Postvieww
Believer
- Sep 29, 2014
- 7,156
- 2,680
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Lamad said:
Paul said there would come an apostasia first. You only think that means a falling away. I think it means a significant departing. Can you tell if there has been a significant falling away? When will you know? I can tell the significant departure has not happened. We will all know when that happens.
You try to make this too complicated, nothing requires we know exactly how many will fall away, all we need to know is it will happen to some degree and the man of sin will be revealed before our gathering. That “man of sin” part is really what is making you so desperate to interpret this passage out of the bible.
Lamad said:
The passage clearly says that an apostasia must come first - and THEN the man of sin will be revealed. But it goes on to say that whatever is restraining will be "taken out of the way."
Your theory must force this "falling away" to be equivalent to the someone or something "taken out of the way." Sorry, it does not fit the context. The KJV people should have known it did not fit. remember, CONTEXT is king.
In verse three, in Paul's argument, the man of sin IS REVEALED and Paul then tells us what he will do after he has been revealed. We know from the context that he CANNOT be revealed until the one restraining him has been removed or departed or "taken out of the way."
There is no two ways about it: this much is certain by the context: what ever Paul meant by apostasia HAS TO BE the one restraining being removed or departed or "taken out of the way" for in the last part of verse 3 the man of sin is then revealed.
No, it is your theory that equates the two, "falling away" to be equivalent to the someone or something "taken out of the way." Which is not the Church or Holy Spirit.
You just reject the true definition of “apostasia” and force it into your theory.
Lamad said:
Therefore in your argument, the "falling away" ["from the faith" Is meaning you are adding) has to be the one restraining being "taken out of the way." I don't buy any kind of a falling away as something being "taken out of the way."
It is you who is changing the meaning.
Lamad said:
Next, what you are really saying is that the Church of Jesus Christ will get weaker, not stronger, if people are falling away. I simply do not believe that. The church has been growing stronger day by day worldwide since Martin Luther. There are more true Christians alive today that every before.
I am saying some will fall away and depart from the faith, that is what scripture teaches.
1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Hebrews 6:6, Hebrews 10:29
Lamad said:
There is no doubt this word can mean a separation. A slightly different form is used for divorce. It is well known that at a divorce, there is separation: ONE PARTY leaves. We could use the same word, a departing or departure of either the husband or wife.
However, the same word can have other meanings. For your side of this argument, you have to ADD to the text what is being departed from. It is NOT INCLUDED in the word Apostasia.
You are working too hard to massage this text to your liking; it is you who have added to the definition to make this work in your favor.
Strong’s
Short Definition: defection, apostasy
Definition: defection, apostasy, revolt.
646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."
Lamad said:
You will note that Paul (or whoever) and to add "MOSES" so we would know what was being separated from what. In this case, the writer wanted us to know who the Gentiles were being forsaken of: Moses.
In 2 Thes 2:3 Paul did not tell us what was being departed from, or if you wish to say forsaken or forsake, what was being forsaken from. You imagine it means forsaking "the faith." Don't you think if that was Paul's meaning he would have included it? However, it is not there. All we have is apostasia with nothing else added: it is a departing, but we don't know from what or from whom.
What we DO KNOW is that is is the one restraining being "taken out of the way." If you can equate a "falling away" with something being "taken out of the way" in your mind, go with it. I cannot.
Ok let’s use your translation “departing”. The problem with your argument here is the fact that Paul said our gathering will not take place until after the “departing” which makes absolutely no sense at all, the way you try to use it. Let’s insert your word definition in the text for clarity.
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering (departing) together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ (departing) is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (departing) shall not come, except there come a falling away (departing) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Houston we have a problem!
Falling away in this context cannot mean the rapture which you are trying to insert here.
Lamad said:
I know that the THEME of the passage is the departing. And then I see Paul writing that the departing must come first, before the man of sin can be revealed. It makes good sense and it fits perfectly with the entire context. It satisfies the theme of the passage.
Only in your mind, actually it makes a mess of the passage.
Upvote
0
