Any Post or Non-Tribbers in Here?

[cv5]

The Scriptures do not mention the antichrist

Well....I think that you missed a few.....

Ps. 5-6 The Bloody and Deceitful Man

Ps. 10:2-4 The Wicked One

Ps. 10:18 The Man of the Earth

Ps. 52:1 The Mighty Man

Ps. 53:3 The Enemy

Ps. 74:8-10 The Adversary

Ps. 111:6 The Head of Many Countries

Ps. 140:1 The Violent Man

Is. 10:5-12 The Assyrian

Is. 14:2 The King of Babylon

Is. 14:12 The Sun of the Morning

Is. 16:4-5 The Spoiler (also in Jer. 6;26)

Is. 22:25 The Nail

Is. 25:5 The Branch of the Terrible Ones

Ez. 21:25-27 The Profane Wicked Prince of Israel

Dan. 7:8 The Little Horn

Dan. 9:26 The Prince That Shall Come

Dan. 11:121 The Vile Person

Dan. 11:36 The Willful King

Zec. 11:16-17 The Idol Shepherd

2 Thess. 2:3 The Man of Sin

2 Thess. 2:3 The Son of Perdition

2 Thess. 2:8 The Lawless One

Rev. 9:11 The Angel of the Bottomless Pit

John 5:43 Another Coming in His Own Name

Dan. 8:23 The King of Fierce Countenance

Matt. 24:15 The Abomination of Desolation

Dan. 9:27 The Desolator

Ezek. 28:12 The King of Tyre

Jer. 4:6-7 The Lion

Jer. 4:6-7 The destroyer of the nations

Is. 14:12 Lucifer

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Read 2-Thess 2 with the perspective that unless the Antichrist comes 1st THEN

[putting this here for the readers]


the word "FIRST" connects with the first clause, not the second clause (in v.3);


So, instead, reads: "...if not shall have come THE Departure FIRST and ['and' distinctly... even, consequently] the man of sin be revealed"

(the text does NOT read, as many suppose: "if not shall have [been] the man of sin revealed FIRST")



Also, the definite article ("THE") in the first clause ("THE Departure") functions to point BACK to something already having been mentioned in the text (i.e. v.1's Subject), not pointing forward to something further on down in the text (such as vv.10-12,9b... or the like)



So, I would encourage that instead of:

Read 2-Thess 2 with the perspective that

... that we instead "read the text" for what it actually states, and not what it does not state. = ) (it does not state what you've put )

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

... that we instead "read the text" for what it actually states, and not what it does not state. = )

I readily acknowledge that it is repeated endlessly in books, internet sites, etc... "man of sin be revealed FIRST"... but the text itself does NOT say such... and misconstrues the point Paul is actually making in this text

 

[cv5]

Read 2-Thess 2 with the perspective that unless the Antichrist comes 1st THEN comes the Lord's coming to gather/Rapture

An extremely common misapprehension of the text. A clumsy error. TDW has you covered.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

I find nothing in the New Testament about a Church rapture prior to the 2nd coming.

It took me a while (18 months) to study it out, prayerfully and carefully.

There are 16 parts (if you wish) before my final conclusion of the matter:
Parts 17a and b:

Pre-Trib Great GRACE Departure I
+
Pre-Trib Great GRACE Departure II

I look forward to seeing Jesus again. I don't know when that will be, but it will be wonderful. In the meanwhile, I am ready for whatever may come through the worlds door.

Amen!

 

[Beckie]

@Beckie 's Post #917, where you'd said:



CONSIDER:

[re: "the man of sin"]

1) 2Th2:9a - "whose COMING [/ARRIVAL / ADVENT / PRESENCE / Parousia";

2Th2:4a - "who OPPOSETH... EXALTETH... [ABOVE ALL that is called god]"

[compare with]

2) 1Jn2:18a - "ye have heard that ANTICHRIST IS COMING" (where the phrase "ye have heard" [like is repeated in Matt5] points back to what the OT scriptures had said...)

3) Dan9:26b "the prince [LXX - G2233 - hegeomai (Ezek43:7LXX for "king" 2x)] THAT SHALL COME / IS COMING [participle]"
(the part in CAPS and underlined would be superfluous if this verse were referring to the same person as back in vv.25,26a [and considering that Dan9:25-27 is written SEQUENTIALLY, this part comes AFTER the part in v.26a about "shall Messiah be CUT OFF and have nothing [/but not for himself]"--i.e. after His/Jesus' arrest/trials/death on the Cross--comp. Jer11:19 with what was said of Jesus])

consider all you want .. the fact is the word antichrist is not there. Posters , preachers talking like the word is there does not make it so..... that we instead "read the text" for what it actually states, and not what it does not state. = ) (it does not state what you've put )

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ @Beckie , do you not agree that the phrase "YE HAVE HEARD" (1Jn2:18a re: "[...] that antichrist IS COMING") speaks of that which the OT had already covered?

And if you do agree [example: Matt5 uses this phrase in the same way], then where in the OT does it use the exact term "antichrist" (which can legit mean pseudo-christ)... ?



["YE HAVE HEARD" - See Matthew 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ it's kind of the same lame argument that unbelievers use when saying that, no where in Scripture did it ever speak of Jesus' TWO ADVENTS (the FIRST ADVENT and the SECOND ADVENT). Well, it didn't use those precise terms, of course... but we're still supposed to put the puzzle pieces together [correctly!!] (which is what the word "UNDERSTAND / UNDERSTANDING" in 2Tim2:7 MEANS, btw)





[example: we are exhorted to be "correctly apportioning the word of truth"... not merely lumping everything together into one big MISH-MASH of MUSH. lol; And verses, considered INDIVIDUALLY [on their own], don't always contain the full-information on any given Subject, in scripture...]

 

[Beckie]

... that we instead "read the text" for what it actually states, and not what it does not state. = ) (it does not state what you've put )

Post a verse in the OT that says antichrist
God says in John
1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
1Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jn 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Because you say the phrase regarding this topic YE HAVE HEARD" is from the OT does not make it so.

the y could have heard this
Mat_24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Mat_24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

 

[Joelightening]

[putting this here for the readers]


the word "FIRST" connects with the first clause, not the second clause (in v.3);


So, instead, reads: "...if not shall have come THE Departure FIRST and ['and' distinctly... even, consequently] the man of sin be revealed"

(the text does NOT read, as many suppose: "if not shall have [been] the man of sin revealed FIRST")



Also, the definite article ("THE") in the first clause ("THE Departure") functions to point BACK to something already having been mentioned in the text (i.e. v.1's Subject), not pointing forward to something further on down in the text (such as vv.10-12,9b... or the like)



So, I would encourage that instead of:



... that we instead "read the text" for what it actually states, and not what it does not state. = ) (it does not state what you've put )

Hello. I took a look at the Greek and the textural variants, as well as the English translations and I am not sure what your point is. Who is misquoting the scripture here? I agree that the apostasy must come first, then the man of lawlessness will be revealed. I thought everyone knew this. So exactly what point are you making?

 

[4winds]

I don't see it that way.
I am 100% convinced of the pre-trib rapture. And future literal millennial Kingdom ruled by King Jesus on His throne in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Really....all of this is boilerplate Biblical doctrine. Not to mention the signs of the end-times manifesting themselves on a daily basis at this point.

Yep....it is all coming together.

You would think that the a-mills, post-mills, preterists and historicists would have abandoned their posts by now. I know I would have.

I could have quest that you and probably all others would not "see" it that way but Paul said
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

And NOW you know what withholds The Lord's coming for us and our gathering together and Day of The Lord = Millennium.
Paul just told you what's delaying the 3 things that are the subject matter given in verses one and two.
By teaching that verse 3 and 4 must come 1st, then the Rapture when The Lord comes to set up His kingdom with us.

You may not believe me
BUT you have Paul and without excuse

Simply put, there are some things that must happen 1st before The Lord raptures and glorifies His bride and so it is when these preappointed events happen, then His coming becomes BIBLICALLY immanent.

 

[cv5]

I could have quest that you and probably all others would not "see" it that way but Paul said
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

And NOW you know what withholds The Lord's coming for us and our gathering together and Day of The Lord = Millennium.
Paul just told you what's delaying the 3 things that are the subject matter given in verses one and two.
By teaching that verse 3 and 4 must come 1st, then the Rapture when The Lord comes to set up His kingdom with us.

You may not believe me
BUT you have Paul and without excuse

Simply put, there are some things that must happen 1st before The Lord raptures and glorifies His bride and so it is when these preappointed events happen, then His coming becomes BIBLICALLY immanent.

Here you go buddy. Take a month or two and go thru this and get back to us. As of now, you really are not adding any value to the dialogue.

Search results for query: 2 thes 2 - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: pretrib - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: rapture - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: harpazo - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: birth pang - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: hosper - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
(1) Search results for query: abomination - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
(1) Search results for query: seals - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And NOW you know what withholds [...]
Paul just told you what's delaying the 3 things that are [...]

The thing is, the wording in v.6 (what I highlighted in BLUE ^ in your quote, above) actually has the words "YOU HAVE KNOWN [PERFECT indicative]"...


... so more like this:


2 Thess 2:6 -

Literal Standard Version
And now, you have known [PERFECT indicative] what is restraining [G2722], for his being revealed in his own time,

Young's Literal Translation
and now, what is keeping down [G2722] ye have known [PERFECT indicative], for his being revealed in his own time,




... and the same thing that the "revealed" word talks about here in verse 6, is also what the "revealed" word in v.8a is speaking of (which verse states, "And then [kai tote] SHALL THAT WICKED be revealed...")...

It's not speaking of Jesus and / or His Second Coming... (which I think is what you are saying about this v.6).


Note that the word "restraining [G2722 - present participle]" is also in both of these verses, meaning in v.6 and in v.7-8a ("is restraining [G2722 - present participle]"... then the "revealed [G601]"<--all 3x this word is used in this text, it is referring to "the man of sin" [not Jesus, not His Second Coming, not our Rapture/episynagoges unto Him...])

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Back tomorrow to hopefully address the other questions... I'm off to get some shut-eye. = )

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Hello. I took a look at the Greek and the textural variants, as well as the English translations and I am not sure what your point is. Who is misquoting the scripture here? I agree that the apostasy must come first, then the man of lawlessness will be revealed. I thought everyone knew this. So exactly what point are you making?

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NIV) Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Berean Literal Bible) No one should deceive you in any way, because it is not until the apostasy shall have come first, and the man of lawlessness shall have been revealed--the son of destruction,

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (King James Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Literal Standard Version) do not let anyone deceive you in any way, because if the departure may not come first, the man of lawlessness may [not] be revealed—the son of destruction,

The bible uses "the rebellion" or "falling away" or "apostasy" to describe the act of shallow Christians that will turn away or abandon the Lord.

Also note that the word "departure" in the Literal Standard Version means "departure from faith".

Pre-tribbers define the word "departure" instead as that secret rapture they've been longing for.

So they read 2 Thessalonians 3 as "Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the departure (secret rapture) occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction."

-=<*>=-

I think what might very well happen is when the antichrist shows up and when they see no secret rapture, that a lot of them will definitely depart...from the faith, and thus fulfill this prophecy.

I think pre-tribbers believe in this false teaching because it's too horrible to consider all the things that will happen to Christians in the great tribulation. But this is why the Lord and all the NT writers urge us to build up our faith so that we don't fall away, to endure even unto death. The Lord will help you with this if you start building up your faith right now.

So if pre-tribbers want to believe in that false teaching to make yourselves feel better, at least build up your faith so when this teaching doesn't happen, your faith will endure to the end and you won't be one of those who have departed from the faith.

 

[Joelightening]

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NIV) Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Berean Literal Bible) No one should deceive you in any way, because it is not until the apostasy shall have come first, and the man of lawlessness shall have been revealed--the son of destruction,

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (King James Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Literal Standard Version) do not let anyone deceive you in any way, because if the departure may not come first, the man of lawlessness may [not] be revealed—the son of destruction,

The bible uses "the rebellion" or "falling away" or "apostasy" to describe the act of shallow Christians that will turn away or abandon the Lord.

Also note that the word "departure" in the Literal Standard Version means "departure from faith".

Pre-tribbers define the word "departure" instead as that secret rapture they've been longing for.

So they read 2 Thessalonians 3 as "Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the departure (secret rapture) occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction."

-=<*>=-

I think what might very well happen is when the antichrist shows up and when they see no secret rapture, that a lot of them will definitely depart...from the faith, and thus fulfill this prophecy.

I think pre-tribbers believe in this false teaching because it's too horrible to consider all the things that will happen to Christians in the great tribulation. But this is why the Lord and all the NT writers urge us to build up our faith so that we don't fall away, to endure even unto death. The Lord will help you with this if you start building up your faith right now.

So if pre-tribbers want to believe in that false teaching to make yourselves feel better, at least build up your faith so when this teaching doesn't happen, your faith will endure to the end and you won't be one of those who have departed from the faith.

Thanks for clarifying! I did not know they were using that as an excuse. It is not surprising though because of all the other twistings they use to teach a variety of false teachings.

 

[cv5]

And NOW you know what withholds The Lord's coming for us....

Did you understand what @TheDivineWatermark is saying?

"And NOW you know what withholds ( The Lord's coming for us ) the revealing of the man of sin...

 

[cv5]

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NIV) Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Berean Literal Bible) No one should deceive you in any way, because it is not until the apostasy shall have come first, and the man of lawlessness shall have been revealed--the son of destruction,

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (King James Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Literal Standard Version) do not let anyone deceive you in any way, because if the departure may not come first, the man of lawlessness may [not] be revealed—the son of destruction,

The bible uses "the rebellion" or "falling away" or "apostasy" to describe the act of shallow Christians that will turn away or abandon the Lord.

Also note that the word "departure" in the Literal Standard Version means "departure from faith".

Pre-tribbers define the word "departure" instead as that secret rapture they've been longing for.

So they read 2 Thessalonians 3 as "Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the departure (secret rapture) occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction."

-=<*>=-

I think what might very well happen is when the antichrist shows up and when they see no secret rapture, that a lot of them will definitely depart...from the faith, and thus fulfill this prophecy.

I think pre-tribbers believe in this false teaching because it's too horrible to consider all the things that will happen to Christians in the great tribulation. But this is why the Lord and all the NT writers urge us to build up our faith so that we don't fall away, to endure even unto death. The Lord will help you with this if you start building up your faith right now.

So if pre-tribbers want to believe in that false teaching to make yourselves feel better, at least build up your faith so when this teaching doesn't happen, your faith will endure to the end and you won't be one of those who have departed from the faith.

I am more than comfortable sticking with these earliest translations. For the reasons delineated below....

https://christianchat.com/threads/2...ly-describing-the-rapture.201570/post-4666867

TRANSLATION HISTORY

The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either “departure” or “departing.” They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible Page (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608).7 This supports the notion that the word truly means “departure.” In fact, Jerome’s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of A.D. 400 renders apostasia with the “word discessio, meaning ‘departure.’”

Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of “departure”? Most scholars say that no one knows the reason for the translation shift. However, a plausible theory has been put forth by Martin Butalla in his Master of Theology thesis produced at Dallas Theology Seminary in 1998.9 It appears that the Catholic translation into English from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate known as the Rheims Bible (1576) was the first to break the translation trend. “Apostasia was revised from ‘the departure’ to ‘the Protestant Revolt,’” explains Butalla. “Revolution is the terminology still in use today when Catholicism teaches the history of the Protestant Reformation. Under this guise, apostasia would refer to a departure of Protestants from the Catholic Church.” The Catholic translators appear eager to engage in polemics against the Reformation by even allowing it to impact Bible translation. By 1611, when then original version of the King James Bible came out, the translators changed the English translation tradition from “departure” to “falling away,” which implied “apostasy.” Such a change was a theological response to the Catholic notion that the Reformation was a revolt against the true church; instead, Protestants saw Catholic beliefs as “the falling away” or “the great apostasy. This would mean that the shift in translation was not based upon research of the meaning of the original language but as a theological polemic against the false teachings of Romanism. It is well established that E. Schuyler English is thought to be the first pretribulationist to propose that “the departure” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 was a physical departure and thus a reference to the pre-trib rapture. However, history records that at least a couple of men thought of this idea before English’s series of article in 1950.11 J. S. Mabie is said to have presented the view that “the departure” refers to the rapture as early as 1859 during a prophecy conference in Los Angeles.12 He later wrote his view in an article published in November 1895 in a periodical called Morning Star. 13 Another pre-English proponent of “the departure” as the rapture was John R. Rice in a book in 1945.1

 

[cv5]

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NIV) Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Berean Literal Bible) No one should deceive you in any way, because it is not until the apostasy shall have come first, and the man of lawlessness shall have been revealed--the son of destruction,

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (King James Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Literal Standard Version) do not let anyone deceive you in any way, because if the departure may not come first, the man of lawlessness may [not] be revealed—the son of destruction,

The bible uses "the rebellion" or "falling away" or "apostasy" to describe the act of shallow Christians that will turn away or abandon the Lord.

Also note that the word "departure" in the Literal Standard Version means "departure from faith".

Pre-tribbers define the word "departure" instead as that secret rapture they've been longing for.

So they read 2 Thessalonians 3 as "Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the departure (secret rapture) occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction."

-=<*>=-

I think what might very well happen is when the antichrist shows up and when they see no secret rapture, that a lot of them will definitely depart...from the faith, and thus fulfill this prophecy.

I think pre-tribbers believe in this false teaching because it's too horrible to consider all the things that will happen to Christians in the great tribulation. But this is why the Lord and all the NT writers urge us to build up our faith so that we don't fall away, to endure even unto death. The Lord will help you with this if you start building up your faith right now.

So if pre-tribbers want to believe in that false teaching to make yourselves feel better, at least build up your faith so when this teaching doesn't happen, your faith will endure to the end and you won't be one of those who have departed from the faith.

Here you go buddy. Take a month or two and go thru this and get back to us. As of now, what you are offering is little more than time worn error and misapprehensions of the text.

Search results for query: 2 thes 2 - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: pretrib - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: rapture - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: harpazo - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: birth pang - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Search results for query: hosper - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
(1) Search results for query: abomination - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
(1) Search results for query: seals - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums

 

[Joelightening]

I am more than comfortable sticking with these earliest translations. For the reasons delineated below....

https://christianchat.com/threads/2...ly-describing-the-rapture.201570/post-4666867

TRANSLATION HISTORY

The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either “departure” or “departing.” They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible Page (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608).7 This supports the notion that the word truly means “departure.” In fact, Jerome’s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of A.D. 400 renders apostasia with the “word discessio, meaning ‘departure.’”

Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of “departure”? Most scholars say that no one knows the reason for the translation shift. However, a plausible theory has been put forth by Martin Butalla in his Master of Theology thesis produced at Dallas Theology Seminary in 1998.9 It appears that the Catholic translation into English from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate known as the Rheims Bible (1576) was the first to break the translation trend. “Apostasia was revised from ‘the departure’ to ‘the Protestant Revolt,’” explains Butalla. “Revolution is the terminology still in use today when Catholicism teaches the history of the Protestant Reformation. Under this guise, apostasia would refer to a departure of Protestants from the Catholic Church.” The Catholic translators appear eager to engage in polemics against the Reformation by even allowing it to impact Bible translation. By 1611, when then original version of the King James Bible came out, the translators changed the English translation tradition from “departure” to “falling away,” which implied “apostasy.” Such a change was a theological response to the Catholic notion that the Reformation was a revolt against the true church; instead, Protestants saw Catholic beliefs as “the falling away” or “the great apostasy. This would mean that the shift in translation was not based upon research of the meaning of the original language but as a theological polemic against the false teachings of Romanism. It is well established that E. Schuyler English is thought to be the first pretribulationist to propose that “the departure” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 was a physical departure and thus a reference to the pre-trib rapture. However, history records that at least a couple of men thought of this idea before English’s series of article in 1950.11 J. S. Mabie is said to have presented the view that “the departure” refers to the rapture as early as 1859 during a prophecy conference in Los Angeles.12 He later wrote his view in an article published in November 1895 in a periodical called Morning Star. 13 Another pre-English proponent of “the departure” as the rapture was John R. Rice in a book in 1945.1

Of course Catholics would want to translate that as if apostasy meant a departure from the Catholic Church. However, apostasy by any other name is still apostasy.