How the Pre-Trib Rapture Became Popular in the Modern Church

^ EDIT: I should have clarified:

"[click on "TOOLS" to see LXX Greek for that verse--SEE the word "apostasia" there, at "TOOLS" and under "Septuagint" heading (link)]."





[BLB doesn't automatically take you there, like if I had "linked" directly to the LXX section... Thus, you have to click on those features/sections (which I noted above) yourself... sorry]

[quoting from BibleHub - topmost Section - https://biblehub.com/greek/646.htm ]

"Strong's Concordance
apostasia: defection, revolt"



As I understand it (re: "revolt"), this definition is derived from "extra-biblical Greek literature" where it's used in the sense of "a political [/civil] REVOLT [apostasia]".


So are we saying that this legitimately "counts" as a "witness" to how the word was used amongst the "Greeks" as a legit "DEFINITION"... or does it NOT "count"?? Do we "nix" that one off the list at "Strong's," would you say?

I might as well add this link here, to a post I just made on the same / related Subject (re: apostasia) in a different thread:

Post #32 - https://christianchat.com/threads/the-falling-away-is-this-the-rapture.201579/post-4660657


[a Greek Grammar (source) ^ ]

No, apostasia has this meaning:

G646
ἀποστασία
apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): - falling away, forsake.
Total KJV occurrences: 2

?p?stas?a, ?p?stas?a?, ? (?f?staµa?), 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 ?p?stas??; see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 528; (Winer's Grammar, 24).


Besides even Apostasis's definition of "a standing away from [away from a previous standing]" is not a rapture. The raptured are not standing away from anything. They will be lifted upwards to go to the clouds. This denotes a change of mind on something but it is not as specific as Apostasia's definition. Neither word has meaning of physically leaving one place to go to another.

Which further proves Apostasia is not being raptured because that would require a verb. The word is a noun meaning no physical movement! Apostasy is not a verb nor movement, it is a moral and spiritual departure from the faith! All the evidence is against your claims.

Yeah, that's the source I just posted (which you deny "apostasia" is LISTED among "Winer's" point on PAGES 24-25 -

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


[scroll from PAGE 24 to PAGE 25 to see the ENTIRE POINT (i.e. "apostasia" INCLUDED!!)]





[I have no idea why when you copied and pasted your source, it changed some of the letters to QUESTION MARKS instead]

"Rapture [verb]" is NOT WRITTEN IN our text / context under discussion. (2Th2)

"OUR episynagoges [noun] UNTO HIM" is, however...

... as well as Paul using other nouns in these two epistles to refer to the same event that we'll be involved in, see.
They don't ALL use the word "HARPAZO / SNATCH [verb; 'Rapture']," see THAT'S just the MOVEMENT-ACTION that "gets us THERE" ("TO the meeting [NOUN] of the Lord IN THE AIR")

No where in any place in the WORD will you find pre-trib rapture - therefore you are in error from the moment those words leave your lips.
We all will be judged by our own words compared to the WORD and all He and His Faithful Servants have spoken.

To be FREE from error means you abandon your self and conform your life to Christ.
Adding to the words of God is sin and rebellion.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Romans 12:2

Seek to prove the perfect will of God. Do not add to His words or take away from them.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection....

Jesus never - not once - said I am the pre-trib rapture.

Satanists and Occultists are taught to reverse God's words - Stop doing this.

Yet you have tried to artificially claim that Apostasia can represent the rapture as a physical departure (which it cannot and does not mean) when it is a religious Apostasy. The fact that it is a noun and not a verb further proves your claims wrong.

If apostasia means departure as in rapture here is how 2. Thess.2. reads

Brethren concerning the rapture

That day will not come

Unless there has first come a rapture.

... doesn't make a scrap of sense.

i got the best laugh from that - thank you - and i am still laughing

Don't worry - they have a Religion Blender made by a company called 'Intellect'.
Just add any Scripture you want, mix in your own words and out comes pre-trib rapture.

You're doing what many do...

You are MIS-DEFINING "that day" (v.3a) because you are BYPASSING the Subject OF VERSE 2 (which is the TIME PERIOD v.3a is REFERENCING--the TIME PERIOD that "ARRIVES" with/AS the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" according to 1Th5:1-3--the VERY THINGS Jesus spoke of [Olivet Discourse; equivalent the "SEALS"] that KICK OFF the beginning portion of that future period of JUDGMENTs we commonly call "the TRIB" )

The whole doctrine is nonsense and they can't even see it. That's a high level of blindness!

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day of our gathering together unto him shall not come, except there come an apostasia first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

haha, pre-trib-blender-rapture.

Nah

That day here means the day Paul is talking about, he doesn't hop from one subject to another and back again in the same sentence.

They are heading down the crooked path of heresy completely changing Scripture for their own purposes.

Well, at least we can see how and why Apostasy takes place. It's set in place decades before actual event so it's staged and ready to occur.

It's a hard thing to say but JND has set out to deliberately deceive people. The only excuse I can find for him is that in the early 19th century all these matters must have seemed a long way off, The Jews had not even returned to Israel.

Biggest road in the whole world too.

In verse 2, Paul is telling about the FALSE CLAIM that *others* were purporting... and THAT (what they were "purporting") was NOT "that JESUS is present" nor "that His SECOND COMING is present" nor that "RAPTURE is present".

NONE OF THOSE is what the text of verse 2 is informing us of what the FALSE CLAIM consisted of.




When one grasps what VERSE 2's Subject is concerning (re: WHAT the FALSE CLAIM was purporting "IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"), then one can see how Paul is BRINGING his verse 1 Subject TO BEAR on that issue when he STARTS OFF v.3a ADDRESSING the Subject OF VERSE 2 ("that day" / "the DOTL" earthly TIME PERIOD of JUDGMENTs unfolding... [etc]); and how the ONE relates sequence-wise to the OTHER.