse 37 he refers again to "THE coming of the Son of Man" There is NOTHING in the context that would even REMOTELY indicate he is now talking about a different "coming of the Son of Man". The, the, the, the (coming of the Son of Man). Not "A" coming, not "one of the two", or parts 1 and2 of the same coming. Let's see if Frankenstein has any Greek studies on the word "the". This is as sickening as listening to Sheela Jackson Lee explain how we're "violating the Constitution" by not offering Universal Healthcare to all U.S. citizens. How can these people shame themselves like this?

Sure, the peri de construction can be the start of a different subject, but when the speaker continues talking about the same subject, even a deaf man would have no problem comprehending what was being said. He wouldn't feel the need to find a quack "scholar" who has no intellectual honesty. Then you still have the problem of the demonstrative adjective/pronoun "that day" which has to have an antecedent. The "peri de" construction here can't be the beginning of an entirely different subject because the words THAT DAY in verse 36 REQUIRE an antecedent.


Quote:
He is quite correct. Verses 40 and 41 (one taken, the other left) translate the word “taken” from the Greek paralambano. Unlike the first verb, airo, this one means, “to take to or to take with oneself.” It seems most logical, therefore, to interpret the action of these verses as individuals being “taken to be with the Lord,” rather than “taken in judgment.” Interpreted in this way, the ones “left” are those left behind, to experience judgment.


It is indeed interesting that the "scholar" forgot that Jesus said these "taken" will have their corpses consumed by vultures. (Luke 17:26-27)

That's enough said. There's no point even commenting on the rest of their writings. They have zero creditability.

Spartanfan, I realize you were simply copying and pasting, and I'm not aiming my harsh criticism at you. But man, you are just too sharp of a guy to let someone else think for you like this. Even a casual glance will convince anyone this guy is just wasting paper. Rolling Eyes

I'm still marveling at how a guy like me with nothing but a 23 year old Bachelors Degree in Pastoral Ministry from a now defunct school can so effortlessly shatter the writings of "scholars". Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/17/11 7:35 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Hahaha! spartanfan
Ha! Yeah, you are so much more knowledgable than wimps like Arnold Fruchtenbaum, J.R. Church, Chuck Missler, etc.
I'm worried about your self-esteem - you really need to understand that you are a valuable person and extremely valuable all those whos lives you speak into.
I cut and pasted that just to show you that anyone of us can find a "scholar" to support our particular point of view.
You asked for grammatical proof of the Rapture in Matthew 24 and I gave it to you and then you passed it off with a half/wit explanation (that is partially correct at best) and elevated yourself to a level that you cannot in reality even see the bottom of.
We can both cut and paste and use our so-called scholars to prove our point. I just have 25 times more scholars proclaiming a pre-trib rapture than you have believing in the "silly and don't make no sense" post-trib rapture.
You know, you really need to ask yourself if your insistence on believing in these off-the-wall minority false-teachings is helping or hurting your ability to influence people for the Kingdom. I mean, we've smacked down the post-trib with Scripture and common sense... but you have just responded saying you're a more credible scholar than- well, just about everyone in the "Who's Who" of respected Bible prophecy scholars.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3628
6/17/11 8:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post @Spartanfan The strict Constructionis
Quote:
I'm worried about your self-esteem


And I'm worried about YOUR reputation.



Quote:
I cut and pasted


Yes you did. I didn't.
I didn't need some "post trib scholar" like the lare Dr Walter Martin to prove the obvious.

Yeah, you love to talk about those "off-the-wall minority teachings", but may I remind you that of the way of life, our Lord said, "FEW there be that find it."

And WHAT did you "smack down" with "scripture"? Man, you couldn't even come up with something of your own and original. You fled to the false security of pillow prophets who cry "peace and safety" and posted their drivel. I'm truly embarrassed for you.
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/17/11 8:57 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: @Spartanfan spartanfan
The strict Constructionis wrote:
Quote:
I'm worried about your self-esteem


And I'm worried about YOUR reputation.



Quote:
I cut and pasted


Yes you did. I didn't.
I didn't need some "post trib scholar" like the lare Dr Walter Martin to prove the obvious.

Yeah, you love to talk about those "off-the-wall minority teachings", but may I remind you that of the way of life, our Lord said, "FEW there be that find it."

And WHAT did you "smack down" with "scripture"? Man, you couldn't even come up with something of your own and original. You fled to the false security of pillow prophets who cry "peace and safety" and posted their drivel. I'm truly embarrassed for you.


How scholarly is it to take the "few they be that find it" comment of Jesus talking about salvation and applying it to your oneness and post-trib heresies? Are you saying that those who are Trinitarian and Pre-trib are not saved and in the way of life? Explain that please - or are you old-school oneness who believes the Trinitarians are not saved?
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3628
6/17/11 9:10 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post @Ed Brewer The strict Constructionis
Quote:
Even though this discussion is getting a bit time consuming


Same here. My wife keep giving me that "look". Laughing


.
Quote:
I believe this reference is speaking of the redeemed of Israel during the tribulation hour,


I'd agree they are included. But a disciple is a disciple.

Quote:
Your appeal to Romans, Colossian, and Titus only serves to emphasize the fact that Paul considered the New Testament JEWISH Christians to be part of the elect


I don't really embrace "replacement theology". However, Paul also makes it clear that one is not a Jew who is a Jew "outwardly".

Quote:
I believe the delusion that God will 'send' to those who have heard the Gospel and rejected it our of hand will be a hardening of heart (as in the Pharaoh with Moses) to allow them to continue in their unbelief as reprobate.


Either way, the point is, they are deluded.

Quote:
Besides, this scripture (2 Thessalonians) is not even addressed to the elect of Israel, but to the Church.


Again, you have to really twist the word to make this assumption. You show YOUR embrace of a radical dispensationalism. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek.

Quote:
Wow! Your presumptions are showing, SC. What is your specific scriptural justification for suggesting that Paul was thinking about 'the abomination of desolation' here? This is the context....


You are the first person I've ever heard who DOESN'T think this Paul is referring to the Abomination of Desolation. Paul clearly is talking about EXACTLY what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 24. This deception happens when the anti-Christ reveals himself with lying signs and wonders.

Quote:
All three references attributed to Christ by Matthew concern the beginning of the 'Great Tribulation' or 'the time of Jacob's Trouble' that will occur 'in the midst' of the Tribulation


Again, you base many of your views on dispensationalist assumptions. I don't see a difference between the "Tribulation" and the "Great Tribulation". Nor do I see a seven year tribulation. Yes, one can argue that there is a seven year covenant made between the anti-Christ and Israel, but only the last 3-1/2 of that time period is "Tribulation".

Certainly part of whom Jesus was addressing will be CHRISTIANS (they that dwell in Judea) living in Israel. But sir, there are MANY Christians of MANY ethnicities living in Israel right now. He didn't say that only the JEWISH Christians should flee Jerusalem. But again, you are basing your belief on an assumption that the Church age will have already ended with a secret rapture. In all kindness I say that I must also assume that your justification for this secret rapture not being mentioned in Matthew 24 is because the Church was still " a hidden mystery yet to be revealed " or something along those lines.




Wink Wink


Last edited by The strict Constructionis on 6/17/11 9:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
6/17/11 9:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.