RAPTURE IN 2 THESSALONIANS

[calledoutones]

Here is something to think about, the word apostasia is a noun, and as I mentioned before it was translated as "departure" in the first 7 english translations. The verb for the word "apostasia" is strongs number g868 "aphistemi", aphistemi is used in acts 12 verse 10, and the Angel "departed" from him. my point is this that strongs defines aphistemi to remove, or actively instigate to revolt, to desist or desert, draw or fall away, the angel "departed" from him, he didnt instigate a revolt or fall away! departed is a verb in the english language, and departure is a noun in the english language, and if you look at the context and literary structure of of 2 thessalonians chapter 2 you find that paul in 2:6-8 repeats the same two events mentioned in 2:3, quoting thomas ice in his study of "The rapture in 2 thessalonians 2:3, He says; Both events are stated twice in the passage: first, "the departure" (rapture) and "the revelation of the man of sin" (verse 3), and second, the restrainer (holy spirit) "is taken out of the way" (rapture) and "the lawless one will  be revealed" (verses 7-8). If "the departure" is some form of revolt (my word) then the parallelism is broken. Also I want to point out that if we read 2 thess 2 in context we find that the thessalonians were going through tribulations as mentioned in 2 thess 1:4, so paul writes to the not to be soon shaken in mind, or troubled in spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us that the day of christ had come! 2 thess 2:2, they thought that they had missed the rapture because of tribulation, and paul comforts them by telling them not to worry about it because the departure will come "first". makes perfect sense to me. comment please! shalom

[wingnut-]

It really doesn't make a bit of sense, when you lay it out in a complete thought.  Start by the context Paul lays out.

 

II Thessalonians 2  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering 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 is at hand.

3 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;

4 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.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

 

Now paraphrase it in modern English with your rendering of the verse.

 

Now brothers, concerning the coming of Jesus and our being gathered to Him.  Don't be shaken or disturbed that the day of the Lord has already come.  That day will not come, unless the gathering comes first and the A/C is revealed.

 

See the problem?  The gathering will happen before the gathering?  

The other nonsensical part of this is the attempt to change what apostasia means.  If someone speaks of apostasy, or say an apostate church, do you distort the meaning to believe that this apostate church has been raptured?

Paul connects the rapture to His coming in the first verse, it is the same thing Jesus told us Himself.

God bless

[Uriah]

On 10/12/2019 at 9:13 PM, calledoutones said:

Here is something to think about, the word apostasia is a noun, and as I mentioned before it was translated as "departure" in the first 7 english translations. The verb for the word "apostasia" is strongs number g868 "aphistemi", aphistemi is used in acts 12 verse 10, and the Angel "departed" from him. my point is this that strongs defines aphistemi to remove, or actively instigate to revolt, to desist or desert, draw or fall away, the angel "departed" from him, he didnt instigate a revolt or fall away! departed is a verb in the english language, and departure is a noun in the english language, and if you look at the context and literary structure of of 2 thessalonians chapter 2 you find that paul in 2:6-8 repeats the same two events mentioned in 2:3, quoting thomas ice in his study of "The rapture in 2 thessalonians 2:3, He says; Both events are stated twice in the passage: first, "the departure" (rapture) and "the revelation of the man of sin" (verse 3), and second, the restrainer (holy spirit) "is taken out of the way" (rapture) and "the lawless one will  be revealed" (verses 7-8). If "the departure" is some form of revolt (my word) then the parallelism is broken. Also I want to point out that if we read 2 thess 2 in context we find that the thessalonians were going through tribulations as mentioned in 2 thess 1:4, so paul writes to the not to be soon shaken in mind, or troubled in spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us that the day of christ had come! 2 thess 2:2, they thought that they had missed the rapture because of tribulation, and paul comforts them by telling them not to worry about it because the departure will come "first". makes perfect sense to me. comment please! shalom

Hi calledoutones

Here is the actual text of the passage you cited:

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.

Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

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

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

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:

 

So at the place where you say the rapture will occur, we have the event that happens at the Lord's Second coming! This is the error of pre tribulationism.

[Diaste]

On 10/12/2019 at 7:13 PM, calledoutones said:

Here is something to think about, the word apostasia is a noun, and as I mentioned before it was translated as "departure" in the first 7 english translations. The verb for the word "apostasia" is strongs number g868 "aphistemi", aphistemi is used in acts 12 verse 10, and the Angel "departed" from him. my point is this that strongs defines aphistemi to remove, or actively instigate to revolt, to desist or desert, draw or fall away, the angel "departed" from him, he didnt instigate a revolt or fall away! departed is a verb in the english language, and departure is a noun in the english language, and if you look at the context and literary structure of of 2 thessalonians chapter 2 you find that paul in 2:6-8 repeats the same two events mentioned in 2:3, quoting thomas ice in his study of "The rapture in 2 thessalonians 2:3, He says; Both events are stated twice in the passage: first, "the departure" (rapture) and "the revelation of the man of sin" (verse 3), and second, the restrainer (holy spirit) "is taken out of the way" (rapture) and "the lawless one will  be revealed" (verses 7-8). If "the departure" is some form of revolt (my word) then the parallelism is broken. Also I want to point out that if we read 2 thess 2 in context we find that the thessalonians were going through tribulations as mentioned in 2 thess 1:4, so paul writes to the not to be soon shaken in mind, or troubled in spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us that the day of christ had come! 2 thess 2:2, they thought that they had missed the rapture because of tribulation, and paul comforts them by telling them not to worry about it because the departure will come "first". makes perfect sense to me. comment please! shalom

Greetings!

I'm going to add to the pithy commentary from wingnut and Uriah above.

Three comments:

1) What you posted is just the Pre Trib manifesto. It seems like everyone who begins with a Pre Trib leaning has to quote this department policy regarding 2 Thess 2:1-7. Please look into it closely.

2) The Holy Spirit, Micheal, the church, do no 'restraining'. The normal reading of the verse clearly shows revolt of the people of God and revealing of the man of sin occur before the Return of Jesus and the gathering. Apostasy and revealing in effect 'withhold' the Return of Jesus as revolt and rebellion must happen prior to Jesus' return. 

3) You are correct in that some versions defined apostasia through the root terms constituting aphistemi and rendered the word as 'departure'. This isn't incorrect but it's not fully accurate. If you investigate you will see the 'departure' is leaving an ideology and not a physical departure from one place to go to another. Aphistemi is akin to divorce and is defined as 'leaving a previous standing', the same thing as changing ones dogma. But neither 'dicessio' nor 'aphistemi' are used in 2 Thes 2:1-7; Paul chose 'apostasia'. No other word appears here. This is the strongest term and is defined as revolt, defection or rebellion.

Have a good day!

 

[Uriah]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

Greetings!

I'm going to add to the pithy commentary from wingnut and Uriah above.

Three comments:

1) What you posted is just the Pre Trib manifesto. It seems like everyone who begins with a Pre Trib leaning has to quote this department policy regarding 2 Thess 2:1-7. Please look into it closely.

2) The Holy Spirit, Micheal, the church, do no 'restraining'. The normal reading of the verse clearly shows revolt of the people of God and revealing of the man of sin occur before the Return of Jesus and the gathering. Apostasy and revealing in effect 'withhold' the Return of Jesus as revolt and rebellion must happen prior to Jesus' return. 

3) You are correct in that some versions defined apostasia through the root terms constituting aphistemi and rendered the word as 'departure'. This isn't incorrect but it's not fully accurate. If you investigate you will see the 'departure' is leaving an ideology and not a physical departure from one place to go to another. Aphistemi is akin to divorce and is defined as 'leaving a previous standing', the same thing as changing ones dogma. But neither 'dicessio' nor 'aphistemi' are used in 2 Thes 2:1-7; Paul chose 'apostasia'. No other word appears here. This is the strongest term and is defined as revolt, defection or rebellion.

Have a good day!

 

Hi Diaste

Here is a piece of text from a Google Book called, "A Summary of Roman Civil Law":

ever, never completed, but under the Emperors it often met in the 

house of a Consul. 

The Senate was opened in the solemn form uod banum, 

fau$tum, felix{rtunatumgue sit pecula Romano Quiriti us. After 

the discussion e votes were taken dicessio, division, or by nume— 

upsru%idsent' the tormer aPPears in later times to 

The Senate originated in the discussion 

of all matters which the question might 'be referred to the people, 

 

This is  similar to what we would now call caucusing. Nobody in the Senate suddenly left for parts unknown, they divided into their respective groups to figure out a compromise or strategy.  I cannot find it anymore but years ago I even saw this word being used by a woman in Italy while referring to tomatoes by size in a discussion of a recipe. It is strange that those who are dedicated to the pre trib dogma don't even check some things the simply repeat.

 

 

[Uriah]

6 hours ago, Diaste said:

2) The Holy Spirit, Micheal, the church, do no 'restraining'. 

Right!

Here is the minimalist way of clearing up this sentence: (right after the word "withholdeth")

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

 

TIME is withholding the revealing of the man of sin, etc. It wasn't the TIME yet!

Once again, the error being made is due to obsolete Greek being translated into obsolete English and then perused by modern English readers. No big mystery.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Uriah
wording

[Diaste]

57 minutes ago, Uriah said:

Right!

Here is the minimalist way of clearing up this sentence: (right after the word "withholdeth")

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

 

TIME is withholding the revealing of the man of sin, etc. It wasn't the TIME yet!

Even a normal every day reading should show that sans the deep word studies.

 

[Uriah]

Agreed, giving the benefit y the doubt, some may perchance struggle with kjv. However even some other version s don't show it well

[Gentle-Warrior]

On 10/12/2019 at 7:44 PM, wingnut- said:

It really doesn't make a bit of sense, when you lay it out in a complete thought.  Start by the context Paul lays out.

 

II Thessalonians 2  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering 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 is at hand.

3 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;

4 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.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

 

Now paraphrase it in modern English with your rendering of the verse.

 

Now brothers, concerning the coming of Jesus and our being gathered to Him.  Don't be shaken or disturbed that the day of the Lord has already come.  That day will not come, unless the gathering comes first and the A/C is revealed.

 

See the problem?  The gathering will happen before the gathering?  

The other nonsensical part of this is the attempt to change what apostasia means.  If someone speaks of apostasy, or say an apostate church, do you distort the meaning to believe that this apostate church has been raptured?

Paul connects the rapture to His coming in the first verse, it is the same thing Jesus told us Himself.

God bless

The day of the Lord does not necessarily mean the end of time. The modern, western church has failed to understand the language of the first century writers and the context of proper covenant thinking. 

The modern church has gone on to assume things that were not part of such language.

We have built a whole doctrine based on presuppositions. 

Having said that, the biggest event in those day was the fact that the old covenant was coming to an end. Paul was not talking about anything else but that.  

 

[Last Daze]

4 hours ago, Uriah said:

Right!

Here is the minimalist way of clearing up this sentence: (right after the word "withholdeth")

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

 

TIME is withholding the revealing of the man of sin, etc. It wasn't the TIME yet!

True. 

Why didn't Jesus establish the kingdom of God on earth at the time that He was given all authority in heaven and on earth?  Because it wasn't time.  The gospel had to be preached to all the nations first in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham.  Then the end will come.