What is the resurrection of bodies for?

Who says the old flesh is resurrected?

Departure/rebellion in Acts is used to refer to departure from Jewish beliefs. A straightforward interpretation of II Thess. 2 is that the day of the Lord in verse 2 is talking about tge coming of tge Lord and out
R gathering together unto Him.

If the gathering (rapture) cannot take place until the apostasia takes place.

Dors it make sense to say the raptue can't take place until the rapture takes place? No.

Paul elsewhere writes of departing from the faith. Matthew 24 tells of the love pf many waxing cold before the coming of the Son of man. The sequence there in terms of mention there is
-the love of many shall wax cold
-great tribulation
-coming of the Son of Man and elect gathered.

Then look at II Thes. 2. The day of Christ (associated with the gathering unto Christ in v. 1-2) happens after the falling away and the man if sin being revealed.


The rapture occurs at His coming. The dead in Christ are made alive at His coming. The man of sin is desyroyed at the brightness of His coming.

Except that is not what the sentence says (or would be saying). That's a very common thing that people think pre-tribbers are saying when they explain it as I am, but that's NOT what I'm saying it is conveying. Let me try again:

--verse 1 is ALL about our Rapture (not two different subjects)

--verse 2 is basically saying, "don't let anyone convince you that the Day of the Lord [the earthly prophesied TIME PERIOD] IS PRESENT." (It isn't/wasn't. But it was perfectly understandable for them to believe it was, due to their present, ongoing negative circumstances, per 2Th1:4, etc)

--verse 3 is saying, "that day [the subject of the preceding verse--the prophesied earthly TIME PERIOD] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE FIRST [our RAPTURE FIRST, the subject of verse 1, now] and the man of sin be revealed" [he is "revealed" when "the Day of the Lord [earthly TIME PERIOD] IS PRESENT" but NOT BEFORE! Not before the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3, etc]"]

That's a HUGE amount of added wording to change what the verses are really saying...

You have a "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20) and a faulty 'translation':

It says "apostasia". Apostasy. It points to Daniel 7's little horn, the man of sin and the son of perdition, the mystery of iniquity which was already at work in Paul's day and was to grow after a specific event (Roman Empire began to crumble)

It is the same word used here, and it means to forsake the truth for a lie, to apostatize:


It (2 Thess 2:3) does not say in any Koine Greek MS, Codice, Papyrus 'rapture' ([h]arpagesometha) or leaving earth, as the following does.

To ADD the phrase "from the faith" or "from [some faith issue]" is to INJECT a meaning INTO the basic definition of the word. That is why the words "FROM MOSES" have to be added in Acts12:12, because the simple definition of the word itself DOES NOT CONTAIN anything other than the idea of "departure" (CONTEXTUAL clues tell "WHAT KIND" of departure is meant, just as in "the departing OF A FEVER," or "the departure OF A BOAT FROM A DOCK"... legit usages from that era)

It's based on how Scripture itself defines "the Day of the Lord / IN THAT DAY" (and it is not a singular 24-hr day, as the Amill-teachings and others have made up because they think it sounds right in this context).

The VERY SIMPLE SENTENCE is simply conveying:

NO the day of the Lord IS NOT PRESENT (don't believe those saying IT IS PRESENT [v.2]); it won't BE PRESENT until the Rapture takes place FIRST [v.3]...




It [the earthly-located DOTL, NOT the RAPTURE] ARRIVES at the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" and Jesus stated there will be MANY MORE "birth PANGS [PLURAL], not just the FIRST ONE of those... It is not "one, and DONE!"

"the simple definition of the word itself DOES NOT CONTAIN anything other than the idea of "departure"

Please prove that.

^ EDIT: in my haste, I put "Acts12:12" when it should read "Acts21:21" (post #106)


"teach... A DEPARTURE from Moses" ("from Moses" tells WHAT KIND, specifically. It's not THIS KIND in every usage of "apostasia"--SOMETIMES it is a "spatial / geographical departure" )

I supplied Liddell and Scott Lexicon definitions earlier in thread...

In the CONTEXTS of both 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, there are something like TEN references to our "Rapture" (what we call it commonly today), and only ONE of them is the Greek word "harpagēsometha" (1Th4:17).

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



The Apostasy is not going to heaven but accepting the false Christ...if want to be a part of the Apostasy, you definitely will be!

Did you see my post #92? (I think it is 92):

https://christianchat.com/threads/what-is-the-resurrection-of-bodies-for.179857/post-3739055

Yes. Like I said, if you want to be part of the Apostasy, you will be a part of it. There is a free invitation.

Strong's - "Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): - falling away, forsake."

Thayer's - "1) a falling away, defection, apostasy"

Liddell/Scott - "ἀπο-στᾰσία, ἡ, late form for ἀπόστασις, 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. "

What you refer to (Def. 2) in Liddell/Scott is not a Bible definition, and it even gives the reference right next to it!
You just misused Liddell/Scott. and threw away what they specifically said it was in the 1st Definition, and deny how the Bible used it in context.

… and why did you throw away what Liddell and Scott has at the start of all of their numbers, which said "a standing away from, and so..."

So I'd put in one of my posts, "a standing away from [a previous standing]" and supplied Hebrews 9:8 as an example of such a "change"


[I've already mentioned to you in another thread of the changes from TABERNACLE to TEMPLE, and in yet another the change found at the time of Rev4&5 from a previous time period, when Jesus "STANDS to JUDGE" (Stephen's words similar to Jesus' own words earlier)]

I did no such thing. I quoted and cited directly from the site.

You are greatly confused.

Well, my quote came straight from their book, which I gave in post #92 (I think), which states that it's from their 1909 edition. So I'm not sure why it's not given in the quote you supplied.

Thank you for your kindnesses. It is noted and appreciated.

For those interested:

take a look at the NINE usages of this precise word "G2348 - thnéskó" and tell me if we could have planned a funeral and a burial/graveside service for every single one of these [persons referred to] (since they are the EXACT SAME WORD IN THE BIBLE) -

https://biblehub.com/greek/2348.htm

"TO forsake" is a verb.

Acts 21:21 ("apostasian") is a noun; and 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ("he apostasia" ['the departure' / 'the departing']) is a noun.


Acts 21:21 "departure [noun] you teach from Moses"

First off, the part I put in bold ^ I'm having difficulty knowing whether you are coming at this question from the angle of discussing "parousia" (as was discussed earlier in the thread, by some) or just "coming" in any sense (meaning, in His birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, and 40-days' worth of post-resurrection appearances... which are you specifically referring to??). Or whether your question stems from what is specifically stated in Hebrews 9:28 (as some have asked, perhaps in a different/older thread, and I covered there).

I mean, for example, "thy King COMETH unto thee..." [speaking specifically to "Jerusalem," per contexts] was not describing Him riding the colt/donkey as an infant, was it? [Matt21:5; Jn12:15; Zech9:9; and the context surrounding Lk19:38,41-44], and here it is the word "erchomai"...

Help me out and let me know which angle you are coming at with this question. Thanks!