50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
7,937
1,545
113
When one grasps what Verse 2 is actually SAYING ("[purporting / alleging] that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"), then one can properly apply these things, like this:

--anyone who is trying to tell anyone else "that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT" without those other things [Paul referenced] being "in evidence," then they are either deceiving, or are themselves deceived
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
7,937
1,545
113
In my Post #598, I had said this:

Let no man deceive you by any means
Paul is saying this ^ because of the issue stated in v.2... "[those purporting / alleging] that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT"


It WASN'T. And Paul explains WHY.

When it WILL be present (and if it were the case that it WAS, back in their day), TWO THINGS will be / would have been IN EVIDENCE:

--"THE Departure *FIRST*" (ONE THING *FIRST*--and it hadn't taken place!); AND

--"and [distinctly] the man of sin BE REVEALED" (and he HADN'T been... but whenever HE WILL BE, THEN "the day of the Lord" WILL INDEED *BE PRESENT*!)


[end quoting]

____________

^ This means that "the day of the Lord" and "the man of sin" (and ALL he is slated to DO) will exist on/unfold upon the earth AT THE SAME TIME.



["thumbsup!" that ^ is TRUTH!]
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
9,359
5,019
113
When one grasps what Verse 2 is actually SAYING ("[purporting / alleging] that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"), then one can properly apply these things, like this:

--anyone who is trying to tell anyone else "that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT" without those other things [Paul referenced] being "in evidence," then they are either deceiving, or are themselves deceived
(y):) Indeed this is so.....
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
7,937
1,545
113
EDIT: should read "Post #589" instead (not #598)... TIMED-OUT for EDIT! :p




[anyway, I think T7t7 ACCIDENTALLY gave it a "thumbs-up" ! But, whatever!]
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
3,212
2,097
113
After "Several Attempts" you refuse to answer the simple direct question below with a Yes/No, it will be my opinion you believe and teach that the KJV (Falling Away) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a pre-trib rapture of the church to heaven, which is (False)

Direct Question Unanswered By DivineWatermark, With A Simple Yes or No?

Do you believe (Departure) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a pre-trib rapture of the church to heaven?

(Apostasia) A Falling Away Or Defection From Truth Once Held (Apostasy)

Strong’s Definitions
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah;
feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.

2 Thessalonians 2:3KJV
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;
Yeah brother I don't think they're going to answer that question with a simple yes or no. I mean, if they did then they would have to either abandon a pre-trib belief or make up something that contradicts the scripture we're discussing.

Either way, it's a slam dunk for truth. The beautiful thing about the truth is that it isn't afraid of the hard questions. The truth will always prevail.
 

lamad

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2021
1,114
81
48
The only problem with that is you're injecting what you think they were troubled about.

The verses say that Jesus will not return until after the apostasy and man of sin which means the church will be present when the anti-Christ is there. The church will be present for the great tribulation.

Why? Because the rapture doesn't happen until after Jesus returns. Matthew 24 (immediately after the tribulation of those days)

The verses were talking about say they were troubled that the apostasy and man of sin had arrived because they clearly understood that would have meant the great tribulation is happening.
The only problem with that is, your injecting Jesus coming. What? Do you associated Jesus coming with the Day of the Lord? I don't find the word "coming" anywhere in this passage. I think it is inferred in the word "apostasia" translated as a departing.

If you have another theory as to why they were troubled, by all means share it.

The verses say that Jesus will not return until after the apostasy and man of sin No, I think it does not say that. What it really says is that the departing must come first, THEN the man of sin is revealed, and then, all will know THE DAY has come and they are IN IT.

From 1 Thes. 4 & 5 we can determine that the rapture comes first, then Wrath. Paul is not going to switch doctrines between two letters to the same church! We can consider "the Day of the Lord" as the start of wrath, from John at the 6th seal. It is the Day of His wrath of the Day of the Lord. Paul has made it clear that he believed the rapture would come just before wrath. I believe the rapture will trigger wrath.

they were troubled that the apostasy and man of sin had arrived
No. Read it again: " 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." If Paul had taught them in person that the rapture would come after the DAY or perhaps during the DAY, why would they be upset or troubled? They would be getting close to the time of the rapture! On the other hand, if Paul had taught them that they would be raptured out BEFORE the Day (which is what He taught in 1 Thes. 4 & 5) and they then heard THE DAY had come and they were in it - of course they would be upset: either Paul was mistaken or they were left behind.

It is not an easy text, because even the Greek texts differ on whether Paul wrote the Day of Christ or the Day of the Lord. Since Paul wrote of the Day of the Lord in his first letter, I favor the Day of the Lord in his second letter.

(immediately after the tribulation of those days) Sorry, this gathering is simply not Paul's rapture. It is a different gathering.

One thing that is very difficult to get around is that in verse 3b Paul told of the man of sin as having been revealed and this is proven because he tells us what the man of sin will do when he is revealed. Check it out in every translation: it is either "be revealed" or "is revealed."

How then can he "be revealed" unless the power restraining that revealing has been "taken out of the way." Search verse 3a for anything that could possibly be a power "taken out of the way."

Does a "falling away" fit "taken out of the way" or does a departing fit "taken out of the way?"
Can a "falling away" be considered as a power restraining the man of sin, or does the Holy Spirit working through the church fit a power restraining the man of sin better?

Then there is what Paul wrote in verse 6: "and now you KNOW what is restraining...."

Yet most of the church GUESSES. The truth is, Paul just TOLD us in the previous verses if we understand them correctly.
 

lamad

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2021
1,114
81
48
Watermark has intentionally given disregard to the question below, posted 3 times, of course this poster also falsely believes and teaches a pre-trib rapture is seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Let No Man Deceive You By Any Means

Direct Question To DivineWatermark, Yes or No?

Do you believe (Departure) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a pre-trib rapture of the church to heaven?
Am I allowed to answer? A better question would be DID PAUL believe it?

Yes, I think Paul believed it so I believe it. I think a careful study of this passage confirms it. First, verse 3b tells us the man of sin "Is revealed." Yet, verses 6 - 8 tell us he cannot be revealed until the power restraining him has been "taken out of the way." Therefore, by logic we must believe that somewhere in 3a the power restraining has been "taken out of the way."

People are then left with a choice:
Either a "falling away" is the restraining force being "taken out of the way," or a "departing" is the force being "taken out of the way." Is a falling away good or evil? Can evil restrain evil? I think not.

I think a "departing" makes much better sense. It answers Paul's theme of the gathering. It is the departing of the CHURCH, but that is not written out - only hinted at.

I will ask you a question: do you believe a falling away fits the restraining power "taken out of the way?"
I will ask another question: why did Paul write, "and now you know what is restraining?"
 

lamad

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2021
1,114
81
48
He used the word apostasia in the verses you cited with "departure." It literally means a defection from a truth once held.

He's definitely talking about Christians becoming apostates via abandonment of the faith or turning aside to myths or fables. It has nothing to do with the rapture.

1 Timothy 4:1 recognizes and validates the prophecy of some departing from the faith in latter days;

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Furthermore, the scripture has to mesh because we're under the firmly-held belief it is the divinely-inspired and inerrant word of God.

Therefore there cannot be contradictions to scripture: believing the church departs in a rapture before the apostasy of the church and man of sin is revealed contradicts the verse in question and the whole body of scriptures.

Matthew 24:29-31 says that immediately after the tribulation of those days He will return with His angels to gather His elect. Case closed. The rapture has always been post-tribulation.
It literally means a defection from a truth once held. No, this is not true. You are adding a meaning not included in the word Apostasia. That word does NOT include what is being depart FROM (you added "truth"). Have you studied this compound Greek word? Notice what Strongs says:

It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."

Here is what Strong's says about "apo:

"of separation... ...of local separation,

after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...

of separation of a part from the whole......where of a whole some part is taken

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

of a state of separation, that is of distance... physical, of distance of place"



At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

It is a fact that after Paul wrote the word "apostasia," he wrote that the man of sin was then revealed. Not in reality, but in his argument. HOW does he get revealed in 3b? ONLY if the power restraining him is "taken out of the way."

believing the church departs in a rapture before the apostasy of the church and man of sin is revealed contradicts the verse in question and the whole body of scriptures.
It only contradicts your THINKING Of these verses.
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
3,212
2,097
113
The only problem with that is, your injecting Jesus coming. What? Do you associated Jesus coming with the Day of the Lord? I don't find the word "coming" anywhere in this passage. I think it is inferred in the word "apostasia" translated as a departing.

If you have another theory as to why they were troubled, by all means share it.

The verses say that Jesus will not return until after the apostasy and man of sin No, I think it does not say that. What it really says is that the departing must come first, THEN the man of sin is revealed, and then, all will know THE DAY has come and they are IN IT.

From 1 Thes. 4 & 5 we can determine that the rapture comes first, then Wrath. Paul is not going to switch doctrines between two letters to the same church! We can consider "the Day of the Lord" as the start of wrath, from John at the 6th seal. It is the Day of His wrath of the Day of the Lord. Paul has made it clear that he believed the rapture would come just before wrath. I believe the rapture will trigger wrath.

they were troubled that the apostasy and man of sin had arrived No. Read it again: " 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." If Paul had taught them in person that the rapture would come after the DAY or perhaps during the DAY, why would they be upset or troubled? They would be getting close to the time of the rapture! On the other hand, if Paul had taught them that they would be raptured out BEFORE the Day (which is what He taught in 1 Thes. 4 & 5) and they then heard THE DAY had come and they were in it - of course they would be upset: either Paul was mistaken or they were left behind.

It is not an easy text, because even the Greek texts differ on whether Paul wrote the Day of Christ or the Day of the Lord. Since Paul wrote of the Day of the Lord in his first letter, I favor the Day of the Lord in his second letter.

(immediately after the tribulation of those days) Sorry, this gathering is simply not Paul's rapture. It is a different gathering.

One thing that is very difficult to get around is that in verse 3b Paul told of the man of sin as having been revealed and this is proven because he tells us what the man of sin will do when he is revealed. Check it out in every translation: it is either "be revealed" or "is revealed."

How then can he "be revealed" unless the power restraining that revealing has been "taken out of the way." Search verse 3a for anything that could possibly be a power "taken out of the way."

Does a "falling away" fit "taken out of the way" or does a departing fit "taken out of the way?"
Can a "falling away" be considered as a power restraining the man of sin, or does the Holy Spirit working through the church fit a power restraining the man of sin better?

Then there is what Paul wrote in verse 6: "and now you KNOW what is restraining...."

Yet most of the church GUESSES. The truth is, Paul just TOLD us in the previous verses if we understand them correctly.
Did you even read the passage? It's 2 Thessalonians 2:

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2That 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.
3Let 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;
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
The only problem with that is, your injecting Jesus coming. What? Do you associated Jesus coming with the Day of the Lord? I don't find the word "coming" anywhere in this passage. I think it is inferred in the word "apostasia" translated as a departing.

If you have another theory as to why they were troubled, by all means share it.

The verses say that Jesus will not return until after the apostasy and man of sin No, I think it does not say that. What it really says is that the departing must come first, THEN the man of sin is revealed, and then, all will know THE DAY has come and they are IN IT.

From 1 Thes. 4 & 5 we can determine that the rapture comes first, then Wrath. Paul is not going to switch doctrines between two letters to the same church! We can consider "the Day of the Lord" as the start of wrath, from John at the 6th seal. It is the Day of His wrath of the Day of the Lord. Paul has made it clear that he believed the rapture would come just before wrath. I believe the rapture will trigger wrath.

they were troubled that the apostasy and man of sin had arrived No. Read it again: " 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." If Paul had taught them in person that the rapture would come after the DAY or perhaps during the DAY, why would they be upset or troubled? They would be getting close to the time of the rapture! On the other hand, if Paul had taught them that they would be raptured out BEFORE the Day (which is what He taught in 1 Thes. 4 & 5) and they then heard THE DAY had come and they were in it - of course they would be upset: either Paul was mistaken or they were left behind.

It is not an easy text, because even the Greek texts differ on whether Paul wrote the Day of Christ or the Day of the Lord. Since Paul wrote of the Day of the Lord in his first letter, I favor the Day of the Lord in his second letter.

(immediately after the tribulation of those days) Sorry, this gathering is simply not Paul's rapture. It is a different gathering.

One thing that is very difficult to get around is that in verse 3b Paul told of the man of sin as having been revealed and this is proven because he tells us what the man of sin will do when he is revealed. Check it out in every translation: it is either "be revealed" or "is revealed."

How then can he "be revealed" unless the power restraining that revealing has been "taken out of the way." Search verse 3a for anything that could possibly be a power "taken out of the way."

Does a "falling away" fit "taken out of the way" or does a departing fit "taken out of the way?"
Can a "falling away" be considered as a power restraining the man of sin, or does the Holy Spirit working through the church fit a power restraining the man of sin better?

Then there is what Paul wrote in verse 6: "and now you KNOW what is restraining...."

Yet most of the church GUESSES. The truth is, Paul just TOLD us in the previous verses if we understand them correctly.
(Apostasia) A Falling Away Or Defection From Truth Once Held (Apostasy)

Strong’s Definitions
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah;
feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.

2 Thessalonians 2:3KJV
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;
 
Feb 22, 2021
594
167
43
Midwest
I think that people spend too much time disagreeing over things that have absolutely nothing to do with one's salvation & eternal destiny...
Precious friend, preaching The Gospel Of GRACE {Romans-Philemon
KJB!)
to the lost, for Salvation And Eternal destiny, is one thing.

Preparing for The Judgment Seat Of CHRIST for "testing What
Sort of works we have built on The Foundation {Paul laid},"

(1 Corinthians 3 : 8-15 KJB!), is quite another: vehement Discussion?

We should go by The Whole Of Scripture, Correct? For example:
contradicts the verse in question and the whole body of scriptures.

Matthew 24:29-31 says that immediately after the tribulation of those days He will return with His angels to gather His elect. Case closed. The rapture has always been post-tribulation.
Precious friend, again, the failure is discussing one verse
{2Thes 2 : 13}, and beating it to death. As to the {So Much More
to prayerfully/Carefully Consider} Whole Body of Scriptures, here
are a couple of problems for
post-tribbers, IF Christ Desires us to
"prepare" for HIS Righteous Judgment!:

Are we "wasting" time discussing this, To Bring Out God's Truth Of
Sound Doctrine
? Should we Carefully/Prayerfully Consider?:

The Timing belief matters, Because It Determines HOW one
“Prepares!” Amen?:

(1) "Which" is Better?: "men" instructing watchmen to look for
antichrist, And "preparing" by Selfishly Hoarding Up seven years
of food for famine, to "endure to the end of Great Tribulation!,"
Thus, "living BY SIGHT [LAW]!"? Or:

Obeying God, Under HIS Amazing GRACE, "living By FAITH,"
Looking, Watching, And Waiting For [ our "Blessed HOPE!" ]
The LORD JESUS CHRIST!...

...While loving our neighbor, And Selflessly working to use God's
{ Provided } money to "GIVE to them in need," while performing
All "good works" For God, in Order To Be:

►►► "Prepared" For Judgment In Heaven! ◄◄◄
(1 Corinthians 3 : 8-15! cp 1 Corinthians 4 : 12; Ephesians 4 : 28;
1 Thessalonians 4 : 11-12; Philippians 4 : 19; 2 Corinthians 9 : 8;
Romans 12 : 20!) Amen?

(2) Finally, IF Any Dear Reader Still believes one Will See anti-
christ First, and enter Into Great Tribulation, "under his {Satan's}
GOVERNMENTAL reign," Then does one not have The Following
Scriptural Dilemma? Please Prayerfully/Carefully Consider This:

"Out-Of-Place Problem!" From God And HIS Word!:

ALL "members" of The Body Of CHRIST Are Instructed, By God, To:
"be subject to governmental authorities, And pray For them!"
(Romans 13 : 1-7; Titus 3 : 1; 1 Timothy 2 : 1-4).

How does that then work out (Disobedience?), for the Body Of
CHRIST members, who "Will Go Into" the Great Tribulation, as
"the government Will Be Under The Control" Of Satan and the
Beast! (Revelation 13 : 4)? {submission = "mark of the beast," eh?}

"Prove ALL things; hold fast That Which Is Good!"
(1 Thessalonians 5 : 21!)


Again, Precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Blessed!

IF "the case is closed," THEN not much sense pursuing The
Whole Of Scripture
{the remainder of my 12 pending points}, eh?
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
It literally means a defection from a truth once held. No, this is not true. You are adding a meaning not included in the word Apostasia. That word does NOT include what is being depart FROM (you added "truth"). Have you studied this compound Greek word? Notice what Strongs says:

It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."

Here is what Strong's says about "apo:

"of separation... ...of local separation,

after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...

of separation of a part from the whole......where of a whole some part is taken

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

of a state of separation, that is of distance... physical, of distance of place"

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

It is a fact that after Paul wrote the word "apostasia," he wrote that the man of sin was then revealed. Not in reality, but in his argument. HOW does he get revealed in 3b? ONLY if the power restraining him is "taken out of the way."
Strong's
Apostasia: (Defection From Truth)(Apostasy) (Falling Away) (Forsake) Who You Trying To Fool (Yourself)
:giggle:

(Apostasia) A Falling Away Or Defection From Truth Once Held (Apostasy)

Strong’s Definitions
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah;
feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.

2 Thessalonians 2:3KJV
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;
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
3,212
2,097
113
It literally means a defection from a truth once held. No, this is not true. You are adding a meaning not included in the word Apostasia. That word does NOT include what is being depart FROM (you added "truth"). Have you studied this compound Greek word? Notice what Strongs says:

It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."

Here is what Strong's says about "apo:

"of separation... ...of local separation,

after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...

of separation of a part from the whole......where of a whole some part is taken

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

of a state of separation, that is of distance... physical, of distance of place"



At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

It is a fact that after Paul wrote the word "apostasia," he wrote that the man of sin was then revealed. Not in reality, but in his argument. HOW does he get revealed in 3b? ONLY if the power restraining him is "taken out of the way."

believing the church departs in a rapture before the apostasy of the church and man of sin is revealed contradicts the verse in question and the whole body of scriptures. It only contradicts your THINKING Of these verses.
Wrong. I'll stick with what the definitions of apostasia are in Greek.

(Apostasia) A Falling Away Or Defection From Truth Once Held (Apostasy)

Strong’s Definitions
G646ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah; feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.
 

lamad

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2021
1,114
81
48
(Apostasia) A Falling Away Or Defection From Truth Once Held (Apostasy)

Strong’s Definitions
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah;
feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.

2 Thessalonians 2:3KJV
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;

Please note all the translations BEFORE the KJV that translated this word as a departing. Also not what Strongs said:
" to forsake (with G575) " and g575 points to forsaking Moses. By itself it can only mean to depart of forsake but no information as to forsake or depart from WHAT? Or, as KJV says, falling away from WHAT is not given.

An important question to ask is, can this compound word mean anything else? Can it mean a departing? Many early translators thought so.

To really answer the questions, we must consider every verse in this passage. For example, verses 6-8 tell us what must happen for the man of sin to be revealed. Yet, in verse 3b he IS revealed. HOW? Paul did not explain how, We must learn how by study.

Then Paul starts verse 6 by saying "Now you know what is restraining..." HOW Paul? HOW are we to know? I think the answer is, Paul just TOLD US but did it in a cloaked way.

Another question: where does Paul satisfy he theme of the gathering? If the gathering is the theme, then where it is in this passage?
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
Please note all the translations BEFORE the KJV that translated this word as a departing. Also not what Strongs said:
" to forsake (with G575) " and g575 points to forsaking Moses. By itself it can only mean to depart of forsake but no information as to forsake or depart from WHAT? Or, as KJV says, falling away from WHAT is not given.

An important question to ask is, can this compound word mean anything else? Can it mean a departing? Many early translators thought so.

To really answer the questions, we must consider every verse in this passage. For example, verses 6-8 tell us what must happen for the man of sin to be revealed. Yet, in verse 3b he IS revealed. HOW? Paul did not explain how, We must learn how by study.

Then Paul starts verse 6 by saying "Now you know what is restraining..." HOW Paul? HOW are we to know? I think the answer is, Paul just TOLD US but did it in a cloaked way.

Another question: where does Paul satisfy he theme of the gathering? If the gathering is the theme, then where it is in this passage?
(Defection From Truth)

Stop trying to bend and twist the Greek Word Apostasia to suit your teaching, it's the same Greek word used in translations prior to the 1611 KJV

Your claim that Strong's hasnt interpreted (Departure/Falling Away) is a complete pinocchio's nose is growing again :eek:

Apostasia: (Defection From Truth)(Apostasy) (Falling Away) (Forsake) Who You Trying To Fool (Yourself) :giggle:

Will you continue in rebellion of the presented truth?

Lexicon :: Strong's G646 - apostasia

Strong’s Definitions
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah; feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 2x
The KJV translates Strong's G646 in the following manner: to forsake (with G575) (1x), falling away (1x).
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
7,937
1,545
113
Do you believe (Departure) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a pre-trib rapture of the church to heaven?
Watermark has intentionally given disregard to the question below, posted 3 times, of course this poster also falsely believes and teaches a pre-trib rapture is seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

T7t7 said: "Watermark has intentionally given disregard to the question below, posted 3 times, of course this poster also falsely believes and teaches a pre-trib rapture is seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:3"

T7t7 said: "Do you believe (Departure) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a pre-trib rapture of the church to heaven?"


"also"??



And how are you "answering" the question posed to me that you supposedly do not ALREADY know my answer to??

Makes absolutely NO SENSE. o_O


[obviously you are saying you've heard/read me say such a thing??? hello! :rolleyes: ]
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
T7t7 said: "Watermark has intentionally given disregard to the question below, posted 3 times, of course this poster also falsely believes and teaches a pre-trib rapture is seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:3"

T7t7 said: "Do you believe (Departure) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a pre-trib rapture of the church to heaven?"


"also"??



And how are you "answering" the question posed to me that you supposedly do not ALREADY know my answer to??

Makes absolutely NO SENSE. o_O


[obviously you are saying you've heard/read me say such a thing??? hello! :rolleyes: ]
A Distraction From Presented Truth, As You Run From A Simple Direct Answer :giggle:

Direct Question To DivineWatermark, Yes or No?

Do you believe (Departure) in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a pre-trib rapture of the church to heaven?
 

lamad

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2021
1,114
81
48
Did you even read the passage? It's 2 Thessalonians 2:

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2That 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.
3Let 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;
Exactly: in verse 1 Paul is setting out the THEME of this passage.
Where in the rest of the passage does Paul fulfill this theme? Tell us which verse?
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
Exactly: in verse 1 Paul is setting out the THEME of this passage.
Where in the rest of the passage does Paul fulfill this theme? Tell us which verse?
Paul dosent need to fill any theme, The Greek "Apostasia" (Departure/Falling Away) isn't a Pre-Trib Rapture Of The Church To Heaven, it's that simple :giggle:
 

lamad

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2021
1,114
81
48
(Defection From Truth)

Stop trying to bend and twist the Greek Word Apostasia to suit your teaching, it's the same Greek word used in translations prior to the 1611 KJV

Your claim that Strong's hasnt interpreted (Departure/Falling Away) is a complete pinocchio's nose is growing again :eek:

Apostasia: (Defection From Truth)(Apostasy) (Falling Away) (Forsake) Who You Trying To Fool (Yourself) :giggle:

Will you continue in rebellion of the presented truth?

Lexicon :: Strong's G646 - apostasia

Strong’s Definitions
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah; feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 2x
The KJV translates Strong's G646 in the following manner: to forsake (with G575) (1x), falling away (1x).
Why not dig deeper and get Strong's answer for BOTH WORDS of this compound word?
The question is, CAN this word mean something else? It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."

Here is what STrong's says about "apo:
of separation... ...of local separation,

after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...

of separation of a part from the whole......where of a whole some part is taken

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

of a state of separation, that is of distance...physical, of distance of place



At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

We must consider the entire passage to determine Paul's meaning, else we pull a word or a verse out of its context.

Because in 3b Paul wrote that the man of sin IS REVEALED, then somewhere in 3a the power restraining the main of sin had to be taken out of the way.

If you choose to believe a "falling away" (from what Paul did not specify) fits Paul's "taken out of the way," it is your choice.
If you think Paul wrote "and now you know what restrains" just to fill in space, it is your choice.
If you choose the Day of Christ over the Day of the Lord which Paul used in His first letter, again it is your choice.

If words mean anything, Paul explains exactly what must take place before the man of sin can be revealed, yet we find he IS revealed in 3b, showing us that the restraining force had to have been taken out of the way in 3a.

Questions you might ask yourself: WHY did Paul write "and now you know... in verse 6? Do you now know?
Why did Paul explain the power restraining the man of sin, preventing him from being revealed before His time?
Why did Paul tell us the man of sin "is revealed" in 3b?

Paul COULD have just written that they were mistaken, they were not in the day of the Lord. Instead he chose to explain how people can know for sure when they are IN the Day of the Lord: they have to see a very significant departing FIRST, then they have to see the man of sin revealed. When people see these two things, it is proof positive the DAY has started and they are IN IT.

I might add, is this not the exact pattern we find in Revelation? We see the start of the Day at the 6th seal, but right after that, John saw the raptured church in heaven, as the great crowd too large to number.

This is also the same pattern Paul gave us in his first letter: rapture first, wrath next.