Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JoeCanada

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

Recommended Posts

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Diaste
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


'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 by Christine
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Diaste said:

To which dictionaries are you referring?

By asking the question only shows you didn't read it. I won't debate someone who isn't willing to listen. Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Diaste said:

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? 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Diaste said:

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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. 

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. 

 

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. 

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"?

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. 

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Diaste said:

BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PROVE TIMING!

Sure I can! Using the scriptures:

God, "Declaring the end from the beginning..." Isa 46:10a

Genesis 8 - Outpouring of the Holy Spirit (dove) - Last Days pour out Spirit
Genesis 7 - Shaking of the Earth - Earthquakes in divers places
Genesis 6 - Signs of the Days of Noah - violence and evil therefore the love of man grows cold
Genesis 5 - Rapture of Enoch - Rapture of the church
Genesis 4 - Marking of Cain - Marking of God's 144,000 and Mark of the Beast for the rest
Genesis 3 - Satan won over man 3:15 - Satan loses over a Man, Rev 20:2
Genesis 2 - Perfect Paradise - Rev 22 Perfect Paradise
Genesis 1 -
    • Time Begins - Time Ends;
    • God walked with man - God walks with man;
    • Tree of Life - Tree of Life heals the nations;
    • Adam and Eve - Jesus and His Bride;
    • No sickness or death - No more sickness or death;

First two chapters of the word of God are perfect. Alef; Alpha
Last two chapters of the word of God are perfect. Tav; Omega

Genesis - Nimrod one world government; tower of Babel
Revelation - Antichrist one world government; mystery Babylon; Babylon is destroyed

Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me,  Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:  

Revelation 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.  

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  

Isaiah 57:1-2
The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come. He shall enter into peace: they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness.

Revelation 3:10
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Genesis 19:22-23
Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar. The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar.

1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,


Order of Jesus' Feasts

 

Capture.PNG.4148da908ad5c00e7d79e0f270bcecac.PNG

 

Capture.PNG.c3fa6844120b119a800eb6bfdb1231c9.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Diaste said:

And it is a departure, from a previously held belief.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

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.

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.

Edited by Abdicate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Christine said:


'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

 

That's not what the scripture says, that's what the translations say with the biases of the translators. I suggest you read the other entries I wrote that addresses this issue.

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,  

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.

Edited by Abdicate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...