Be Thankful for the Coming Pretribulation Rapture

[BABerean2]

One line of thought I have heard before seems applicable here. With regard to the removal of "the restrainer". The restrainer being The Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit resides within the Spirit Filled believers. Without the infilling of The Holy Spirit, there is no connection to God for Guidance and teaching. Also it is through the infilling that we gain Spiritual authority bought by The Blood.

If every Spirit Filled Believers suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth.... The Holy Spirit is no longer present to act as Restrainer.

The Holy Spirit is omnipresent.

He cannot be removed from the planet.

He was in John the Baptist from the time John was in his mother's womb.

Nobody comes to faith in Christ without the work of the Spirit.


Eph_1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Rev_7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.


Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Those in Revelation 12:11 cannot be under the Blood of the Lamb and not be a part of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ.

.

 

[jgr]

No, it really is not unknown. Did you notice Paul wrote,

"And now you know..."

It seems then that Paul knew and was telling the readers.

It is really very simple: since in verse 3b the man of sin is revealed, then in 3a the one restraining must have been taken out of the way. It is in the Greek word, Apostasia. It is a compound word. The "Apo" according to Strong's means to remove a part of a group from a whole group.

Paul is telling us it is the CHURCH who will be departing because she is being "taken out of the way."

1384 Wycliffe N.T.
That no man deceyue you in any maner / for no but departynge aweye (or dissencon) schal come firste & the man of synne schall be schewid [shewed] the sone of perdicioune.

1534 Tyndale N.T.
Let no ma deceave you by eny meanes for the lorde commeth not excepte ther come a departynge fyrst and that that synfnll man be opened ye sonne of perdicion

1535 Coverdale Bible
Let no man disceaue you by eny meanes. For the LORDE commeth not, excepte the departynge come first, and that Man of Synne be opened, even the sonne of perdicion.

1539 Cranmer Great Bible
Let no man deceaue you by any meanes, for the Lorde shall not come excepte there come a departinge fyrst, & that that synfull man be opened, the sonne of perdicion.

1549 Matthew's Bible
Let no man deceyue you by any meanes, for the Lord commeth not, except there come a departyng first, and that, that sinful man be opened, the sonne of perdicyon

1565 Beza Bible
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for [that day shall not come,] except there come a departing first, and that man of sinne be disclosed, [euen] the son of perdition.

1575 Geneva Bible
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes for that day shal not come, except there come a departing first, and that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition.

Here is the elaboration on 2 Thes. 2:3 in the Wycliffe translation:

3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition

Note that dissension (consistent with apostasy, separation, schism) is the elaboration. Rapture is unseen.

Departing/departure means departure from the truth i.e. apostasy, not rapture; falling away, not flying away.

Wycliffe himself identified the man of sin as the papacy, at whose hands the true church was suffering. He did not believe in a pretrib rapture.


And from Calvin's Geneva Study Bible:

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;

Calvin also identified the man of sin as the papacy, and did not believe in a pretrib rapture.
Same with Tyndale. He was martyred by the papacy.
Same with Cranmer. He too was martyred by the papacy.
Coverdale was an associate of Tyndale's, and of like persuasion.
Beza was also of like persuasion.

There is no Reformer who defined the word as anything other than apostasy.

A definition of "discessio," the word used in the Vulgate, is found at this site.

Included near the end is a specific ecclesiological subdefinition:
"In the church, a separation, schism (eccl. Lat.), Vulg. Act. 21, 21; id. 2 Thes. 2, 3."

Occurrences are cited as being Acts 21:21 and 2 Thes. 2:3.

Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, the use of the word in Acts 21:21 is translated "forsake," which is fully consistent with the subdefinition above, and has nothing to do with rapture.

Apostacia: What Modern Greeks say about "Apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3.

Excerpt: "I could find no debate among Greek speaking Christians on how to interpret this verse. They all interpret "apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3 to mean "apostacy"."

Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’ (i.e. the Rapture)?

2 Thess 2:3 in the Early Church Writings; How early Greek, Latin and Aramaic speaking Christians interpreted "Apostacia"/"Apostacy

The Latin Influence on 2 Thess 2:3


The early church believed that the imperial Roman empire, under which the church was then living, was the restrainer which would eventually be "taken out of the way", but which was forestalling the emergence of the papal Roman empire, which Paul describes as the lawless one; and its ensuing apostasy. Notice in the related verses in 2 Thess. 2 that Paul does not reveal the identity of the restrainer. If Paul had believed that the Holy Spirit or the Church was the restrainer, there would have been no reason for him not to explicitly name either one. But Paul did have a reason. John Chrysostom, an apologist of the later early post-apostolic era, reveals it:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him...But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end."

Paul did not wish to jeopardize the Church by attracting the attention of the Roman authorities.

History subsequently confirmed the validity of Paul's inspired prescience.

 

[iamlamad]

One line of thought I have heard before seems applicable here. With regard to the removal of "the restrainer". The restrainer being The Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit resides within the Spirit Filled believers. Without the infilling of The Holy Spirit, there is no connection to God for Guidance and teaching. Also it is through the infilling that we gain Spiritual authority bought by The Blood.

If every Spirit Filled Believers suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth.... The Holy Spirit is no longer present to act as Restrainer.

My sentiments exactly!

 

[iamlamad]

Here is the elaboration on 2 Thes. 2:3 in the Wycliffe translation:

3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition

Note that dissension (consistent with apostasy, separation, schism) is the elaboration. Rapture is unseen.

Departing/departure means departure from the truth i.e. apostasy, not rapture; falling away, not flying away.

Wycliffe himself identified the man of sin as the papacy, at whose hands the true church was suffering. He did not believe in a pretrib rapture.


And from Calvin's Geneva Study Bible:

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;

Calvin also identified the man of sin as the papacy, and did not believe in a pretrib rapture.
Same with Tyndale. He was martyred by the papacy.
Same with Cranmer. He too was martyred by the papacy.
Coverdale was an associate of Tyndale's, and of like persuasion.
Beza was also of like persuasion.

There is no Reformer who defined the word as anything other than apostasy.

A definition of "discessio," the word used in the Vulgate, is found at this site.

Included near the end is a specific ecclesiological subdefinition:
"In the church, a separation, schism (eccl. Lat.), Vulg. Act. 21, 21; id. 2 Thes. 2, 3."

Occurrences are cited as being Acts 21:21 and 2 Thes. 2:3.

Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, the use of the word in Acts 21:21 is translated "forsake," which is fully consistent with the subdefinition above, and has nothing to do with rapture.

Apostacia: What Modern Greeks say about "Apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3.

Excerpt: "I could find no debate among Greek speaking Christians on how to interpret this verse. They all interpret "apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3 to mean "apostacy"."

Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’ (i.e. the Rapture)?

2 Thess 2:3 in the Early Church Writings; How early Greek, Latin and Aramaic speaking Christians interpreted "Apostacia"/"Apostacy

The Latin Influence on 2 Thess 2:3


The early church believed that the imperial Roman empire, under which the church was then living, was the restrainer which would eventually be "taken out of the way", but which was forestalling the emergence of the papal Roman empire, which Paul describes as the lawless one; and its ensuing apostasy. Notice in the related verses in 2 Thess. 2 that Paul does not reveal the identity of the restrainer. If Paul had believed that the Holy Spirit or the Church was the restrainer, there would have been no reason for him not to explicitly name either one. But Paul did have a reason. John Chrysostom, an apologist of the later early post-apostolic era, reveals it:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him...But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end."

Paul did not wish to jeopardize the Church by attracting the attention of the Roman authorities.

History subsequently confirmed the validity of Paul's inspired prescience.

Instead of searching history, why not study the verse in question?

Did Paul not write, "and now you know?" You know he did.

In verse 3b, is the man of sin then revealed? You know he is.

If words mean anything, then Paul is telling us that verses 6 - 8 are fulfilled in verse 3A allowing the man of sin to be revealed.

If you don't believe Apostasia fits something or someone begin "taken out of the way, then you have to find something else in 3A that is taken out of the way. And you have to find out WHY Paul wrote that they now knew.

The truth is, the DID know, because in verse 3 Paul told them.

Was Strong all wrong when he wrote that "apo" was a part of a whole being removed (taken out of the way) from the whole?
I don't think he was wrong. He is still the expert on Greek.

If I were you, I would camp out on this verse until you get it.

 

[jgr]

Instead of searching history, why not study the verse in question?

Did Paul not write, "and now you know?" You know he did.

In verse 3b, is the man of sin then revealed? You know he is.

If words mean anything, then Paul is telling us that verses 6 - 8 are fulfilled in verse 3A allowing the man of sin to be revealed.

If you don't believe Apostasia fits something or someone begin "taken out of the way, then you have to find something else in 3A that is taken out of the way. And you have to find out WHY Paul wrote that they now knew.

The truth is, the DID know, because in verse 3 Paul told them.

Was Strong all wrong when he wrote that "apo" was a part of a whole being removed (taken out of the way) from the whole?
I don't think he was wrong. He is still the expert on Greek.

If I were you, I would camp out on this verse until you get it.

Instead of mutilating Scripture to conform to modernist dogma, why not be willing to learn from others of greater understanding than your own?

It is Greeks themselves who are experts in their own language. It would behoove you to visit the links in my previous post.

The speculation of apostasia as spatial rather than spiritual departure first appeared in 1895. It was unheard of prior to that time.

Departure as rapture is not found in a single contemporary English Bible translation in existence, including Darby and Scofield.

I contacted the Lockman Foundation, producers of the acclaimed NASB translation.

The NASB translators commented on the article in which Thomas Ice attempts to remake 2 Thess. 2:3 in the modernist dispensational image of spatial departure:

"The online article cited offers arguments which are incorrect. The verb that apostasia comes from has several meanings, but the main meanings include "revolt," "desert," "fall away," and even "become a backslider." The noun apostasia is not automatically capable of having all of the meanings that the verb does. The way the meaning of a word is determined is by examining how it is used, and apostasia is consistently used of revolting, rebellion, and abandoning a belief system. Aside from 2 Thess 2:3 it is only found in Acts 21:21 in the New Testament, where it is used of abandoning the Law of Moses. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, it occurs in Josh 22:22, 2 Chr 29:19, and 1 Macc 2:15, and in each verse it refers to apostasy or rebellion.

It is interesting that the writer also cites Liddell and Scott (now LSJM) in support, observing that the first definitions are "defection" and "revolt." He fails to mention that LSJM immediately add, "especially in a religious sense, rebellion against God, apostasy," and then go on to cite not only Josh 22:22 but also 2 Thess 2:3. So what the writer states is simply a misleading presentation of the evidence. The argument about the translation shift is irrelevant in view of the evidence for the correct meaning, and this argument is also questionable. "Departure" seems not to have meant simply to leave a place, but to separate from someone or something. For these and other reasons the NASB translators are confident about the meaning "apostasy" in 2 Thess 2:3."

Do you think you will get it? I've tried to help.

 

[R.A.M.]

The Holy Spirit is omnipresent.

He cannot be removed from the planet.

He was in John the Baptist from the time John was in his mother's womb.

Nobody comes to faith in Christ without the work of the Spirit.


Eph_1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Rev_7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.


Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Those in Revelation 12:11 cannot be under the Blood of the Lamb and not be a part of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ.

.

Yes the Holy Spirit is Omni Present. He is also Not residing within every human being. It's a conundrum I know. The idea however is that when every Human who IS filled with His Spirit is taken Up Into Heaven, then He has no need to restrain the demonic forces that have been chained down.

Without The Restrainer, the demonic forces and fallen Angels would be running this planet Just as they did in the Days of Noah.
Interestingly, Christ tells us that the world would become exactly like it had I
"In the Days of Noah"

Which means The Holy Spirit releases them to do their evil for a short time.
The Holy Spirit Filled however, will not be around for that wrath. We weren't appointed for wrath.

 

[BABerean2]

Yes the Holy Spirit is Omni Present. He is also Not residing within every human being. It's a conundrum I know. The idea however is that when every Human who IS filled with His Spirit is taken Up Into Heaven, then He has no need to restrain the demonic forces that have been chained down.

Without The Restrainer, the demonic forces and fallen Angels would be running this planet Just as they did in the Days of Noah.
Interestingly, Christ tells us that the world would become exactly like it had I
"In the Days of Noah"

Which means The Holy Spirit releases them to do their evil for a short time.
The Holy Spirit Filled however, will not be around for that wrath. We weren't appointed for wrath.

Are you saying the Greek words for "tribulation" and "wrath" are the same word?

Are you promoting the pretrib removal of the Church?

.

 

[iamlamad]

Instead of mutilating Scripture to conform to modernist dogma, why not be willing to learn from others of greater understanding than your own?

It is Greeks themselves who are experts in their own language. It would behoove you to visit the links in my previous post.

The speculation of apostasia as spatial rather than spiritual departure first appeared in 1895. It was unheard of prior to that time.

Departure as rapture is not found in a single contemporary English Bible translation in existence, including Darby and Scofield.

I contacted the Lockman Foundation, producers of the acclaimed NASB translation.

The NASB translators commented on the article in which Thomas Ice attempts to remake 2 Thess. 2:3 in the modernist dispensational image of spatial departure:

"The online article cited offers arguments which are incorrect. The verb that apostasia comes from has several meanings, but the main meanings include "revolt," "desert," "fall away," and even "become a backslider." The noun apostasia is not automatically capable of having all of the meanings that the verb does. The way the meaning of a word is determined is by examining how it is used, and apostasia is consistently used of revolting, rebellion, and abandoning a belief system. Aside from 2 Thess 2:3 it is only found in Acts 21:21 in the New Testament, where it is used of abandoning the Law of Moses. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, it occurs in Josh 22:22, 2 Chr 29:19, and 1 Macc 2:15, and in each verse it refers to apostasy or rebellion.

It is interesting that the writer also cites Liddell and Scott (now LSJM) in support, observing that the first definitions are "defection" and "revolt." He fails to mention that LSJM immediately add, "especially in a religious sense, rebellion against God, apostasy," and then go on to cite not only Josh 22:22 but also 2 Thess 2:3. So what the writer states is simply a misleading presentation of the evidence. The argument about the translation shift is irrelevant in view of the evidence for the correct meaning, and this argument is also questionable. "Departure" seems not to have meant simply to leave a place, but to separate from someone or something. For these and other reasons the NASB translators are confident about the meaning "apostasy" in 2 Thess 2:3."

Do you think you will get it? I've tried to help.

It is you who must "get it."

Words can be used in their secondary meaning also. I think Paul knew Greek!

Take our word, paradigm. It is a compound word made up of para and digm.

Originally its meaning was to bring two thoughts up side by side, to make a comparison.
para as in parallel or paratrooper means side by side.
Digm means a comparison.

Today college professors might say "We have seen a paradigm shift...." Today it us almost a replacement word for "model."

From a dictionary: "from paradeiknunai ‘show side by side’, from para- ‘beside’ + deiknunai ‘to show’."

So what about Apostasia? It also is a compound word made up of two Greek words, Apo and stasia.

So how does Strong's break this down? We know that this word means a "departing" because several of the first translations into English translated it so. But Paul did not tell us what was being departed from what....or did he, but most people miss his intent?

Strong's of Apostasia
Feminine of the same as ἀποστάσιον (G647)
Neuter of a (presumed) adj. from a derivative of ἀφίστημι (G868)
From ἀπό (G575) and ἵστημι (G2476)

So now let's see what Strong says of "Apo..." Could it possibly have a meaning like a departing?

• of separation

1. of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
   
   
2. of separation of a part from the whole
   
   1. where of a whole some part is taken
      
3. of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
   
   
4. of a state of separation, that is of distance
   
   
   1. physical, of distance of place
      
      
   2. temporal, of distance of time
      

Now be honest with yourself: when the rapture takes place, will be there a local separation? Certainly there will be!

Will there be a separation of a part from the whole? Certainly there will be.

Will there be a separation of DISTANCE? Certainly there will be!

But in the Greek, Paul also included "ἡ" or "the" speaking of a very significant departing.

So it is very clear, Paul is using this word as a departing. If you will be honest with yourself, you probably already know that there is NOTHING in this Greek word, apostasia to tells us what is being departed FROM. That is why in the other place this word is used, Luke had to add "Moses" to tell us what was being departed from.

Now, begin to THINK yourself instead of trying to find what someone else said. Follow me:

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

From this verse we can determine that Paul TOLD us who or what was withholding. He expects us to KNOW. And secondarily, that something is withholding or restraining and preventing the man of sin from being revealed before his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

From these two verses we can determine that the man of sin CANNOT and WILL NOT be revealed until the one restraining or holding back has been TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY. Or has been DEPARTED. Or has been removed spacially from one place to another.

Got it? Are the rusty gears turning? He is not going to be revealed UNTIL verses 6-8 are satisfied and the one restraining has been taken out of the midst.

Now, look carefully and THINK:

Verse 3b part:
NIV: and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
ESV: and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
KJV: and that man of sin be revealed
Darby: the man of sin have been revealed
Weymouth: and the appearing of the man of sin,
Young's: and the man of sin be revealed
Jewish bible: he man who separates himself from Torah has been revealed


Most texts use "is revealed" or "be revealed." Still thinking? What does Paul write next? He writes of the man of sin entering the temple - which he cannot do until the proper time. Now, as we speak, he is being restrained.

BUT IN PAUL'S ARGUMENT, answer the question: in verse 3b is he revealed, or is he not?

 

[R.A.M.]

Are you saying the Greek words for "tribulation" and "wrath" are the same word?

Are you promoting the pretrib removal of the Church?

.

Not at all, but there is tribulation, then Great Tribulation. The Holy Spirit Filled, will be removed before the wrath begins to be poured out.

Since you seem to be a fan of the languages, I have a neat "coincidence" for your consideration.

Sept 8 2040 there is a PLANETARY Alignment behind a new moon. The ancient Hebrew people had a name for all of the planet's in this alignment and the new moon. Names that carried with them a meaning. Just as the names of the Bible are translitterated, not translated, thus leaving us with a lot to learn.

Sept 8th 2040 is the Feast of Trumpets. Which Happens to fall on a Saturday. Ergo Jerusalem will NOT be blowing any Trumpets. (Hard to be a thief in the night if they're sounding your coming).

2040 - Wikipedia
Jewish Calendar 2040 | Hebcal Jewish Calendar

Mercury: the light bearers
Venus: are liberated
Mars: those who are covered by His blood
(Litteraly "the Red Ones)
Jupiter: are redeemed
Saturn: for the Sabbath
Crescent Moon: through the door to the inner room of Almighty God.

 

[iamlamad]

The Holy Spirit is omnipresent.

He cannot be removed from the planet.

He was in John the Baptist from the time John was in his mother's womb.

Nobody comes to faith in Christ without the work of the Spirit.


Eph_1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,


Rev_7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.


Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Those in Revelation 12:11 cannot be under the Blood of the Lamb and not be a part of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ.

.

Question: what happened concerning all parts of the Godhead, when the day of Pentecost came, Acts 2? What changed?

Hint: a hint is found in Rev. 5.

 

[jgr]

Verse 3b part:
NIV: and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
ESV: and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
KJV: and that man of sin be revealed
Darby: the man of sin have been revealed
Weymouth: and the appearing of the man of sin,
Young's: and the man of sin be revealed
Jewish bible: he man who separates himself from Torah has been revealed

And what does the 3a part of the verse say in every translation (and every other English translation as well)?

Falling away, apostasy, or its equivalent.

You have not addressed any of the evidence I've provided in my earlier posts.

If you're determined to impose the modernist interpretation, that's your privilege.

But any objective observer will agree that the evidence against it is far greater than the evidence for it.

 

[BABerean2]

Question: what happened concerning all parts of the Godhead, when the day of Pentecost came, Acts 2? What changed?

Hint: a hint is found in Rev. 5.

Unlike the Old Testament times when only some like Simeon had the Spirit, the Holy Spirit was poured out in a new way on all those who placed their faith in Christ.

Psa_51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

It gave many the power to speak in the tongue of those present on that day, so that they heard the preaching in their own language.

It was not the gibberish of unknown languages as is practiced by some today.


I do not agree with the man below on most things.
However, he understands speaking in tongues.

.

 

[klutedavid]

It is you who must "get it."

Words can be used in their secondary meaning also. I think Paul knew Greek!

Take our word, paradigm. It is a compound word made up of para and digm.

Originally its meaning was to bring two thoughts up side by side, to make a comparison.
para as in parallel or paratrooper means side by side.
Digm means a comparison.

Today college professors might say "We have seen a paradigm shift...." Today it us almost a replacement word for "model."

From a dictionary: "from paradeiknunai ‘show side by side’, from para- ‘beside’ + deiknunai ‘to show’."

So what about Apostasia? It also is a compound word made up of two Greek words, Apo and stasia.

So how does Strong's break this down? We know that this word means a "departing" because several of the first translations into English translated it so. But Paul did not tell us what was being departed from what....or did he, but most people miss his intent?

Strong's of Apostasia
Feminine of the same as ἀποστάσιον (G647)
Neuter of a (presumed) adj. from a derivative of ἀφίστημι (G868)
From ἀπό (G575) and ἵστημι (G2476)

So now let's see what Strong says of "Apo..." Could it possibly have a meaning like a departing?

• of separation

1. of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
   
   
2. of separation of a part from the whole
   1. where of a whole some part is taken
3. of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
   
   
4. of a state of separation, that is of distance
   
   1. physical, of distance of place
      
      
   2. temporal, of distance of time

Now be honest with yourself: when the rapture takes place, will be there a local separation? Certainly there will be!

Will there be a separation of a part from the whole? Certainly there will be.

Will there be a separation of DISTANCE? Certainly there will be!

But in the Greek, Paul also included "ἡ" or "the" speaking of a very significant departing.

So it is very clear, Paul is using this word as a departing. If you will be honest with yourself, you probably already know that there is NOTHING in this Greek word, apostasia to tells us what is being departed FROM. That is why in the other place this word is used, Luke had to add "Moses" to tell us what was being departed from.

Now, begin to THINK yourself instead of trying to find what someone else said. Follow me:

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

From this verse we can determine that Paul TOLD us who or what was withholding. He expects us to KNOW. And secondarily, that something is withholding or restraining and preventing the man of sin from being revealed before his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

From these two verses we can determine that the man of sin CANNOT and WILL NOT be revealed until the one restraining or holding back has been TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY. Or has been DEPARTED. Or has been removed spacially from one place to another.

Got it? Are the rusty gears turning? He is not going to be revealed UNTIL verses 6-8 are satisfied and the one restraining has been taken out of the midst.

Now, look carefully and THINK:

Verse 3b part:
NIV: and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
ESV: and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
KJV: and that man of sin be revealed
Darby: the man of sin have been revealed
Weymouth: and the appearing of the man of sin,
Young's: and the man of sin be revealed
Jewish bible: he man who separates himself from Torah has been revealed


Most texts use "is revealed" or "be revealed." Still thinking? What does Paul write next? He writes of the man of sin entering the temple - which he cannot do until the proper time. Now, as we speak, he is being restrained.

BUT IN PAUL'S ARGUMENT, answer the question: in verse 3b is he revealed, or is he not?

Apostasy in Christianity is the rejection of Christianity by someone who formerly was a Christian. 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. (wikipedia)

 

[iamlamad]

And what does the 3a part of the verse say in every translation (and every other English translation as well)?

Falling away, apostasy, or its equivalent.

You have not addressed any of the evidence I've provided in my earlier posts.

If you're determined to impose the modernist interpretation, that's your privilege.

But any objective observer will agree that the evidence against it is far greater than the evidence for it.

NONE of these other translations can explain why Paul wrote, "and now you know." NONE of them can explain why or how "apostasia" can be one restraining "taken out of the way." You see, the job of translating correctly most of the time requires and understand of the text being translated.

You wish to just go by some of the most popular translations and ignore the intent of the author.

You have failed to explain what in verse 3a is the one restraining being taken out of the way, so in 3b the man of sin can be revealed.

 

[iamlamad]

Unlike the Old Testament times when only some like Simeon had the Spirit, the Holy Spirit was poured out in a new way on all those who placed their faith in Christ.

Psa_51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

It gave many the power to speak in the tongue of those present on that day, so that they heard the preaching in their own language.

It was not the gibberish of unknown languages as is practiced by some today.


I do not agree with the man below on most things.
However, he understands speaking in tongues.

.

As usual with you, you sidestepped the question and wrote NON SEQUITURS.

The question was, what happened with the Godhead then. I guess you just don't know the answer.

The answer is, the HOLY SPIRIT left the throne room of heaven and came to earth to become the anointing for all believers who want Him. Sadly today few do.

What do YOU think Jesus meant when He said He would send Him (the Holy Spirit) down?

 

[iamlamad]

Apostasy in Christianity is the rejection of Christianity by someone who formerly was a Christian. 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. (wikipedia)

You are missing the whole point! The Greek word "apostasia" is a departure, but included in that word there is NO HINT of what is being departed from. That is why in Luke he added "from Moses."

I have shown over and over again that Strong's tells us, "apostasia" can mean MOVING a part of the whole from the rest of the whole while the rest of the whole is not moving (stationary.) That means, the rapture happens SO FAST it is as if the rest of the world did not move.

 

[jgr]

NONE of these other translations can explain why Paul wrote, "and now you know." NONE of them can explain why or how "apostasia" can be one restraining "taken out of the way." You see, the job of translating correctly most of the time requires and understand of the text being translated.

You wish to just go by some of the most popular translations and ignore the intent of the author.

You have failed to explain what in verse 3a is the one restraining being taken out of the way, so in 3b the man of sin can be revealed.

There's nothing that I have to explain. That's the job of translators. If you disagree, you can contact 'em, as I did with the NASB folks.

And they certainly have to explain it to themselves before they make their choice as to what words or expressions they'll use in their translations.

And it isn't just "some of the most popular translations". It is every contemporary English translation. About fifty of them on Bible Gateway. I think I've checked 'em all. If I've missed any, I'd certainly like to know.

And those translations are unanimous. The expression or word is: falling away, apostasy, or the equivalent.

There's no argument among the translators.

 

[iamlamad]

There's nothing that I have to explain. That's the job of translators. If you disagree, you can contact 'em, as I did with the NASB folks.

And they certainly have to explain it to themselves before they make their choice as to what words or expressions they'll use in their translations.

And it isn't just "some of the most popular translations". It is every contemporary English translation. About fifty of them on Bible Gateway. I think I've checked 'em all. If I've missed any, I'd certainly like to know.

And those translations are unanimous. The expression or word is: falling away, apostasy, or the equivalent.

There's no argument among the translators.

It is like a story I read once, "calf paths of the mind" where a rabbit wandered here and there, then a fox smelling out the rabbit, then a wolf followed the fox, then a calf followed the same path, then cows followed, then finally a road was put through the forest following the same crooked path!

Several of the first translations into English used the word "departing." But then the King James wrote "falling away" and every translator since has followed the same "calf path." NONE of them can be the intent of the author, for they destroy the context and don't answer the questions Paul inferred. WHO is the one restraining? We all should know, because Paul SAID we should know.

According to your theory, the falling away is the one restraining. Sorry, I don't buy it. Anyway, it is not A falling away, it is THE falling away. How in the world would anyone know when enough had fallen away to know that was what Paul was talking about? It has to be a very significant "departing." Again, a falling away does not fit.

Besides, since the church began, when some fall away, more come. The church is growing, not falling away.

 

[jgr]

It is like a story I read once, "calf paths of the mind" where a rabbit wandered here and there, then a fox smelling out the rabbit, then a wolf followed the fox, then a calf followed the same path, then cows followed, then finally a road was put through the forest following the same crooked path!

Several of the first translations into English used the word "departing." But then the King James wrote "falling away" and every translator since has followed the same "calf path." NONE of them can be the intent of the author, for they destroy the context and don't answer the questions Paul inferred. WHO is the one restraining? We all should know, because Paul SAID we should know.

According to your theory, the falling away is the one restraining. Sorry, I don't buy it. Anyway, it is not A falling away, it is THE falling away. How in the world would anyone know when enough had fallen away to know that was what Paul was talking about? It has to be a very significant "departing." Again, a falling away does not fit.

Besides, since the church began, when some fall away, more come. The church is growing, not falling away.

That's one of those risibly spurious "arguments" hatched by "Dr." Thomas Ice. I've already explained how no Reformer could possibly have believed in a pretrib rapture, because one of the doctrinal pillars of the Reformation was that the apostate papacy, under which the true Church was suffering, was antichrist. There had therefore been no pretrib rapture to deliver them.

That's an "argument" perfectly suited for the round file.

 

[klutedavid]

You are missing the whole point! The Greek word "apostasia" is a departure, but included in that word there is NO HINT of what is being departed from. That is why in Luke he added "from Moses."

I have shown over and over again that Strong's tells us, "apostasia" can mean MOVING a part of the whole from the rest of the whole while the rest of the whole is not moving (stationary.) That means, the rapture happens SO FAST it is as if the rest of the world did not move.

I am not missing anything about the meaning of the word, apostasy.

The Koine Greek word, G646, is also used in Acts 21:21.

In both cases, it means to rebel or abandon, to not stand firm in the faith.

Acts 21:21
They have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

Your interpretation from Strongs is missing the inherent political meaning of apostasy. Not a departure in the sense of moving somewhere else, but a departure from that which is established, i.e., from the Christ.

The usage of G646 in Acts 21:21, utterly refutes your attempted redefining of G646.