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

[Jackson123]

My friend it is far more than a matter of "what verse". You have to look at the flow the structure the context of the passage. You need to study the original Greek. And then you need to concatenate these passages with the whole counsel of God.

Nevertheless it is true that 2 Thes 2:3 "the departure" G646 (apostasia) has you covered in this case.

The departure/rapture comes first THEN He who restrains is taken out of the way THEN the man of sin is revealed. Which is the first birth pang. Which is also the first seal being opened. Which is the sign that the DOTL has indeed begun.

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4

Rebellion and a man of sin reveal than rapture
So post trib

 

[kleronomos]

HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DOES ANYONE NEED ON WHERE CHRIST STANDS ON THE SUBJECT OF GATHERING ANYONE OUT OF THE WORLD?

John 17:15 Not I do ask that You should take them out of the world but that you should keep them from evil.


HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DOES ANYONE NEED THAT GOD KEEPS US FROM EVIL WHILE WE REMAIN RIGHT HERE ON EARTH.


5083. téreó ►
Strong's Concordance
téreó: to watch over, to guard
Original Word: τηρέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: téreó
Phonetic Spelling: (tay-reh'-o)
Definition: to watch over, to guard
Usage: I keep, guard, observe, watch over.
HELPS Word-studies
5083 tēréō (from tēros, "a guard") – properly, maintain (preserve); (figuratively) spiritually guard (watch), keep intact.

 

[kleronomos]

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

 

[cv5]

We know the departure isn't for a gathering to the Lord

We minus me buddy. I am 100% all in with "the departure" meaning in context the rapture. No problemo.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I think you have a problem with reading. What verse in 2 tes 2 [...]

Your mistake is in thinking that the false claim (by false conveyors) IN VERSE 2 is identical to [i.e the SAME Subject as] what PAUL was referring to IN VERSE 1.



They are not the SAME THING.

 

[cv5]

A falling away happens because Jesus 1st warning on the subject DO NOT BE DECEIVED BY ANY MAN.

Of course not. Because the Church has already been raptured before this person doing the deceiving is revealed.

 

[cv5]

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4

Rebellion and a man of sin reveal than rapture
So post trib

Try to keep up. In context "the departure" has nothing whatsoever to do with the rebellion. In fact the notion and concept of apostasy or rebellion doesn't belong anywhere in Thessalonians. It's completely out of place because of the very spirit and nature of these two books.

In both of these books it is consistently clear that we are to be taken out of and away from God's wrath, which happens before the DOTL ever begins.

There is no passage all of Scripture that indicates that the Church goes through Daniels 70th week wrath/the DOTL seven year judgment.

We have already been raptured and are no longer earth dwellers by Revelation 4. The 1Thes 5 birth pangs and darkness befall...."they" and "them". They do NOT befall "ye" and "we".

 

[ewq1938]

Nevertheless it is true that 2 Thes 2:3 "the departure" G646 (apostasia) has you covered in this case.

Which makes the departing ones Apostates. So far deceived that they want to be that. That alone should make people run away from pretrib.

 

[ewq1938]

Let the readers check out Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1871), page 93 (far right column):

Better yet, let's show the readers the part that TDW doesn't want you to know:




Liddell and Scott:

A defection, revolt, v.l. in D.H.7.1, J.Vit.10, Plu.Galb.1; esp. in religious sense, rebellion against God, apostasy, LXX Jo.22.22, 2 Ep.Th.2.3 .


Liddell, Scott, Jones Ancient Greek Lexicon (LSJ):


apostasia
I a departure from one's religion, apostasy , Salv. Gub. Dei, 6, p. 128; Aug. c. Jul. 56.

apostasia apostasiae N F :: apostasy, departure from one's religion, repudiation of one's faith

 

[ewq1938]

Let the readers check out Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1871), page 93 (far right column):

-- https://archive.org/details/lexiconabridgedf00liddrich/page/92/mode/2up - 12th entry down from TOP... where it states "later form for apostasis" (then see THAT one, two entries down from that... because this is saying that it's the SAME WORD [one an older version, one a newer version]... just like also "Winer's Grammar" says, which link I've provided in the past)

Don't fall for this switchoroo tactic. TDW wants to replace apostasia with a different word to avoid what apostasia actually means. This is dishonest tactics.

Here is a picture from that link:

 

[ewq1938]

You are completely overlooking the phrase: "LATER FORM FOR apostasis"
(at the LINK I provided, in previous post)



[why do people do this?? I can only guess why!!]






No, it does not.



IGNORE "apostasis" if you wish, though!!

Paul wrote apostasia not apostasis. It is YOU that ignores what was actually written. You deliberately remove and replace words in holy scripture and you should know the punishment for that.

 

[ewq1938]

It's NOT isolated.

"Winer's Grammar" was published well-prior to "1871" (like, around 1822, 1825 or something)... and SAYS THIS (basically the SAME THING as L&S):

[quoting again, and connecting the LINK this time]


"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), [...]"

Which is why Paul did not use that word. You are wrong to cite the wrong word over and over and misrepresent what these sources actually say. This is what you don't want people to know about Winers grammar:

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 36 29 ) 32 Complutensian; 1 Macc. 2:15). The earlier Greeks say Apostasis; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; (Winer's Grammar, 24).

 

[cv5]

Which is why Paul did not use that word. You are wrong to cite the wrong word over and over and misrepresent what these sources actually say. This is what you don't want people to know about Winers grammar:

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 36 29 ) 32 Complutensian; 1 Macc. 2:15). The earlier Greeks say Apostasis; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; (Winer's Grammar, 24).

Sorry buddy but you are dead wrong. The Departure means exactly what it says. Nothing more nothing less. And don't forget it's a noun not a verb....

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

@ewq1938 , according to your way of reasoning, consider that your "signature" says:

[re: this word] "[...] Ac21:21, II Th 2:3"...


...but (if we're to follow *your* rules), we have to TOSS OUT "Acts 21:21" because the writer there penned the word "ἀποστασίαν / apostasian ." (not "apostasia"--the word you insist it ONLY must be spelled as!)



And this also means that "apostasia" [this spelling] is only used ONE TIME in the NT (in 2Th2:3)... which NIXES your "quotes by scholars" saying "ALWAYS... in the NT [in such a way]" (unless you decide you wanna MODIFY your "rule"... for yourself... but no one else [no other GREEK SCHOLARS] of course)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[quoting Greek Scholar... from ewq's quotings]

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


Why would they SAY such a word...;

FOR WHAT?!?









["apostasian" (Acts 21:21, written after 2Th2:3, I believe)... "apostasia" (2Th2:3)... "apostasis" (older Greeks' spelling of this word)... ALL THE SAME WORD (differing SPELLINGS, same MEANING)]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ IOW, why is that word (in blue ^ ) even LISTED under "G646" ??

 

[FreeGrace2]

Absolutely said:
The patriarchs were seen walking the streets of Jerusalem.
As in "resurrected"

What do you mean "as in resurrected". show the verse where that is clear.

Fg quote;
"""Please prove this claim with Scripture"""

That is a little tedious. (so basic)

No, no. Let's not go for excuses.

But here it is.
Mat 27
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.[

Huh? This is about dead people in graves who come out of their graves. Seen in Jerusalem.

Nothing about being given glorified bodies, nothing about THEM being resurrected. They came back to physical life.

It is an entire study.
It involves the rich man/ lazarurus

He died again. Nothing about his going to heaven, receiving a glorified body. Zip.

"Took captivity captive"
"Preached to the prisoners in paradise"
"Firstfruits"
And others.

Only Jesus' resurrection is called "firstfruits", because He was the FIRST to get a glorified body. Acts 26:23

 

[FreeGrace2]

This is the Second Advent.
No verse yet has refuted what I have been saying.
That is the Second Advent. You've got 3 or 4 Advents going on. Sheer presumption.
Could you please quote verses that prove a pretrib rapture/resurrecton? I still haven't seen any.
What I seen so far is just presumption from "harvest".

ag
Once again you screw up your post. All the above is from me, but it appears to have come from you. Formatting posts isn't that difficult.

"""No verse yet has refuted what I have been saying."""
You skip them and never look at them.

You have no idea what I do. But you are an expert at presumption, assumptions and guessing.

You have no claim in that regard.

Look in mirror and repeat this.

[QUTOE]You don't know any of the pretrib verses or care to look at them.[/QUOTE]
If I don't, it's only because you keep refusing to share them. Even though I've been begging for them.

We see you guys telling us what we believe. It is way off.

You just told me what I do: "you skip them and nevef look at them". You do what you claim others do.

 

[FreeGrace2]

cv5 said:
It definitely does. It always has. It certainly was the original intent.

They omit our verses
Poooof! They invent postrib rapture
Their arguments become very disingenuous.

Great example of denial here.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

in Thessalonians. [...]

In both of these books it is consistently clear that we are to be taken out of and away from God's wrath [...]

Right.

And Paul, in these two epistles, refers to the event / circumstances describing [what we call] "our Rapture," something like EIGHT TIMES... not merely in 1Th4:17 ALONE (the commonly-known ONE verse ppl usually refer to / acknowledge)