The False Teaching (& Truth) of what happens at the Rapture.

[TheDivineWatermark]

What is the Biblical meaning of apostasy?

1 : an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith.
2 : abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection.

Apostasia - New Testament Greek Lexicon - Bible Study Tools
Apostasia ; Definition ; a falling away, defection, apostasy ; King James Word Usage - Total: 2 ; to forsake +

Consider also the article at the following Post / LINK:

Post #258 (different thread) - https://christianchat.com/threads/d...-and-the-prewrath-rapture.200942/post-4637984

 

[ewq1938]

"apo stasia" = "apo stasis" (the one being a later form of the other, but otherwise identical...)

Don't believe this. They are not identical in meaning and neither word supports a physical departure.



https://archive.org/details/manualgreeklexic00abborich/page/54/mode/2up?q=revolt


(the red part is the part usually intentionally left out to deceive people):



Abbott-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament

† ?p?stas?a , -a? , ?

(< ?f?st?µ? ),

[...]

defection, apostasy, revolt; in late Gk. (MM, Exp., viii; Lft., Notes, 111; Cremer, 308) for cl. ?p?stas?? , freq. in sense of political revolt, in LXX (e.g. Joshua 22:22, 2 Chronicles 29:19, Jeremiah 2:19) and NT always of religious apostasy: Ac21:21, II Th 2:3.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

as that the day of Christ is at hand.

The text does not state, "IS AT HAND" but "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT indicative; G1764 - ἐνέστηκεν enestēken ]"


"PERFECT tense" means "ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (.) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (-->)."



["PERFECT INDICATIVE" means it was already present (and had been for some amount of TIME)... that was the FALSE CLAIM anyway (v.2)]



The Thessalonians were under NO SUCH DELUSION that "the Rapture [IN THE AIR]" had already occurred. NO! NOT what the TEXT STATES.

 

[ewq1938]

The text does not state, "IS AT HAND" but "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY

It says "at hand".

2Th 2:2 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.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

It says "at hand".

2Th 2:2 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.

G1764 never means "IS AT HAND" - see here (esp the column on the far right, where its occurrences in verses are LISTED): https://biblehub.com/greek/1764.htm

...and note AGAIN: its "PERFECT INDICATIVE [represented by the letters "RI" [RIA] at the link - https://biblehub.com/text/2_thessalonians/2-2.htm ]" that I mentioned previously (in this post: https://christianchat.com/threads/t...at-happens-at-the-rapture.203234/post-4753312 )

 

[ewq1938]

G1764 never means "IS AT HAND"

The phrase can have different meanings. Here it carries the meaning of already having something ie: already took place. I agree they thought the coming of Christ and the gathering/rapture had already taken place but Paul assures them that the Apostasy and revealing of man of sin has to happen first. This both destroys both Pre-trib and Preterism in one blow.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

(the red part is the part usually intentionally left out to deceive people):

For some reason you are intentionally leaving off the part you'd previously quoted along with the full quote (in that post I linked, where I responded to you), which is this part:

((Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 2 Chronicles 33:19); Jeremiah 2:19; Jeremiah 3629) 32 Complutensian; 1 Macc. 2:15). The earlier Greeks say Apostasis; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; (Winer's Grammar, 24).

So... now you do not believe "WINER," eh??

(Winer's Grammar, page 24... which I also quoted in past posts, that shows the same point that Liddell and Scott say of this word--in their 1871 edition)



[which quote from "Winer's Grammar, page 24" I quoted here: https://christianchat.com/threads/h...ular-in-the-modern-church.201091/post-4707866 , showing this very thing--Post #3318 of that thread]

 

[ewq1938]

So... now you do not believe "WINER," eh??

Neither apostasis or apostasia have a definition that supports the idea of physical movement.

YOU are the one who doesn't accept what ANY dictionary says about what apostasia means. Here's what Winer says:

Winer's Grammar:



Apostasia, a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion: Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ; ((Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 2 Chronicles 33:19); Jeremiah 2:19; Jeremiah 3629) 32 Complutensian; 1 Macc. 2:15). The earlier Greeks say Apostasis; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; (Winer's Grammar, 24).


TDW will NOT accept what Winer says is the definition, highlighted in red.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The phrase can have different meanings. Here it carries the meaning of already having something ie: already took place.

We're fairly close in agreement, on that point (but not on the "definition" of the thing that the false conveyors were purporting was already present, v.2)

I agree they thought the coming of Christ and the gathering/rapture had already taken place

Well, you're not "agreeing" with ME... coz I'm saying that is NOT what the TEXT tells us (in v.2).

Rather, the false claimants were INSTEAD saying "that the DAY OF THE LORD" (an EARTHLY TIME PERIOD) is present / is already here (playing out UPON THE EARTH... OVER SOME TIME!! already [THAT ain't "RAPTURE"!!]).

It wasn't.

And Paul explains WHY this is NOT SO.

but Paul assures them that the Apostasy and revealing of man of sin has to happen first.

On the contrary...

... Paul only states that ONE THING must happen *FIRST* [not BOTH as "FIRST", v.3] (before "the day of the Lord" [EARTHLY TIME PERIOD] can BE PRESENT!)

This both destroys both Pre-trib and Preterism in one blow.

NOT.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Winer's Grammar:
Apostasia, a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion: Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ; ((Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 2 Chronicles 33:19); Jeremiah 2:19; Jeremiah 3629) 32 Complutensian; 1 Macc. 2:15). The earlier Greeks say Apostasis; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; (Winer's Grammar, 24).

TDW will NOT accept what Winer says is the definition, highlighted in red.

Here's what I showed that "Winer's Grammar, 24 [page 24]" says:


[quoting]

"A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament: Regarded as a Sure Basis" by George Benedikt Winer (pgs 24-25):

"d) Many words which had long been in use received a new form or pronunciation by which the older was in most cases superceded: as [...] apostasia (apostasis, Lob. p. 528), [...]"



[found on pgs 24-25]

-- https://books.google.com/books?id=i7kC8UOe-4cC&pg=PA24&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=true


[end quoting; underline mine]






... SAME point that "Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon" (1871) shows... in my hard copy.







Too bad that you don't accept either of these, but choose rather to stick to your more narrow sources (like "Strong's Concordance" which is rather limited in its scope).

 

[cv5]

The phrase can have different meanings. Here it carries the meaning of already having something ie: already took place. I agree they thought the coming of Christ and the gathering/rapture had already taken place This both destroys both Pre-trib and Preterism in one blow.

"but Paul assures them that the Apostasy and revealing of man of sin has to happen first."

Nope. You are all messed up on these passages buddy. Probably as messed up as it is possible to be. Furthermore the text says nothing whatsoever about "missing the rapture". It's another figment of your imagination.

Though it may be logically inferred that this was the basis for ther concern, strictly speaking it is never overtly declared.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Check out one of my [many] past posts on this Subject:

Post #3317 (about "Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1871)" and its definition of this word under discussion [scroll down a bit to see this in my response to ewq's post, there] - https://christianchat.com/threads/h...ular-in-the-modern-church.201091/post-4707863









[P.S. "to forsake" is a VERB... but our word under present discussion is a NOUN = D ]



"apo stasia" = "apo stasis" (the one being a later form of the other, but otherwise identical...)... "a standing away-from [away-from a previous standing]" or "departure"

That is a false interpretation of someone trying to add to the Bible because of a personal false belief.

 

[cv5]

That is a false interpretation of someone trying to add to the Bible because of a personal false belief.

Nope. It is the result of correct textual analysis and superior scholarship.

There's no doubt whatsoever that "the departure" is correct.

 

[ewq1938]

Too bad that you don't accept either of these, but choose rather to stick to your more narrow sources (like "Strong's Concordance" which is rather limited in its scope).

I posted from various sources not just from the Strong's plus there is nothing wrong with the Strongs.

"Apostasia, a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion: Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3"

Do you agree with the above? If not, you reject what Winer's says.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TDW: "apostasia" simply means "a standing away-from [away-from a previous standing]"

Standing means a position one holds like believing in Christ.

If one can ACCEPT what both "WINER" and "LIDDELL and SCOTT [1871]" say, that "apostasia" is "A LATER FORM FOR apostasis"... and "apostasis [apo stasis]" MEANS "a STANDING away-from" or "departure"...


... then consider what "STASIS [stasin]" (by itself, minus the prefix "apo") means

...and how it is used (whereas the "apo" prefix would make it basically the opposite / an AWAY-FROM [apo] standing [stasis / stasin]), here:
Hebrews 9:8-9a "By this the Holy Spirit was signifying that the way into the holy places has not yet been made manifest, the first tabernacle [the one in the wilderness, per the furnishings of v.4!!] still [/yet] having A STANDING [stasis / stasin], which IS A PARABLE for the PRESENT TIME..." (i.e. physical entities indeed qualify, see )




[v.9a "which IS A PARABLE for the PRESENT TIME..." and we know why "PARABLES" were given... right?]

 

[ewq1938]

Nope. It is the result of correct textual analysis and superior scholarship.

There's no doubt whatsoever that "the departure" is correct.

And pretribbers will very much depart in the Apostasia. There is no repenting once you go there.

 

[ewq1938]

If one can ACCEPT what both "WINER" and "LIDDELL and SCOTT [1871]" say, that "apostasia" is "A LATER FORM FOR apostasis"... and "apostasis [apo stasis]" MEANS "a STANDING away-from" or "departure"...


... then consider what "STASIS [stasin]" (by itself, minus the "apo") means

...and how it is used (whereas the "apo" pre-fix would make it basically the opposite / an AWAY-FROM standing), here:
Hebrews 9:8-9a "By this the Holy Spirit was signifying that the way into the holy places has not yet been made manifest, the first tabernacle [the one in the wilderness, per the furnishings of v.4!!] still [/yet] having A STANDING [stasis / stasin], which IS A PARABLE for the PRESENT TIME..." (i.e. physical entities indeed qualify, see )

What TDW is doing here is called "root word fallacy". Meaning you take a word, then move back through the history of that word to other words that are related and even back to the origin of the word known as the "root word" and then you take all the various meanings and stir them up in a pot and concoct a new "Frankenstein" definition that suits your own created doctrine. Toss in a few high brow words, spice it up with some Greek or Hebrew and *poof* you have something that on the outside that looks very scholarly, but on the inside is just a disaster.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

What TDW is doing here is called "root word fallacy". Meaning you take a word, then move back through the history of that word to other words that are related and even back to the origin of the word known as the "root word" and then you take all the various meanings and stir them up in a pot and concoct a new "Frankenstein" definition that suits your own created doctrine.

Nope.

Even the source you originally had quoted (but left out, in a previous post here in this latter thread) has "WINER" saying:


[quoting]

"A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament: Regarded as a Sure Basis" by George Benedikt Winer (pgs 24-25):

"d) Many words which had long been in use received a new form or pronunciation by which the older was in most cases superceded: as [...] apostasia (apostasis, Lob. p. 528), [...]"



[found on pgs 24-25]

-- https://books.google.com/books?id=i7kC8UOe-4cC&pg=PA24&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=true

[end quoting; underline mine]


He is saying that it is the SAME WORD... one earlier, the other later... but the SAME WORD.

ONE BASIC MEANING (of that ONE / SAME WORD).




You simply do not want to believe "WINER" (which states the same point that L&S-1871 ALSO says) and want to instead stick with your limited-scope "Strong's Concordance".


Believe what you wish, ewq. (INJECT "FROM THE FAITH" INTO this word if you so wish,... but it AIN'T THERE!)

Just try to stop mis-respresenting your opponents' viewpoints.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

That is a false interpretation of someone trying to add to the Bible because of a personal false belief.

Nope.

It was also known (in that same era) to be used in "the departing of a fever" or "the departure of a boat from a dock" (i.e. physical / geographical "departures").

I believe I made a post about how it was used in a writing of Josephus (along these same lines).



[Paul was not an ignoramus ]




"apostasia / apostasis" at its most basic definition MEANS "departure" (and CONTEXT determines just "WHAT KIND" of departure is meant; the "definite article" used with it in THIS context points BACK to something PREVIOUSLY STATED in the text... and a definte one ALREADY KNOWN unto the recipients of the letter)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I posted from various sources not just from the Strong's plus there is nothing wrong with the Strongs.

"Apostasia, a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion: Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3"

What you are quoting seems to be from "Thayer's Greek Lexicon" (who apparently quotes that from "Strong's"):

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 646: ἀποστασία

ἀποστασία, ἀποστασιας, ἡ (ἀφισταμαι), a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion: Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; ((Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 2 Chronicles 33:19); Jeremiah 2:19; Jeremiah 3629) 32 Complutensian; 1 Macc. 2:15). The earlier Greeks say ἀπόστασις; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; (Winer's Grammar, 24).


-- https://biblehub.com/greek/646.htm [<---see the Thayer's quote HERE]




The only part from "Winer's Grammar" is THIS part:

"The earlier Greeks say ἀπόστασις; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; (Winer's Grammar, 24)."

"ἀπόστασις" here ^ is the word "apostasis"