2 Thess 2

[EdSutton]

This is one of the most disturbing "flavor of the month" teachings of Thomas Ice and modern dispies. They can't find a rapture in the text so one is made up.


Strongs
G646
ἀποστασία
apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): - falling away, forsake.


G646
ἀποστασία
apostasia
Thayer Definition:
1) a falling away, defection, apostasy

I would like to see from scripture how this really means "departure" or "catching away" or "removal of Christianity". Bizarre to say the least. I guess the term "apostate Church" is a good thing in dispie circles.

I also must assume that the Thessalonians never recieved their relief from tribulation and persecution as Paul had promised them.

2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

Although I have no clue as to what Thomas Ice, or any other so-called "modern dispies", do or do not believe, per se, I have believed this for many years, and right or wrong, neither I nor Thomas Ice was anywhere near around in the days of the Geneva Bible of 1587, so the rendering of this as "departing" or "departure" is no "Johnny-come-lately" idea by any stretch, as Ed Edwards posted.

But the compound word 'apostasia' comes from the two Greek words of 'apo' and 'stasis' hence, away from a standing, or away from a place, or away from a state, as Strong's has rendered it 'properly'. The word itself does not 'demand' a 'theological meaning' per se, as in "departing from the faith", whatever that means.

The 'confusion' has come from the attempt to derive this word from a similar word, with the various forms of 'apistia', 'apistos', 'apisteO', and 'apistEsas', which does mean without or lacking faith or faithless, and is far closer to what we think of, when we say 'apostasy'.

Good theology, perhaps, but bad linguistics to 'demand' something the actual word itself does not necessarily support, is what is really bizarre!

Ed

 

[Mel Miller]

Michael has no power over satan. If he did, he would not have said "the Lord rebuke you".

Webdog, Npetreley, Ed Sutton, Ed Edwards:

“Michael and his angels will cast Satan and his angels out of heaven” at midweek of Daniel's 70th Seven. Rev.12:7-9,14. If Michael is the “restrainer”, which would put the rapture at Mid-Trib, then no one could hold to the Pre-Trib Rapture view.

Looks like Npetreley holds to the Mid-Trib Rapture. In Post #8, Npetreley states one idea and in Post #11 he states a different idea:

“The great tribulation occurs immediately after Michael `arises’’" (stands). Post #8. “As for Michael restraining satan, that's a non-issue”. Post #11.

These two ideas seem contradictory since Npetreley thinks Michael is the “restrainer” of the Antichrist until it is time for him (at Midweek) to cast Satan to the earth to empower Antichrist…3½ years before Christ comes.

Ed Sutton and Ed Edwards think the “restrainer” is the true Church "departing to heaven" before Daniel’s 70th Seven in a Pre-Trib Rapture!
But they fail to reckon on the Harlot Woman “ruling the kings of earth" (Rev.17:18) until Mid-Trib when Ten Kings destroy the City in one hour!! They give their support to the Antichrist for 42 months and no more!!!
Rev.17:11-17.

There’s no evidence Antichrist rules the world in consort with the Harlot!

The Book of Revelation makes no mention of the “true church departing to heaven” 3 1/2 years before the Great Tribulation begins! Instead, the angel reveals the “Harlot System" will be confiscated by the Ten Kings and thus "removed from the MIDST” of Lawful Government (a fact Paul dared
not mention lest Rome should kill even more Christians)!! This removal or
departure from the "MIDST" of an ALREADY apostate System occurs at
the same time Michael casts Satan to the earth and the Beast comes up from the Abyss to empower the "Eighth King" at Midweek!!!

Up to Midtrib the false Harlot System of mixed Democratic Nations and Totalitarian Regimes will seek to maintain the peace! They will actually agree to unite all religions (and the yet to be revealed Antichrist) to join in “confirming the Covenant” of Dan.9:27!! In confirming the Covenant, AC
is only "one of many" that Daniel describes as just a "little horn" at first!!!

Daniel and Jesus place the power of Antichrist to desecrate the temple at Midpoint of the Covenant so that the forced “departure” of the “Harlot Politico-Religious System” from the Midst of Lawful Government (the Restrainer and Restraining Influence), rather than the departure of the “True Church” to heaven, terminates the first phase of the 7th World Power that prevents the Revelation of the Lawless One…the “8th King”!!!

Mel

 

[Ed Edwards]

2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

Grasshopper: //I also must assume that the Thessalonians never recieved
their relief from tribulation and persecution as Paul had promised them.//

My widow, Marlene, age 76, had cancer 4 times.
Three of the times the chemo put her cancer in remission.
The last time she didn't fight the cancer at all.
She prayed for deliverance from cancer. On 1 March 2007
God relieved her of cancer and took her home to
be with Him.

All the Thessalonians were relieved of their tribulation &
persecution as Paul promised them.

Whomever: //Apostosia means in simple terms "removal of Chrsitianity". Sure sounds like a rapture to me.//

Grasshopper: //
This is one of the most disturbing "flavor of the month" teachings of Thomas Ice and modern dispies. They can't find a rapture in the text so one is made up.//

Which part of "the eight English versions before the
King James Version of 1611 had some form of DEPARTURE
in 2 Thess 2:3" are you having problems with?

in 2 Thess 2:1 Pauls says he is going to talk about:
" the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ"
and "our gathering together vnto him".

Where in 2 Thess 2:2-3:18 is the gathering together
mentioned again? I'll tell you: the 'falling away' (KJVs)
in verse 2:3. Praise the Lord! I'm going to fall away
from this ol' world right into the arms of Jesus -
if I'm still alive when the pretribulation rapture takes place.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mel Miller: //Ed Sutton and Ed Edwards think the “restrainer” is the true Church "departing to heaven" before Daniel’s 70th Seven in a Pre-Trib Rapture!//

Amen, Brother Mel Miller -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Mel Miller: //But they fail to reckon on the Harlot Woman “ruling
the kings of earth" (Rev.17:18) until Mid-Trib when Ten Kings
destroy the City in one hour!! They give their support
to the Antichrist for 42 months and no more!!!
Rev.17:11-17. //

Actually we both do.
After all, our theory is based on the same
scriptures as your theory.

Sorry, I don't have time to speak more about this right now.
God has given me other, higher priority matters to deal
with (God made the family long before the Church).

 

[webdog]

My widow, Marlene, age 76, had cancer 4 times.
Three of the times the chemo put her cancer in remission.
The last time she didn't fight the cancer at all.
She prayed for deliverance from cancer. On 1 March 2007
God relieved her of cancer and took her home to
be with Him.

Ed, I'm so sorry for your loss. I pray that God comforts you during this time. Even though she is relieved of her cancer, I know it must be hard. You're in my prayers, brother.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards said:

My widow, Marlene, age 76, had cancer 4 times.
Three of the times the chemo put her cancer in remission.
The last time she didn't fight the cancer at all.
She prayed for deliverance from cancer. On 1 March 2007
God relieved her of cancer and took her home to
be with Him.

This woman was a widow in my church to whom I
ministered as deacon. Her first cancer was present when
her husband died in 2002. I remember the year because
I'd just gotten married and my
new wife played the piano for her husband's funeral.

 

[webdog]

Thanks for the clarification. What threw me for a loop was the phrase "my widow"...

 

[Mel Miller]

Ed Sutton,

This time I really, truly, like your analysis because it goes back to what Paul was talking about relative to the "mystery of lawlessness that was
already at work IN HIS DAY"!

With that background in mind, and the obvious fact that only lawful
government had the power to punish and restrain evil doers, it makes
much better sense to see why Revelation supplies the "Judgment" that comes on the "departure; rebellion" affecting Babylon the Great which continues to be identified as "Mystery Babylon"!!

For Rev.17:1-10,15 reveals the ancient role of Mystery Babylon which pervaded six world empires of history...including the "mystery already at work in Paul’s day"!
2 Thess.2:7. “Filled with the blood of prophets and saints”, God's Judgment on the final world empire under Babylon's rule will result from Rome's re-emergence as "ruler over the kings of earth a short time”! Rev.17:6; Rev.18:24; Rev.17:10,18.

Revelation reveals the final failure as the "restrainor and restraint" against evil will
be "removed from the MIDST" of Lawful Government because of its "departure"
from the rule of law by committing "adultery and being drunk with the passion of
the wine of her immorality". Rev.17:2; Rev.18:3.

Please let me show, by a little editing, how you support this interpretation below.
You are our esteemed "Linguistic Cop"!
You show why the "Removal of Apostate Christianity" is in view!!
Scripture requires that "Judgment begins first on the Household of God"!!!
I Peter 4:17.

Mel

[Edited quote=EdSutton] ...neither I nor Thomas Ice was anywhere near around in the days of the Geneva Bible of 1587, so the rendering of this as "departing" or "departure" is no "Johnny-come-lately" idea by any stretch, as Ed Edwards posted. [The same is true all the way back to Paul's day]!

But the compound word 'apostasia' comes from the two Greek words of 'apo' and 'stasis' hence, away from a standing, or away from a place, or away from a state, as Strong's has rendered it 'properly'. The word itself does not 'demand' a 'theological meaning' per se, as in "departing from the faith", whatever that means. [This is excellent rendering of the meaning]!!

The 'confusion' has come from the attempt to derive this word from a similar word, with the various forms of 'apistia', 'apistos', 'apisteO', and 'apistEsas', which does mean without or lacking faith or faithless, and is far closer to what we think of, when we say 'apostasy'. [Amen, brilliant]!!!

Good theology, perhaps, but bad linguistics to 'demand' something the actual word itself does not necessarily support, is what is really bizarre!!!

Ed[/quote]

 

[Mel Miller]

Ed Edwards,
In Post #23 you write:
_____________________________________________________________
Which part of "the eight English versions before the King James Version of 1611 had some form of DEPARTURE in 2 Thess 2:3" are you having problems with?
_____________________________________________________________
Actually it is “Apostate Christianity” under Rome’s rule that departs from God’s requirement that lawful government punish evil doers; but must be “removed” for its “departure” from the rule. That's why God allows her to rule a "short time" only!
************************************************************
In Post #24 you quoted a statement of mine which is true of you but I now find may not be true of Ed Sutton…to my delight:
_____________________________________________________________
Mel Miller: //Ed Sutton and Ed Edwards think the “restrainer” is the true Church "departing to heaven" before Daniel’s 70th Seven in a Pre-Trib Rapture!//
Amen, Brother Mel Miller -- You are so RIGHT ON!


Mel Miller: //But they fail to reckon on the Harlot Woman “ruling the kings of earth" (Rev.17:18) until Mid-Trib when Ten Kings destroy the City in one hour!! They give their support to the Antichrist for 42 months and no more!!! Rev.17:11-17. //

Actually we both do. After all, our theory is based on the same scriptures as your theory.
____________________________________________________________________________
EE,
I see my error in assuming that you and Ed Sutton believe the same thing! I find that he looks at evidence without pre-judging it based on pre-conceived notions!!
I wish you would face the evidence in the light of Babylon’s coming “Judgment” as the failed Restrainer when it no longer has the ability to Restrain evil forces or evil deeds required by Rom.13!!! Rev.17:1,8.

Why not “wonder” as John did? The angel said he would “show him the mystery”.
Mel

 

[EdSutton]

Ed Sutton,

This time I really, truly, like your analysis because it goes back to what Paul was talking about relative to the "mystery of lawlessness that was
already at work IN HIS DAY"!

With that background in mind, and the obvious fact that only lawful
government had the power to punish and restrain evil doers, it makes
much better sense to see why Revelation supplies the "Judgment" that comes on the "departure; rebellion" affecting Babylon the Great which continues to be identified as "Mystery Babylon"!!

For Rev.17:1-10,15 reveals the ancient role of Mystery Babylon which pervaded six world empires of history...including the "mystery already at work in Paul’s day"!
2 Thess.2:7. “Filled with the blood of prophets and saints”, God's Judgment on the final world empire under Babylon's rule will result from Rome's re-emergence as "ruler over the kings of earth a short time”! Rev.17:6; Rev.18:24; Rev.17:10,18.

Revelation reveals the final failure as the "restrainor and restraint" against evil will
be "removed from the MIDST" of Lawful Government because of its "departure"
from the rule of law by committing "adultery and being drunk with the passion of
the wine of her immorality". Rev.17:2; Rev.18:3.

Please let me show, by a little editing, how you support this interpretation below.
You are our esteemed "Linguistic Cop"!
You show why the "Removal of Apostate Christianity" is in view!!
Scripture requires that "Judgment begins first on the Household of God"!!!
I Peter 4:17.

Mel

[Edited quote=EdSutton] ...neither I nor Thomas Ice was anywhere near around in the days of the Geneva Bible of 1587, so the rendering of this as "departing" or "departure" is no "Johnny-come-lately" idea by any stretch, as Ed Edwards posted. [The same is true all the way back to Paul's day]!

But the compound word 'apostasia' comes from the two Greek words of 'apo' and 'stasis' hence, away from a standing, or away from a place, or away from a state, as Strong's has rendered it 'properly'. The word itself does not 'demand' a 'theological meaning' per se, as in "departing from the faith", whatever that means. [This is excellent rendering of the meaning]!!

The 'confusion' has come from the attempt to derive this word from a similar word, with the various forms of 'apistia', 'apistos', 'apisteO', and 'apistEsas', which does mean without or lacking faith or faithless, and is far closer to what we think of, when we say 'apostasy'. [Amen, brilliant]!!!

Good theology, perhaps, but bad linguistics to 'demand' something the actual word itself does not necessarily support, is what is really bizarre!!!

Ed

[/quote]
Language Cop, here! Even the Language Cop can be a bit less than clear, occasionally. I would have been better served to have phrased an above sentence in this way.
" The meaning of the word itself ("apostasia") does not 'demand' a 'theoplogical application', per se, as in "departing from the faith", whatever that means. I don't doubt, at all, that 'Biblical apostasy' may be in view, I merely deny that it is required, by the word, itself.

I'd like to stay and play, but for now, I have to get ready to go to radiation. All prayers by all, appreciated.

In His grace,

Ed

 

[dwmoeller1]

I don't write much on this board but read alot but I need help with this. I like Bible verses to back up your beliefs, so in our Bible study on Sun nights alot of times its me standing alone. Heres what was discussed tonight.We're talking about pre-trib.

1. At the rapture the Holy Spirit will be removed from earth

Scripture doesn't say that.

2. Anyone that has heard the Gospel before Rapture cannot be saved.

A presumption based on the above. IOW, reasoning founded on something which isn't in Scripture. For those who claim this is the case, I refer them to Rev 12:17 which indicates that believers other than Jews are present during the tribulation.

3. Since the Holy Spirit is removed at the rapture we go back to the old testament and the only way to be saved is to become a Jew.

Ditto to the above.

To let you know I disagree with all these statements.In 2 Thess 2:7 my Bible says" taken out of the way". not taken away

What the restrainer is is hotly debated. In short, to claim one thing dogmatically is without foundation. Personally, I believe that the best explanation is that the restrainer is in reference to Michael the angel. I can give the Scripture to support that if you wish.

 

[dwmoeller1]

It is true that those questions are there and those views are there, but those views compared to the alternative seem better than no view at all. The A-Millennial view simply ignores and spiritualizes it. Dispensationalist with its different twist is far better than cutting out 1/3 the Bible. A-Millennial theology permits a literal first coming and a none literal second coming when it come to understanding the rest of the Bible with respect to the second coming passages.

You are confusing amillenialism with preterism. Yes, sometimes one is both an amil and a preterist. However, historically, amils were not preterists. Even today, most preterist are postmils and not amils. The historical amil view holds to a literal first and literal second coming. What makes the amil view distinct is that it holds that the kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom but is a present spiritual reality and a future new earthly hope.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Michael has no power over satan. If he did, he would not have said "the Lord rebuke you".

The reason for his saying this is given in the passage. Its not that he didnt' have any power over Satan but that he "dared not make a railing accusation". Yet that same passage indicates that Michael can in fact contend directly with Satan. Other passages which indicate that Michael is directly involved in restraining Satan and his minions: Dan 10:13, Rev 12:7-9. In fact, in the latter passage, Michael and the angels beat Satan and his minions and cast them out of heaven.

 

[skypair]

Hey all,

I guess we can "call off the dogs." :laugh:

It appears Jim had bolted and the rest of us know what we believe!

It's really a matter "a promise being left to us of entering into His rest, some of you seem to come up short" in unbelief. "For the gospel was preached to all of us but the word did not profit some, it not being mixed with faith." Heb 4:1-2

The pretrib rapture is a PROMISE, people. It's John 4:1-4.

It's a "mystery" that some who are "perfect" haven't yet learned from the "spies" who went in (Paul in 2Cor 12:2-4, Heb 12:22-24 and in John Rev 4-5).

It is an soon-coming event that the foolish virgins didn't understand!

Some of the church will be left behind -- one whole church actually "spewed out," and which one of you can say with certainty it is NOT for unbelief in the pretrib rapture? For leaving a promise unclaimed??

As in the days of Noah -- what did Lot's wife look back for? For desire after a world she KNEW was coming to destruction? What about you?

skypair

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mel Miller: //EE,
I see my error in assuming that you and Ed Sutton
believe the same thing! I find that he looks at evidence
without pre-judging it based on pre-conceived notions!!??

Of course, I read that to mean: 'it is easier to trick
Ed Sutton than Ed Edwards'.

Come on, in the 1950s I looked at the evidence
without pre-judging it based on pre-conceived notions.
In the 1960s I looked at the evidence
without pre-judging it based on pre-conceived notions.
In the 1970s I looked at the evidence
without pre-judging it based on pre-conceived notions.

That is 30 years that I I looked at the evidence
without pre-judging it based on pre-conceived notions.

And I'm NOT going to take the blame for looking at
the evidence with a firm/fixed opinion for the past 27 years.

BTW, "looking at the evidence
without pre-judging it based on pre-conceived notions"
is a NEW AGE MOVEMENT, POLITICALLY CORRECT
thing. Yes, to be PC one must be searching for the truth.

But if one ever finds the truth*, then will immediately be
be tagged as being a BIGOT.

*the Truth is a person: Messiah Jesus. That was the
Truth that I found. I now look at Bible Prophecy
with the pre-judged notion that Jesus is my Lord/Boss,
and Savior/Liberator. All Biblical evidence I lookat based
on the very nature of the Lord & Savior: He is going to come
and get me before I break. (Caveat: if under torture I'm broken*,
My Lord & Savior: Messian Jesus,
will STILL be my LORD and STILL save me from
the second death).

*My near-masters degree study of torture indicates
that 999,999 of one million people will give in under
torture. The one in a million has enough control over their
body to kill themselves and get out of the mess they are
in.

Ed Sutton: //I'd like to stay and play, but for now, I have to get
ready to go to radiation. All prayers by all, appreciated.//

Always (well, every day anyway). May God's will be done.
May it please be God's Will here that the radiation is
successful in producing remission for A LONG TIME.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thanks for the clarification. What threw me for a loop was the phrase "my widow"...

My bad

I got some PMs that indicated you weren't the only one
'thrown for a loop'.

In this case 'my widow' means 'the widow to whom i
minister' not 'the lady I left behind when I died'.

Recall my first wife died in 1999. I married the lady who is
now my beloved wife in 2002.

 

[EdSutton]

Mel Miller: //EE,
I see my error in assuming that you and Ed Sutton
believe the same thing! I find that he looks at evidence
without pre-judging it based on pre-conceived notions!!??

Of course, I read that to mean: 'it is easier to trick
Ed Sutton than Ed Edwards'.

As Marshall Sam McCloud would say to Chief of Detectives, Peter B. Clifford: "'Ppreciate yo' confidence there, Chief!" :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Grasshopper]

Although I have no clue as to what Thomas Ice, or any other so-called "modern dispies", do or do not believe, per se, I have believed this for many years, and right or wrong, neither I nor Thomas Ice was anywhere near around in the days of the Geneva Bible of 1587, so the rendering of this as "departing" or "departure" is no "Johnny-come-lately" idea by any stretch, as Ed Edwards posted.

To call “apostasia” departure is not Johnny come lately. But to call it the rapture is. What Ed failed to tell us is though the Geneva Bible called it a departure they also told us their interpretation:

"The apostle foretells that before the coming of the Lord, there will be a throne set up completely contrary to Christ's glory, in which that wicked man will sit, and transfer all things that appertain to God to himself: and many will fall away from God to him" (found at:
www.reformed.org/documents/geneva/2thessalonians.html )

Again, you and Ed’s definition makes the apostasy of the Church a good thing.

The context of the “falling away is in verse 2:

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.

Again from the Geneva Bible notes:

“We must take heed of false prophets, especially in this matter, who go about to deceive, and that for the most part, after three sorts: for either they brag of fake prophetical revelations, or they bring conjectures and reasons of their own, or use counterfeit writings.”

So again the context of the “falling away” is false teachings, not the rapture. So the Geneva Bible that Ed quotes confirms the normal, and I believe exclusive, definition of apostasy.

Good theology, perhaps, but bad linguistics to 'demand' something the actual word itself does not necessarily support, is what is really bizarre!

Huh? The actual word supports “rapture”? The context is clear.

Grasshopper: //I also must assume that the Thessalonians never recieved
their relief from tribulation and persecution as Paul had promised them.//

My widow, Marlene, age 76, had cancer 4 times.
Three of the times the chemo put her cancer in remission.
The last time she didn't fight the cancer at all.
She prayed for deliverance from cancer. On 1 March 2007
God relieved her of cancer and took her home to
be with Him.

All the Thessalonians were relieved of their tribulation &
persecution as Paul promised them.

Ed I must admit your creative ability to distort scripture is quite humorous. So the Thessalonians were looking forward to death as their relief.

So you think The Thessalonians looked upon the stoning of them by the Jews as the promise Paul had in mind?

I think John Gill has it right:

“and the Jews, who were now the only and the implacable persecutors of the saints, in a short time had the wrath of God come upon them to the uttermost, even upon their nation, city, and temple, upon their persons and property.”

Which part of "the eight English versions before the
King James Version of 1611 had some form of DEPARTURE
in 2 Thess 2:3" are you having problems with?

None, its your bizarre interpretations I have the problems with. Depart from what Ed? Planet earth? Or from the faith that the false teachers are challenging?

I'm going to fall away
from this ol' world right into the arms of Jesus –

So you are going to apostate.

 

[jim1203]

I'm still here with my Bible still studing.

To all of you Thank You very much

 

[jim1203]

Heres what I believe

leaning toward pre trib but not 100% sure

believe if its is pre trib the Holy Spirit will be here

not sure who will be taken out of the way because the Bible doesn't say for sure.

Don't believe the part about Gentiles having to change to judaism.

I Know I'm saved!:jesus:


Got you off calvinism for a while:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Thank You again, love you all