Post by disciple4life on Feb 27, 2021 11:09:49 GMT -6
Gary ,bernie ,rt ,venge ,stormyknight ,mike ,Natalie ,disciple4life ,david
Another thing that is interesting/ not clear - is that in the very first sentence, Robert says that the study is by another "brother from a watchman chat that he [Robert] follows".
It's odd that he doesn't give the name of the author, and it seems that he simply copied or forwarded the article. Normally, there is an indented blocked quote or a paragraphs in italics - with the author's name cited. The point of a large quoted section, is to inform the reader that this is actually the words of the person himself or herself, and to give credit. This is not a criticism of Robert, but just a clarification that we're discussing the content of an unknown friend of Robert.
Two things stood out as I read it over carefully, after reading multiple other articles on all sides - Pre-Trib, Post-Trib, and even several that totally dismissed/denied the rapture altogether. Yeah, shocking.
1. The unknown author tries to support his point by looking at a specific word - and then he creates a red-herring argument. He gives one definition of the term "Taken" and then cites a few verses, in which that specific Greek word is used in the positive sense he mentioned.
- But he fails to mention the fact that the same word can be and is in fact, also used in a negative sense - Not only in the sense of a man taking his bride.
- It's also bizarre that he doesn't list any of the other verses and contexts where the word is actually used in the negative sense - as in judgment, punishment, death, or a "Not-taking-you-to-Disneyland" sense.
Normally, when a person does an in-depth word study, the point of looking at other passages is to see the full spectrum of how the word is used. Like the word Harpazo, or Day of the Lord, or Day of Christ.
-How many times does it appear?
- Who was the author/ writer?
- Who was the audience?
- Did other writers use the same term?
- and Is it found in both the Old and New Testament?
It's reasonable to say that when you look up the definition in the Greek dictionary that you will see the multiple definitions, and when you do the part of cross-referencing, it's a fact that the uses/ or occurrences are listed chronologically, not based on the specific different definitions.
**Just to make the point, there are multiple uses in different books where this word, or a form is used, and the range of meaning is extremely wide, just like it is in English, "Taken".
"He took it", "they were taken to prison", or "we took the kids to the beach", or she takes cookies to her teacher.
*Seems that it is never used in the sense of money being taken. But at least 2 references where the meaning is negative, or not "Taking-a-bride" kind of thing.
- One is Matthew 27:27, where Christ is taken away by the guards to be stripped naked, beaten beyond recognition and mocked. Any volunteers??
- the second - is in Luke 11:26, where the demon or evil spirit is cast out and "he takes other spirits more evil than itself." Aaaggghhhh.
Unknown original author, who Robert quotes - **I don't know how to do an indented block quote, so this quote is in purple.
"The word taken in the original Greek is paralambánō .
This word is used to describe how one would receive another in marriage, or to oneself as to join together. This word is contrasted with the word used for “left”, and is the Greek word aphiemi, which the form used here as well as Luke 17:34 literally means “to leave one by not taking him as a companion”, to abandon, even as to die.
An interesting place Jesus also used the word paralambánō is in the famous text of John 14:3 where He says:
“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you (paralambánō) unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”
3880 paralambánō (from 3844 /pará, "from close-alongside" and 2983 /lambánō, "aggressively take") – to take (receive)
Notice the definition cites the aggressive nature of the taking of the one. Sound familiar? Let’s have a look at the word harpazo:
Strong’s Definition ἁρπάζω harpázō, har-pad'-zo; from a derivative of G138; to seize (in various applications):—catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).
Let’s look at how it’s used in 1Thes 4:17 KJV: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up (harpazo) together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Compare John 14:1-4 phrase for phrase, word for word, with 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Paul is quoting Jesus almost verbatim."
The last line is so bizarre, - that I actually thought it was a misprint. Many scholars would agree that they both point to the same event, but these passages are very different. Saying Paul is quoting Jesus almost verbatim is wishful thinking, and eisegesis.
1. He misses the fact that in the John 14 passage, Jesus used an idiom for a Jewish wedding, which was instantly recognizable to his Galilean disciples, [and Paul makes no mention of this at all.]
2. Most importantly, in an effort to make his case, he tries to make connections to other passages that talk about some "being taken" and some "who are left", but he totally ignores the clear words of Christ himself in the very same context, in the very next verse Matt 24:39. This cannot be ignored. In case there is any doubt, the parallel passage in Luke 17 makes it unmistakably clear that the ones taken were the wicked - and they were destroyed.
38. “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39. and they did not understand [Who did not understand?] until the flood came and took them all away [Took who away?? - the wicked] ; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
May we watch expectantly, and be like the Bereans, searching the scriptures daily.
Maranatha.
Another thing that is interesting/ not clear - is that in the very first sentence, Robert says that the study is by another "brother from a watchman chat that he [Robert] follows".
It's odd that he doesn't give the name of the author, and it seems that he simply copied or forwarded the article. Normally, there is an indented blocked quote or a paragraphs in italics - with the author's name cited. The point of a large quoted section, is to inform the reader that this is actually the words of the person himself or herself, and to give credit. This is not a criticism of Robert, but just a clarification that we're discussing the content of an unknown friend of Robert.
Two things stood out as I read it over carefully, after reading multiple other articles on all sides - Pre-Trib, Post-Trib, and even several that totally dismissed/denied the rapture altogether. Yeah, shocking.
1. The unknown author tries to support his point by looking at a specific word - and then he creates a red-herring argument. He gives one definition of the term "Taken" and then cites a few verses, in which that specific Greek word is used in the positive sense he mentioned.
- But he fails to mention the fact that the same word can be and is in fact, also used in a negative sense - Not only in the sense of a man taking his bride.
- It's also bizarre that he doesn't list any of the other verses and contexts where the word is actually used in the negative sense - as in judgment, punishment, death, or a "Not-taking-you-to-Disneyland" sense.
Normally, when a person does an in-depth word study, the point of looking at other passages is to see the full spectrum of how the word is used. Like the word Harpazo, or Day of the Lord, or Day of Christ.
-How many times does it appear?
- Who was the author/ writer?
- Who was the audience?
- Did other writers use the same term?
- and Is it found in both the Old and New Testament?
It's reasonable to say that when you look up the definition in the Greek dictionary that you will see the multiple definitions, and when you do the part of cross-referencing, it's a fact that the uses/ or occurrences are listed chronologically, not based on the specific different definitions.
**Just to make the point, there are multiple uses in different books where this word, or a form is used, and the range of meaning is extremely wide, just like it is in English, "Taken".
"He took it", "they were taken to prison", or "we took the kids to the beach", or she takes cookies to her teacher.
*Seems that it is never used in the sense of money being taken. But at least 2 references where the meaning is negative, or not "Taking-a-bride" kind of thing.
- One is Matthew 27:27, where Christ is taken away by the guards to be stripped naked, beaten beyond recognition and mocked. Any volunteers??
- the second - is in Luke 11:26, where the demon or evil spirit is cast out and "he takes other spirits more evil than itself." Aaaggghhhh.
Unknown original author, who Robert quotes - **I don't know how to do an indented block quote, so this quote is in purple.
"The word taken in the original Greek is paralambánō .
This word is used to describe how one would receive another in marriage, or to oneself as to join together. This word is contrasted with the word used for “left”, and is the Greek word aphiemi, which the form used here as well as Luke 17:34 literally means “to leave one by not taking him as a companion”, to abandon, even as to die.
An interesting place Jesus also used the word paralambánō is in the famous text of John 14:3 where He says:
“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you (paralambánō) unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”
3880 paralambánō (from 3844 /pará, "from close-alongside" and 2983 /lambánō, "aggressively take") – to take (receive)
Notice the definition cites the aggressive nature of the taking of the one. Sound familiar? Let’s have a look at the word harpazo:
Strong’s Definition ἁρπάζω harpázō, har-pad'-zo; from a derivative of G138; to seize (in various applications):—catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).
Let’s look at how it’s used in 1Thes 4:17 KJV: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up (harpazo) together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Compare John 14:1-4 phrase for phrase, word for word, with 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Paul is quoting Jesus almost verbatim."
The last line is so bizarre, - that I actually thought it was a misprint. Many scholars would agree that they both point to the same event, but these passages are very different. Saying Paul is quoting Jesus almost verbatim is wishful thinking, and eisegesis.
1. He misses the fact that in the John 14 passage, Jesus used an idiom for a Jewish wedding, which was instantly recognizable to his Galilean disciples, [and Paul makes no mention of this at all.]
2. Most importantly, in an effort to make his case, he tries to make connections to other passages that talk about some "being taken" and some "who are left", but he totally ignores the clear words of Christ himself in the very same context, in the very next verse Matt 24:39. This cannot be ignored. In case there is any doubt, the parallel passage in Luke 17 makes it unmistakably clear that the ones taken were the wicked - and they were destroyed.
38. “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39. and they did not understand [Who did not understand?] until the flood came and took them all away [Took who away?? - the wicked] ; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
May we watch expectantly, and be like the Bereans, searching the scriptures daily.
Maranatha.
