2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

[Daniel 11:36]

The departure is noted of those in this scripture

 

2 Thessalonians

2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Daniel 11:36

[OldCoot]

9 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes. As I have said before it is a departure; from an ideology, not from one place to another. 

I realize you have stated it, but that doesn't make it an accurate assertion and it is still taking liberties with the text and imposing your presupposition on it.  There  is nothing in that verse the gives license to say what is being departed from..... either from a place or from an ideology.  Without a definite article that apostasia can point to, it stands on its own as simply "departure" or "the departure", as virtually every English translation prior to the KJV had done and as did the Latin Vulgate.  

This "falling away" idea only came about with the KJV and the Anglicized word Apostasy being transposed onto the Greek Apostasia as if they mean the same thing.  It is translator incompetence.  I won't go so far as saying falsehood.  I don't know the translator's hearts and mindset.  So I stick with incompetence, or at least, translator laziness.  Many Greek scholars have made that same assertion, so I am not sticking my neck out as some sole authority.  I am simply affirming what other more competent people have said. 

And Jerome in the 4th Century was well versed in the Greek to a greater extent than folks in academia some 12 or more centuries later, as NT Greek was still a living language in Christian circles to much of an extent.  The NT was primarily only read and discussed in Greek until Jerome translated it to Latin, and he used the Latin, dicessio, which simply means departure, not falling away, apostasy, or some other loaded term promoting an agenda.

 As I referenced, the only other instance of the word apostasia in the NT is in Acts 21:21, and the verse gives a definite article to what is being departed from.... Moses, which is a euphemism for "The Law".  Commentators have saw that and take it as license to apply the word the very same way in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in the absence of a definite article to say what is being departed from. It is grammatically and intellectually dishonest at the very least.

And the idea of falling away or departing from an ideology is rather lame.   That was going on right out of the gate before the church got out of the 1st century.  A basic reading of Revelation 2 & 3 shows that. Or even the letters to the Corinthians (or Californians as I jokingly call it).   The Church was already starting to mess up and depart from the truth before the ink was dry on the NT.   And a casual look at church history shows that departing from the truth of the Gospel has been going on for a long, long time.  I am not so sure than anyone could make a strong case that there is something unique about the departure from the Gospel going on now compared to the last 20 centuries.   It a rather amazing that YHVH has kept a remnant of those that actually hold to the truth of the Gospel.  It speaks well of His promise and character.  

 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by OldCoot

[Diaste]

On 10/9/2017 at 8:38 PM, OldCoot said:

I realize you have stated it, but that doesn't make it an accurate assertion and it is still taking liberties with the text and imposing your presupposition on it.  There  is nothing in that verse the gives license to say what is being departed from..... either from a place or from an ideology.  Without a definite article that apostasia can point to, it stands on its own as simply "departure" or "the departure", as virtually every English translation prior to the KJV had done and as did the Latin Vulgate.  

And yet you continue to assert that it must be a departure 'from one place to another'. And if not, what is this 'departure'? Since the 'definite article' does not exist pointing to what is being departed from, and your position, and presumably that of others, is there must be a 'definite article' directing us to know what is being departed from,  there cannot be anything from which to 'depart'. Rendering the text meaningless.  And it cannot be 'the departure'. The word 'the', is 'the' definite article. In Acts 21:21 no definite article appears and in fact apostasia does not appear in the Original Greek in Acts 21:21. The phrase is, "ὅτι ἀποστασίαν διδάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως" translated as, "that you teach protection from Moses".  The Greek word that does appear is "ἀποστασίαν", defined as 'protection', and not " ἀποστασία" which is defined as 'apostasy'.

This "falling away" idea only came about with the KJV and the Anglicized word Apostasy being transposed onto the Greek Apostasia as if they mean the same thing.  It is translator incompetence.  I won't go so far as saying falsehood.  I don't know the translator's hearts and mindset.  So I stick with incompetence, or at least, translator laziness.  Many Greek scholars have made that same assertion, so I am not sticking my neck out as some sole authority.  I am simply affirming what other more competent people have said. 

And Jerome in the 4th Century was well versed in the Greek to a greater extent than folks in academia some 12 or more centuries later, as NT Greek was still a living language in Christian circles to much of an extent.  The NT was primarily only read and discussed in Greek until Jerome translated it to Latin, and he used the Latin, dicessio, which simply means departure, not falling away, apostasy, or some other loaded term promoting an agenda.

 As I referenced, the only other instance of the word apostasia in the NT is in Acts 21:21, and the verse gives a definite article to what is being departed from.... Moses, which is a euphemism for "The Law".  Commentators have saw that and take it as license to apply the word the very same way in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in the absence of a definite article to say what is being departed from. It is grammatically and intellectually dishonest at the very least.

And the idea of falling away or departing from an ideology is rather lame.   That was going on right out of the gate before the church got out of the 1st century.  A basic reading of Revelation 2 & 3 shows that. Or even the letters to the Corinthians (or Californians as I jokingly call it).   The Church was already starting to mess up and depart from the truth before the ink was dry on the NT.   And a casual look at church history shows that departing from the truth of the Gospel has been going on for a long, long time.  I am not so sure than anyone could make a strong case that there is something unique about the departure from the Gospel going on now compared to the last 20 centuries.   It a rather amazing that YHVH has kept a remnant of those that actually hold to the truth of the Gospel.  It speaks well of His promise and character.  

It's more than lame, it's totally wrong. I was only indulging the pretrib fantasies concerning the idea of defining 'apostasia' using the definition of 'aphistemi'.  Where 'apostasia' is defined as , 'defection or revolt', 'aphistemi' is defined as 'departure, implying defection'. But the pretrib fanatics hang on 'departure' even as they contradict themselves by huffing, "There is no definite article!"  The below is from the University of Chicago Library.  The 11th word in the left hand column is defined as 'defection or betrayal'. The same word that appears in 2 Thess 2:3. Every Greek to English dictionary defines 'apostasia' the same way.

 

And its far more than simply changing ideology. It's open revolt against God. Look around. The world is rejecting authority. In the US there are dozens of groups in revolt against the rule of law. The last administration openly ignored the law suspending morals and ethics. Since all authority is ordained by God, these groups and individuals disdain the authority of God. But you go ahead and cling to your dogma. You'll see the truth soon enough.

 

[OldCoot]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

And yet you continue to assert that it must be a departure 'from one place to another'. And if not, what is this 'departure'? Since the 'definite article' does not exist pointing to what is being departed from, and your position, and presumably that of others, is there must be a 'definite article' directing us to know what is being departed from,  there cannot be anything from which to 'depart'. Rendering the text meaningless.  And it cannot be 'the departure'. The word 'the', is 'the' definite article. In Acts 21:21 no definite article appears and in fact apostasia does not appear in the Original Greek in Acts 21:21. The phrase is, "ὅτι ἀποστασίαν διδάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως" translated as, "that you teach protection from Moses".  The Greek word that does appear is "ἀποστασίαν", defined as 'protection', and not " ἀποστασία" which is defined as 'apostasy'.

You are in error and borderline lying about what I said.  I stated that it simply means departure or the departure..... I specifically said that one cannot legitimately include anything else..... either from an ideology OR a place.  It simply is departure as evidenced by the Latin Vulgate and many English translations prior to the KJV.   The Geneva Bible (1608) has "departure", The Wycliffe Bible (1384) has departure, the Tyndale Bible (1526) has departure,   Even the Hebrew Names Version of 1997 has departure. 

Kenneth Wuest, a well known Greek scholar has outlined extensively how apostasia in 2 Thes 2:3 has to have a definite article to allow for anyone to imply anything more than departure.  

You have placed yourself as more of a greek authority than Wuest, Jerome, Wycliffe, (all of who did not know each other).  

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

It's more than lame, it's totally wrong. I was only indulging the pretrib fantasies concerning the idea of defining 'apostasia' using the definition of 'aphistemi'.  Where 'apostasia' is defined as , 'defection or revolt', 'aphistemi' is defined as 'departure, implying defection'. But the pretrib fanatics hang on 'departure' even as they contradict themselves by huffing, "There is no definite article!"  The below is from the University of Chicago Library.  The 11th word in the left hand column is defined as 'defection or betrayal'. The same word that appears in 2 Thess 2:3. Every Greek to English dictionary defines 'apostasia' the same way.

Both your assertion about pre-trib fantasies as well as fantasies about the text saying departing from the faith is lame.  Both use presupposition outside the passage to support their position, which may or may not be valid.   I am inserting nothing in my contention but simply departure.  But here, Wuest does:

Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar from Moody Bible Institute added the following contextual support to taking apostasia as a physical departure:

But then hee apostasia of which Paul is speaking, precedes the revelation of Antichrist in his true identity, and is to katechon that which holds back his revelation (2:6). The hee apostasia, therefore, cannot be either a general apostasy in Christendom which does precede the coming of Antichrist, nor can it be the particular apostasy which is the result of his activities in making himself the alone object of worship. Furthermore, that which holds back his revelation (vs. 3) is vitally connected with hoo katechoon (vs. 7), He who holds back the same event. The latter is, in my opinion, the Holy Spirit and His activities in the Church. All of which means that I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that the hee apostasia (vs. 3) refers to the Rapture of the Church which precedes the Day of the Lord, and holds back the revelation of the Man of Sin who ushers in the world-aspect of that period.

Edited October 15, 2017 by OldCoot

[Daniel 11:36]

Departure is simply the mass defection of  humanity from the Lord's Word at the time of the end

For this He will let them go and they will end up in His lake of fire

[Diaste]

31 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

You are in error and borderline lying about what I said.  I stated that it simply means departure or the departure..... I specifically said that one cannot legitimately include anything else..... either from an ideology OR a place.  It simply is departure as evidenced by the Latin Vulgate and many English translations prior to the KJV.   The Geneva Bible (1608) has "departure", The Wycliffe Bible (1384) has departure, the Tyndale Bible (1526) has departure,   Even the Hebrew Names Version of 1997 has departure. 

Kenneth Wuest, a well known Greek scholar has outlined extensively how apostasia in 2 Thes 2:3 has to have a definite article to allow for anyone to imply anything more than departure.  

You have placed yourself as more of a greek authority than Wuest, Jerome, Wycliffe, (all of who did not know each other).  

Both your assertion about pre-trib fantasies as well as fantasies about the text saying departing from the faith is lame.  Both use presupposition outside the passage to support their position, which may or may not be valid.   I am inserting nothing in my contention but simply departure.  But here, Wuest does:

Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar from Moody Bible Institute added the following contextual support to taking apostasia as a physical departure:

But then hee apostasia of which Paul is speaking, precedes the revelation of Antichrist in his true identity, and is to katechon that which holds back his revelation (2:6). The hee apostasia, therefore, cannot be either a general apostasy in Christendom which does precede the coming of Antichrist, nor can it be the particular apostasy which is the result of his activities in making himself the alone object of worship. Furthermore, that which holds back his revelation (vs. 3) is vitally connected with hoo katechoon (vs. 7), He who holds back the same event. The latter is, in my opinion, the Holy Spirit and His activities in the Church. All of which means that I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that the hee apostasia (vs. 3) refers to the Rapture of the Church which precedes the Day of the Lord, and holds back the revelation of the Man of Sin who ushers in the world-aspect of that period.

Which would render the text meaningless as effectively there is no departure, from anything, as the departure must be from something. What is that so hard to understand?

You yourself say we cannot be unequivocal about what the departure is from. If it's not a departure from an ideology, the coasts, the land, earth, sickness, family, a job, university, a relationship, etc., then why bring it up? I mean the scholars. It's meaningless if said departure is indefinable.

Not that's a departure is in view, mind you. But again, you'll see soon enough. Then maybe you'll truly believe.

[OldCoot]

Wuest uses grammatical construct to point as to what he believes the departure is from. It is a reasoned argument.  

I have made no assertion one way or the other. I just posted what other very knowledgable folks like Wuest have stated.  The other Bible translators that used departure left it up to the reader to assume what is meant.  Whether that doesn't make sense, you can take that up with them, along with the original author, in the future.

Actually, I think that both arguments can be in view.  A departure from Messiah and a departure physically.  Both arguments have good foundations.  Neither is "fantasy",  which is the word you have chosen to use before that is an emotionally loaded term,  a similar tactic used by those in politics to demean their ideological opponents.  That doesn't speak well to your character.

As for what I believe, I know for certain in whom I have placed my trust.  Of that, I am more than confident.   And you are not in that pay grade.  So you have no basis to make any contention that I should believe you or your assertions.  Likewise, you have no reason to believe mine. And I don't lose one minute of sleep worrying about that.   Just be sure that pride of your position is not in play.  That can be dangerous.   

Edited October 15, 2017 by OldCoot

[Diaste]

7 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Wuest uses grammatical construct to point as to what he believes the departure is from. It is a reasoned argument.  

I have made no assertion one way or the other. I just posted what other very knowledgable folks like Wuest have stated.  The other Bible translators that used departure left it up to the reader to assume what is meant.  Whether that doesn't make sense, you can take that up with them, along with the original author, in the future.

Actually, I think that both arguments can be in view.  A departure from Messiah and a departure physically.  Both arguments have good foundations.  Neither is "fantasy",  which is the word you have chosen to use before that is an emotionally loaded term,  a similar tactic used by those in politics to demean their ideological opponents.  That doesn't speak well to your character.

As for what I believe, I know for certain in whom I have placed my trust.  Of that, I am more than confident.   And you are not in that pay grade.  So you have no basis to make any contention that I should believe you or your assertions.  Likewise, you have no reason to believe mine. And I don't lose one minute of sleep worrying about that.   Just be sure that pride of your position is not in play.  That can be dangerous.   

One position certainly is a fantasy as two opposing conclusions based on the same set of facts cannot both be correct. This is the real problem with the Christian church. So many believers just go with what ever makes them feel good concerning scripture. Pre trib is a good example of this. It removes all the fear. And it's a lie. If indeed Wuest concludes a pretrib rapture from the grammatical and logical somersaults I suspect he engages in while interpreting 2 Thess 2:3, he is leading millions astray. I have seen this for nearly 3 decades and studied the authors in the vanguard of pretrib, and they are all wrong.

The order:

The beast rises.

The Temple is rebuilt.

The beast sits in the Temple.

Tribulation.

Jesus appears and only then are we gathered to Him.

Wrath falls on the world. 

And in no other order.

I'm not concerned with anyone's level of trust in me. I'm not defending the word to convince you or any of the other posters of any thing. I'm here to stand against the false prophets to benefit the brotherhood. I want the ones who read these posts but don't reply to question the self righteousness of Christianity, the lies, the false prophecies, to be aware of the wolves posing as sheep; and to check everything said through personal study in the guidance of the spirit. 

Honestly I see you as fence sitting opposition to the truth. 

[Daniel 11:36]

"One position certainly is a fantasy as two opposing conclusions based on the same set of facts cannot both be correct. This is the real problem with the Christian church. So many believers just go with what ever makes them feel good concerning scripture. Pre trib is a good example of this. It removes all the fear. And it's a lie"

 

Some of your postings are correct, but this one is in error

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, Daniel 11:36 said:

"One position certainly is a fantasy as two opposing conclusions based on the same set of facts cannot both be correct. This is the real problem with the Christian church. So many believers just go with what ever makes them feel good concerning scripture. Pre trib is a good example of this. It removes all the fear. And it's a lie"

 

Some of your postings are correct, but this one is in error

Which part?