Oh No Not Another Apocalypse Thread By Chrysostom

[Idolater]

She can't. Calling Islam the fourth beast of Daniel doesn't look good. People like me have to do it.
Sebeos was the first to do it.
Tom Holland is the latest In The Shadow of the Sword

Without Arius and Arianism, there'd be no Islam. The Arians when condemned starting in Nicaea in the year 325 (the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, aka Nicaea I, is this year), disappeared or melted into the East. Less than 300 years later out comes Islam. Outta the East. Islam in a sense believes in Jesus (as a prophet), but He is NOT God—according to Islam—and according to Arianism; which melted into (dissolved into) what Islam and Muhammad (SAW) came outta. The East. "The Prophet", was an Arian. Lowered Jesus Christ. That's a pun.

 

[ok doser]

... the Apocalypse ...

 

[Clete]

She can't. Calling Islam the fourth beast of Daniel doesn't look good. People like me have to do it.
Sebeos was the first to do it.
Tom Holland is the latest In The Shadow of the Sword

Calling Islam the fourth beast of Daniel doesn't make it so.

That's the thing you need to let soak into your mind.

 

[chrysostom]

Calling Islam the fourth beast of Daniel doesn't make it so.

Like saying re-offer.

 

[chrysostom]

At the beginning of the fifth century, John Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was in Ephesus replacing seven corrupt bishops. Jerome, who was getting a lot of attention, was finishing his Vulgate, a Latin translation of the bible and it would include the Apocalypse. Augustine didn't want another bible. Chrysostom, they called him John, may have stayed too long in Ephesus.

Jerome's Vulgate would eventually become the official bible of the Church and it would settle once and for all that the Apocalypse belonged in the bible. We don't know what Chrysostom did in Ephesus outside of replacing seven corrupt bishops but we do know he had time to visit Patmos and if the Roman Empire had seven dynasties, he is the only famous John who could say, "five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come;"

 

[Clete]

Like saying re-offer.

On the contrary! I can defend what I say with legitimate arguments. I'm simply tired of those arguments being ignored. When you begin to be responsive, we can get as detailed as you like. Until then, I'm going to treat you with the respect you've earned and not one ounce more than that.

 

[Nick M]

Irenaeus ancient copies Eusebius Victorinus

From Church History by Eusebius, Book 5 Chapter 8 has this about Irenaeus born 130 AD:

In the fifth book he speaks as follows

So what.

 

[Nick M]

was finishing his Vulgate, a Latin translation of the bible

This is a tangent, but he correctly translated 2 Thessalonians 2 as "departure". Modern perverts change what he wrote to rebellion or falling away.

 

[chrysostom]

Jerome's Vulgate would eventually become the official bible of the Church and it would settle once and for all that the Apocalypse belonged in the bible. We don't know what Chrysostom did in Ephesus outside of replacing seven corrupt bishops but we do know he had time to visit Patmos and if the Roman Empire had seven dynasties, he is the only famous John who could say, "five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come;"

Enter seven heads, "ten horns", and the four beasts of Daniel. John knows Daniel and Daniel knows beasts. Few know what makes a beast a beast in the eyes of Daniel. No one has addressed this. Jesus did. What is in the holy place now? The
Dome of the Rock which should make Islam a beast not unlike Babylon destroying the first temple, Greece desecrating the 2nd, and Rome destroying the 2nd. All preventing the daily sacrifice.

 

[Clete]

This is a tangent, but he correctly translated 2 Thessalonians 2 as "departure". Modern perverts change what he wrote to rebellion or falling away.

I happen to have just listened to a bible study done by Bob Enyart this last Sunday about the Rapture where he made the argument that apostasia should be translated "departure" and I am in the long and well established habit of taking Bob's word for it when it comes to such things and for that reason alone, I do indeed tend to agree that "apostasia" should be translated as "departure".

However!...

Translating apostasia as "falling away" is neither a perversion nor is it modern. Quite the contrary!

You have to go all the way back to the Geneva Bible to find it translated into English as "departure". Since then, from the King James Bible onward, it's been translated as "falling away" or "rebellion" or simply transliterated into "apostasy" and for solid, non-doctrinal, reasons.

For example, every use of apostasia in the Septuagint refers to defection, rebellion, or apostasy in the sense of turning away from God or some other authority. There are no instances in the LXX where it means a physical “departure.”

That fact alone would have heavily shaped how Paul’s Greek speaking audience in Thessalonica understood the term. Unless the context in II Thessalonians 2:3 clearly forced a new sense, the natural reading from both Scripture and contemporary Greek would be rebellion or falling away, not “departure.”

The only other use of the term in the New Testament is Acts 21:21...

Acts 21:21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.​

That usage does not support a physical departure. Rather, it demonstrates that by the New Testament period, apostasia meant a defection or turning away from a person or principle, not a change of physical location.

In short, there are good arguments on both sides. Those who hold to a pre-tribulation rapture are the ones who cling most tightly to translating it as "departure", which is understandable but not necessary for the position to be well established. I'd advise against being dogmatic about it.

 

[Nick M]

Since then, from the King James Bible onward, it's been translated as "falling away" or "rebellion" or simply transliterated into "apostasy" and for solid, non-doctrinal, reasons.

So I have seen. I call that new. In fact another dispensationalist who does YouTube videos pointed out it was “departure” all the way up to the king James Bible. And they got it wrong. And no I don’t think they are perverts, just the new people are.

More importantly it fits the context. In the first letter to them he said we will be snatched away. They thought they missed it, and he had to tell them the timing.

 

[Clete]

So I have seen. I call that new. In fact another dispensationalist who does YouTube videos pointed out it was “departure” all the way up to the king James Bible. And they got it wrong. And no I don’t think they are perverts, just the new people are.

More importantly it fits the context. In the first letter to them he said we will be snatched away. They thought they missed it, and he had to tell them the timing.

Is the Septuagint new?

I mean there really isn't much in the way of ancient evidence of the word being used as "departure". If Paul wanted to highlight the idea of a literal taking up into heaven, "analēmpsis" would have been a better choice of words. It's the word used for Jesus’ ascension and Paul's use of it would have made the point crystal clear if that’s what Paul meant in II Thessalonians 2:3.

Instead, he chose apostasia, which was commonly understood to mean rebellion or falling away.

Bob pointed out that Paul's use of the definite article lends credence to the idea that he making reference to the rapture which he had mentioned in his previous letter to the Thessalonians. That's not a terrible argument but it's not exactly proof either.

Again, I can't see my way toward being dogmatic on this specific point. The pre-tribulation position doesn't need it and the inherent weakness of the argument here gives its detractors ammunition we need not give them.