Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’

[Diaste]

10 hours ago, Abdicate said:

I told you were the KJV got the definition and Strong's uses it, from the Catholics because of the protestant revolt! Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

Can you produce any evidence to back up this claim? I mean that Catholics intentionally changed the meaning from revolt to leaving one place to go to another? 

[Diaste]

On 11/16/2018 at 5:10 PM, Abdicate said:

Time for some real truth.

Some of the oldest English versions state "depart".

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Geneva)
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition, 

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Coverdale)
Let noman disceaue you by eny meanes. For the LORDE commeth not, excepte the departynge come first, and that that Man of synne be opened, euen the sonne of perdicion, 

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Tyndale)
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 

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (WEB)
Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, 

Yes they do. But depart from what? Pretrib says it must be a departure from one place to another. There are other 'departures', why cling to that one?

The word that appears in all four of the texts cited above is 'apostasy'. That has not changed. And it is a departure, from a previously held belief.

 

Quote

From Wyclifee bible (1384), Tyndale, Coverdale, Crammer, Breeches, Beeza, through to the Geneva bible (1608) all said "departing first" and it wasn't used as "falling away" until after the PROTESTANT REFORMATION! It was the Catholics that took Jerome's Latin Vulgate and translated it into Rheims Bible which broke from "departing" to "protestant revolt" to mean "departing from the faith" i.e. Catholicism!

If you were to fully examine the term and it's usage throughout the entire text of the NT you'd see there is no difference in the concept. Pretrib has created this false dichotomy.

Quote

Moreover, remember why Paul was writing this. The Thessalonians were lied to and they thought they were in the tribulation. Paul was setting the record straight that they were not because the man of sin (Antichrist) won't be revealed until the departure, the harpazo (rapture) he wrote of in 1 Thess 4:17 and to comfort one another with this good news! Without harpazo, what's the comforting words?

Provide the link between, "the harpazo (rapture) he wrote of in 1 Thess 4:17 " and  " the departure",  by which I assume you mean 2 Thess 2:3. 

I don't think there is a leg to stand on with the argument "Without harpazo, what's the comforting words?" In the pretrib camp this assumes an early exit by way of an invisible coming of some entity of whom I know not.  This is simple emotional pleading. A scary time is coming and we want nothing to do with it, so an argument plays on that fear instead of sticking with fact. What you are saying is there is no comfort if there is no pretrib 'rapture'. Pretrib must do this as there is no proof any 'rapture' comes before the 70th week, nor that one even exists, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PROVE TIMING! In light of this pretrib resorts to logically fallacious arguments.

 

Quote

Furthermore, what "sign" would abandoning the faith be? We're so far from the truth in America that we've been killing babies since 1973! "Falling away" from the truth is the norm for over 100 years! That's not a sign. Even in Paul's day he was amazed how quickly the Galatians were removed from the truth. Paul wrote to them to encourage them to wait patiently for the Lord. They were being persecuted and if you're persecuted (and real) you're not going to depart from the faith.

This is your take when there are other possibilities. You are making an assumption here and it is not all that impressive. We cannot imagine any scenario from a future time described as "never was nor ever shall be". Even if that quote only refers to a specific time period exclusive of my premise, the lead up to this time will be just as unprecedented.

A possible scenario:

A living person is killed and brought back to life and like a Marvel superhero displays god-like power, along with force of will and determined agenda. People could and would flock en masse to this person.

A 'departure from the faith' could manifest in this case, and we would notice. 

Quote

The definite article before is ho as in "the departure" a singular event. As I've shown, abandoning the faith is a norm and gradual over time such as the norm over the last almost two millennia. Additionally, one must use the word in context. Paul is reassuring them they are not in the tribulation, and gives them signs. Just because the only other time the word is used accusing Paul of making Jews leave the faith doesn't mean it's the same meaning in 2 Thess. Think "Apple" which can mean, fruit, a specific computer, "Apple of one's eye", Adam's apple. The same applies to Greek words and even more so in Hebrew.

Shown? You said something. That's an opinion, not proof. The departure is a singular event? Well of course it is. That does not mean this singular event must occur in a particular manner. Pretrib demands it must happen in a single moment in time, quicker than the blink of the eye. Simple bias. Let's look at other possibilities.

THE war. There were two majors,  WWl and WWll. No doubt referring to a single event, war, which lasted for years. Any war could be referred to in this way.

THE war is coming. Definite article, single event, long duration. 

THE departure 'from the faith' could be, and is, the same concept. A single event with duration of time. 

I mean, pretrib has no proof of timing for their 'rapture', either when or length, and is just grasping at straws. 

 

Quote

Liddel, Scott, and Jones Lexicon states:

ἀπο-στᾰσία , ἡ , late form for ἀπόστασις, defection, revolt, v.l. in D.H. 7.1 , J. Vit. 10 , Plu. Galb.

1 ; esp. in religious sense, rebellion against God, apostasy, LXX Jo. 22.22 , 2 Ep.Th. 2.3 .
2. departure, disappearance, Olymp. in Mete. 320.2 .
3. distinguishing, c. gen., Elias in Cat. 119.7 .
4. distance, Archim. Aren. 1.5 .

Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon states:

1. Revolt
2. Defection
3. Apostasy from paganism, Judaism, Christianity, etc.
4. Divorce
5. Departure
6. Standing aloof

Since it means "disappearance" or "departure" as what Paul referred to his harpazo! The Rapture!! Since "departure" or "disappearance" is found before (Liddle & Scott) and after (Lampe's Patristic Greek) the writing of the New Testament, the word applies to spacial separation.

Just plain ignoring the concept? Revolt, defection, divorce, etc., all with the idea of removing oneself from a condition, yet pretrib must muddy the waters by inserting "leaving from one place to another" as a definition when the context refutes such ideas. 

Quote

Context: Paul started chapter 2 about our gathering together:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him,  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 is at hand.  Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a departure first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 

A physical departure! Paul is giving them his words from 1 Thess 4:17. The post context is found in these verses:

Yes and no. It's a departure but not physically. Behold the contrast to the concept of depart in the NT: 

Strong's Greek: 3332. μεταίρω (metairó) -- to remove ... 

Strong's Greek: 549. ἄπειμι (apeimi) -- to go away, depart

Strong's Greek: 360. ἀναλύω (analuó) -- to unloose for ...

Strong's Greek: 630. ἀπολύω (apoluó) -- to set free ...

Strong's Greek: 1826. ἔξειμι (exeimi) -- to go forth

 Strong's Greek: 525. ἀπαλλάσσω (apallassó) -- to remove ... 

Strong's Greek: 402. ἀναχωρέω (anachóreó) -- to go back ...

 Strong's Greek: 863. ἀφίημι (aphiémi) -- to send away ... 

Strong's Greek: 1564. ἐκεῖθεν (ekeithen) -- from there 

Strong's Greek: 4198. πορεύομαι (poreuomai) -- to go

Strong's Greek: 868. ἀφίστημι (aphistémi) -- to lead ...

Strong's Greek: 5217. ὑπάγω (hupagó) -- to lead or bring ...

Strong's Greek: 5563. χωρίζω (chórizó) -- to separate ...

Strong's Greek: 565. ἀπέρχομαι (aperchomai) -- to go ...

Strong's Greek: 3855. παράγω (paragó) -- to lead by, to ...

Strong's Greek: 863. ἀφίημι (aphiémi) -- to send away ...

Strong's Greek: 1607. ἐκπορεύομαι (ekporeuomai) -- to ...

Strong's Greek: 1544. ἐκβάλλω (ekballo) -- I throw, cast ...
 

Since these terms actually mean to "leave from one place and go to another", and none of them appear in 2 Thess 2:3, how can 2 Thess 2:3 mean physical departure? And if that is what Paul meant, why did he not use one of the many terms that carry the concept of 'leaving from one place to go to another"?

Quote

2 Thessalonians 2:5-8
Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? [In 1 Thess 4:17!!] And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.  For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.  And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 

The Holy Spirit and the Bride restrains evil. 

A popular sentiment ignoring 2000 years of history. Neither the bride nor the Holy Spirit are 'restraining evil". I'm betting close to a billion people have died in all the wars since the first century. Just on known stats it's over 400 million. Lenin's purges? Mao's? Pol Pot? Jim Jones? The list goes on and on. Bang up job restraining evil. Better not to generalize in such fashion.

In any case it's wrong. Paul is saying the return of our Lord and the gathering are being held back by the revealing of the beast and the defection away from our Father to the beast. I have more on this if necessary. 

Quote

Next, aphistemi is the verb form of the noun apostesia, and four times is translated as spiritual departure, but 11 times are a physical departure. 

 

Is that so? Care to post evidence pertaining to the part of speech? All I find is apostasia is used as both noun and verb depending on context. In 2 Thess 2:3 it's a noun because the revolt is an event, like the French Revolution was an event.  But again, aphistemi is NOT the word that appears in 2 Thess 2:3. Even if it was it's still not a departure from one place to another, it's a departure like a defection.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Diaste

[Christine]

'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 is at hand.
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;
.... who opposeth and exalteth himself 
...... above all that is called God, 
........ or that is worshipped; 
so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, 
.. shewing himself that he is God.'
(2 Thess. 2-4) 

Hello @Advocate,

I have always thought 'apostasia', in this context, meant what it says, 'a falling away': a falling away from the faith, or a forsaking.  'That day' being 'the day of the Lord'.  The words of Luke 18:8 come to mind:- 'When the Son of Man cometh will He find faith on the earth?

The great apostasy is the subject of many prophecies, and must precede the day of the Lord.

In Christ Jesus

Chris

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Christine

[Last Daze]

5 hours ago, SelahSong said:

I believe that the falling away here is referring to Christians who are being deceived in the last days, and thus, walking away from their faith--turning away from God and running into the arms of the antichrist.

Yes, that's the natural reading of the passage and well said.  It is also in keeping with what Jesus taught.

• “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.  At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another."  Matthew 24:9-10

Many will stumble in their faith when push comes to shove during the time of great tribulation.  They will choose the things of this world in order to save their lives.  That's the apostasy.

[Diaste]

18 hours ago, Abdicate said:

No, that's what it means TODAY. The first seven bible translations into English (before 1610) meant "departure" and from what are we departing you asked, the earth. Just as Paul said in the sentence before - gathered together with Him. Just as Paul said he told them of before, 1 Thess 4:17. Context is king. I don't get the hangup. Today "gay" doesn't mean "happy and joyous" like it did a mere 70 years ago, but means "homosexual" this is what happened to "apostasy" because the protestant revolt. That is when the Catholics changed the meaning from"depart" to "leaving the faith." I don't know how many times I have to keep showing this. Look at the dates for the translations. Cause and effect. Since Paul is telling them they're not in the tribulation because there's no antichrist and the departure hasn't taken place yet. This show too TIMING is departure, man of sin revealed, then tribulation. It's right there in black and white. I don't have anything else to say because that lays it out perfectly. If you can accept that apostesia can mean departure, it clears it all up. I cannot fathom why there is such an attack on harpazo. It means "to violently snatch someone out of harms way." Why and why would that be pertinent? When we are gathered together with Jesus. When is that? I showed you in the entry before this one.

I think you're hoping this is the case. Apostasia is the word that appears in the Koine Greek, not aphistemi. And I agree with you that it is a departure, 'from a previous standing.'

If you are correct about these older texts then bring the proof. Prove that the dictionaries back then defined the term apostasia as 'leaving from one place to go to another'. Just saying this will not convince.

But you miss the context. Jesus' return and the gathering of the elect are forever linked in time and space as occurring in close proximity, nearly at the same moment, and minutes before wrath begins.

Paul tells us in 2 Thess 2:4, "Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness ^a is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. (NIV)"

That 'day' is the day of Jesus return and the gathering of the elect, a 'day' that cannot occur before the rebellion and the revealing of the man of lawlessness.

In essence Pretrib states that the gathering must occur before the gathering occurs, if we are to believe Pretrib doctrine. 

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Oh dude, you don't want the truth, you want to be right. If you can't understand noun vs. verb meaning of the concept, you won't believe anything I say. You lump us into a box and disparage us within your comments rather than seeing the truth as defined in context and dictionary meanings. You really lack discernment and until you realize the possibility of another thought, you're stuck where you are.

My last comment: what is the comforting words Paul talks about in 1 Thess 4? what do you call harpazo? what do you think falling away means? Answer succinctly these three questions. And keep on topic instead of going down muddy rabbit holes.

Wow. I disparage? 

I suppose I should realize the possibility of another thought. This one comes to mind, 

“Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

No thanks.

The comforting words Paul speaks to in 1 Thess 4 have been construed to support a doctrine. I have heard the argument; " These words are only a comfort if the rapture occurs before the 70th week begins."

That isn't the only possibility. In the Pretrib doctrine it is, but it's wrong. The hope for the people here is not that they will avoid hardship, but that they will be saved from God's wrath, and the wrath of the Lamb and be made immortal, while avoiding the fate of millions who are doomed to endure the intense pleading between them and our Lord.

Pretrib begins with a false premise conflating the 70th week with the wrath of God. This is wrong. 

Harpazo

"to seize, catch up, snatch away"

However, there is no timing for this event. The Pretrib idea of timing for this event is based on the false premise; 70th week = wrath of God. And while I'll grant the internal consistency of the argument, a false premise always equals false conclusions.

I think we have established what I think about 'falling away'. But let me bring up a point. Of all the translation extant, 2 of 30 translate apostasia as 'departure' and the rest as 'falling away', 'rebellion', 'revolt' or 'apostasy'. That's a lot of evidence supporting the claim that when apostasia is rendered as 'departure', it means 'departure from a previous standing', and not 'from one place to another'.

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Dude, Again, I posted it and you chose not to read it and what you are reading is the exact opposite of what I said.

You didn't prove intent, just a fact or set of facts. It's an assumption the intent was to characterize a movement. Unless you have documentation this was the plan of the Catholic church.

The Pretrib doctrine engages in this quite a bit. 

While I have no trouble with what you say, the conclusions of the doctrine are based on false premises. Relevant facts are ignored, and it seems that dogma rules the day when the facts, in toto, refute the notions of the Pretrib doctrine.

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Just three sentences:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
Now, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him, we ask you not to be quickly shaken in your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as from us, saying that the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God.

6 Don’t you remember that, when I was still with you, I told you these things?

What Paul? Tell us!

1 Thessalonians 4:17-18
then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. So we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

The whole context of 2 Thess is to comfort them that the promise of harpzo would happen before the man of sin is revealed. That the LIE they head or read about already being in the tribulation was false. It's right there.

But it isn't really 'right there', is it? Just a normal reading here, and including the complete thought, "concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, AND our gathering together to him", shows us that what ever comes after this context relates to both events, The coming of our Lord and the gathering.

"For it will not be...". "It" is the coming of the Lord and the gathering. Two thing must occur before, "IT", a departure and a revealing. In your opinion there must be a gathering before there is a gathering, yes?

They way you present this is to say that before the Lord comes and gathers believers, the believers must be gathered first, even before the Lord comes, because 'it', " the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him", must have a pre-gathering. One of the more senseless tenets of the Pretrib doctrine. So who would then be left to gather if they already 'departed'?

The truth is the 2nd Coming and the one and only gathering occur after the beast is revealed through ascending the Temple, blaspheming God, and elevating himself over all gods.

6 Don’t you remember that, when I was still with you, I told you these things?

What Paul? Tell us!

1 Thessalonians 4:17-18
then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. So we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

The link between these two thoughts is unsustainable.  2 Thess 2:1-4  is not related in the way you believe. 2 Thess 2:1-4 is speaking to the order of events, first the beast and the rebellion ,and only then the coming of the Lord and the gathering; while 1 Thess 4:16-18 speaks to the hope of the resurrection at the coming of our Lord. There is no order of events nor timing here. It's doubtful Paul was referring to this passage in 1 Thess 4 when he said, "Don’t you remember that, when I was still with you, I told you these things?" Why?

Paul said he told the Thessalonians these things when he was with them. 1st and 2nd Thess are letters written to the Thessalonians when Paul WAS NOT with them! Clearly he wasn't referring to a previous letter but a previous teaching from a time when they were together.

The lie was not about being 'in the tribulation'. Context, context, context. Let's look.

"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come." 2 Thess 2:1-2

Where is 'tribulation' mentioned here? The context is 'the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him,'. Paul iterates the concern of the congregation when he implores the body to, "not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us...asserting that the day of the Lord has already come".  There is no concern here about 'tribulation' or Paul would have mentioned it; the concern of the Thessalonian congregation was that they missed the day of the Lord's coming. That would be terrible for them, or anyone.

 

 

 

 

[Diaste]

20 hours ago, Abdicate said:

I didn't say it, Paul did. He gave man choice. If the west chooses to do nothing they're just as guilty as those that kill. Shameful comment really.

Just refuting the silly notion the church 'restrains evil'. The church cannot restrain evil in it's own presence. Every vice known to man is present in the churches.

What do you mean 'the west'? The 'west' supposed to be the world police? A moral authority? Both sin and righteousness are matters of the heart, both begin and end with individual choices.  You want to know why the churches are profligate? Us. We allow it. We allow it first in ourselves and then realize we lack the base to confront sin. 

This is why great tribulation is coming, to purify the heart and mind of the people who are called by His name.

Witness:

"For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household;" 1 Peter 4:17

 

[Last Daze]

53 minutes ago, Diaste said:

They way you present this is to say that before the Lord comes and gathers believers, the believers must be gathered first, even before the Lord comes, because 'it', " the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him", must have a pre-gathering. One of the more senseless tenets of the Pretrib doctrine. So who would then be left to gather if they already 'departed'?

That is the major problem I have with the "apostasy = rapture" rendering of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 which can be paraphrased as: The rapture won't happen until the rapture happens first.  I think Paul deserves more credit than that.