ECT 2 Thess 2:1-2 proves the rapture theory wrong.
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
Their reading of Josephus into Matthew 3:7 keeps throwing them off :chuckle:
Departure, not falling away.
And right here, he explicitly states they are saved from the wrath to come.
9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nick,
there are many other Greek terms for leaving or going. So why did he use 'apostasia'?
The larger question: this is in the earliest of Paul's letters and he expects the wrath of God on Israel at any time and the end of the world. Those who have died will obviously get to the LOrd in a different way from those alive. That's all he meant to say, and he never goes on about it other than in I Cor 15 for a short bit. With the wrath on Israel out of the way, and the end of the world delayed, we are in a different era.
The rebellion referred to goes back to Dan 8. The rebellion would desolate Israel. Which it did in Paul's generation.
Because it is the appropriate term. I read no Greek, speak no Greek, hear no Greek. And I know what he meant.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That is a ridiculous position when the material is in ancient Greek. If told you a car parked in a waiting line for a ferry had left, you would never conclude the car was heretical!!! He either got on the ferry or quit waiting.
But in the passage, it is tantamount that we know whether a great abandonement of the real Messiah was going to happen or not!!! It did. It was the zealot movement and they decided to fight for liberation on the specious belief that they would have a 'messiah' that would help them defeat Rome. That is not the Christian mission at all.
Hebrew speaking people often do parallel lines; he seems to in this case: the great falling away is parallel to the son of evil who was coming, who is mentioned in Dan 8.
Interplanner
Well-known member
All a person needs to do on Greek is to know that there is such a thing as a lexicon. A lexicon is not just a dictionary, it is also a collection of clear, distinct primary usages of a term in the current literature in question. The BDF lexicon was a standard work when I was in my studies.
'Apostasia' is in a group with 'apostasion' and 'apostataes'.
The 1st and 3rd are primarily 'rebellion' or 'deserters'. In Josh 22, 2 Chr 29 and I Macc 2 it is clearly in a religious sense--a departure from the Law. In Acts 21 it was the term used by Judaism to describe Paul. It is often found with 'blasphemos' (obvious) and 'prodotes' (betrayer, traitor).
The 2nd term is more confined to divorce. The Law said to write a bill of divorce for a woman. 'Apostasion' actually came from the closure of real estate exchanges: you abandoned your rights and contact with that house. So in divorce in the Law, the woman was to be given a statement of what was hers and the man was to abandone rights and claims to her and it.
So the 1st and 3rd are clearly the closest and the expression has nothing to do with a 'magical' relocation. You need to stick with 'changed' in I Cor 15 for that. It is about a departure of a significant part of Israel from what it was supposed to be. If Israel, as Acts 2, 3, say, was supposed to 'listen to the Son who would be sent' according to Moses, then we have our answer. The 'departure' was the generation of Israel which responded so poorly to its Messiah's call for missionaries to the nations.
The NT is far from today's obsession with the rapture which is a huge and miserable dumbing-down of the Christian population. It's existence is one of the main reasons Christian truth is collapsing all around us in culture, which these teachers know almost nothing about. Except to whine that it is happening; they'd never guess it was them.
'Apostasia' is in a group with 'apostasion' and 'apostataes'.
The 1st and 3rd are primarily 'rebellion' or 'deserters'. In Josh 22, 2 Chr 29 and I Macc 2 it is clearly in a religious sense--a departure from the Law. In Acts 21 it was the term used by Judaism to describe Paul. It is often found with 'blasphemos' (obvious) and 'prodotes' (betrayer, traitor).
The 2nd term is more confined to divorce. The Law said to write a bill of divorce for a woman. 'Apostasion' actually came from the closure of real estate exchanges: you abandoned your rights and contact with that house. So in divorce in the Law, the woman was to be given a statement of what was hers and the man was to abandone rights and claims to her and it.
So the 1st and 3rd are clearly the closest and the expression has nothing to do with a 'magical' relocation. You need to stick with 'changed' in I Cor 15 for that. It is about a departure of a significant part of Israel from what it was supposed to be. If Israel, as Acts 2, 3, say, was supposed to 'listen to the Son who would be sent' according to Moses, then we have our answer. The 'departure' was the generation of Israel which responded so poorly to its Messiah's call for missionaries to the nations.
The NT is far from today's obsession with the rapture which is a huge and miserable dumbing-down of the Christian population. It's existence is one of the main reasons Christian truth is collapsing all around us in culture, which these teachers know almost nothing about. Except to whine that it is happening; they'd never guess it was them.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That is irrelevant. The rebellion or falling away was the awful religious mob that developed against Rome full of messianic pretenders and dreamers. You guys think everything the apostles say is some far flung distant time prediction. Most of the time they were talking and warning about that generation, and were very practical about it.
What is irrelevant?
All he said after that :chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
The distant future is irrelevant to understanding Mt24A which is about the 1st century in Judea.
There is nothing in the NT that is clearly in support of what you are saying. there is no 'everybody against Israel' stage of events in the several ordinary descriptions of the coming in judgement: Rom 2, 8, I Cor 15, Heb 9, 2 Tim 4, Acts 17, 2 Pet 3. Nothing Judaic at all. No geopolitics at all.
When Mt 24B does cover the coming and judgement it is worldwide.